Bonus for perfect attendance

beecher2

Just wondering people's thoughts on this. My local authority is proposing to cut employees' annual leave allowance by 3 days. Employees with perfect attendance will be allowed to keep the extra 3 days. Unions are negotiating on this, and other aspects of changes to T&C at the moment, with 90 day notices being sent out towards the end of December.

I feel this is really very unfair - I've had perfect attendance for years but had a period of ill health this year and was off for almost a month. I was referred to hospital and it was impossible for me to go into work. Is it fair that I should lose 3 days annual leave next year? Really looking for other people's perspectives, and if this is the norm elsewhere? My line manager thinks it is perfectly fair that I lose annual leave as I had 'all that time at home'.

missbiggles1

As your union is already negotiating about this on your behalf, I'd let them know your feelings about it and then let them get on with it.

Having said that, I assume this won't be introduced retrospectively so your sickness last year will be irrelevant.

beecher2

I will, I'm attending a union meeting this week. It will be introduced on 1 April 2017 so I'm assuming this year's attendance rates will be used.

I'm aware that I'm in a local authority bubble and really just wanted to know if this is something that is normal elsewhere.

PasturesNew

I'd feel "cheated" out of the 3 days, but I can see why they'd do it.

If somebody's already had, say, a month off and only loses 3 days of annual leave they're still well ahead.

A lot of local authority leave is super-generous. I know somebody who, after long service, is now enjoying

- 35 days' annual leave
- 8 days' bank holidays
- 2 extra bank holiday days
- flexi-time enabling them to build up and use 2 day/month, so 24 days/year

That's a total of 69 days/year they could have off -v- a regular person's 28 days.

So, I'd be miffed if it happened to me, but as the Unions are negotiating it I'd be confident they could do a better job than me of defending it.

elsien

My company tried it but used a cash bonus instead of changing annual leave. They abolished it after a couple of years - it caused ill feeling from those like yourself who'd had perfect attendance for years then had to have time off for sickness/diarrhoea (policy of no return unless free of symptoms for 48 hours). Some people dragged themselves in when they shouldn't have, and in the end it didn't make enough difference to sickness levels to make it worth while carrying on.

beecher2

I can see it increasing sickness levels as people might take another 3 days off sick to make up for the annual leave they will lose.

Maybe it'll come to nothing, my authority has form in coming out with mad ideas and then doing U turns. They'd be better giving people with perfect attendance access to leisure facilities free for a day or something.

sangie595

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'd feel "cheated" out of the 3 days, but I can see why they'd do it.

If somebody's already had, say, a month off and only loses 3 days of annual leave they're still well ahead.

A lot of local authority leave is super-generous. I know somebody who, after long service, is now enjoying

- 35 days' annual leave
- 8 days' bank holidays
- 2 extra bank holiday days
- flexi-time enabling them to build up and use 2 day/month, so 24 days/year

That's a total of 69 days/year they could have off -v- a regular person's 28 days.

So, I'd be miffed if it happened to me, but as the Unions are negotiating it I'd be confident they could do a better job than me of defending it.

I have never been a fan of the "someone else gets better conditions than me so attacking their conditions as generous is ok" approach. Workers fought for these terms of service, employers didn't just generously hand them out. And working MORE hours in order to build them up and take them off is not "time off"!

OP, I know what where you are, and no, it isn't common. It doesn't even make any sense, because given the usual targets applied, if you have, for example, two days off sick in a year, then you may as well then take however many days you have left up to the target to get your leave back! And a bit more besides! For example, in our area, the target is usually somewhere between nine and eleven days. If I had four days last year, genuinely, and lose three days leave as a result, I may as well be sick, say, eight days this year. At eight days I am below the threshold for any absence procedures, got my three days back, took five days more, and the only loser is the employer! This proposal speaks to loyalty - it !!!!es off employees enough to make them really consider why they are loyal to the employer whilst gaining the employer nothing!

This is a great example of sheer idiocy amongst employers, acting without thinking what the loss to them will be. Because it targets ONLY the genuinely ill - those few who are swinging the lead will continue to do so. The majority who seldom take sick days, or who only take them when they absolutely must are the losers here. But the loss of their goodwill to the employer is incalculable. And, as I said, it actually encourages people to retaliate by taking sick days when they are not sick!

The employer is making the classic mistake of assuming that people sit around enjoying themselves and relaxing when off sick. They don't. Being sick is not a holiday. But if the employer is set upon thinking that it is, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees then decide that it is too!

And I may be wrong, but I suspect this will never happen. It's a classic employers gambit. Do something that will really annoy the workers, be forced to back down on that, and slip through all the stuff you really wanted without so much as a murmur while they are all looking the other way! I'd recommend taking a good look at what else they are intending.....

beecher2

sangie595 wrote: »

The employer is making the classic mistake of assuming that people sit around enjoying themselves and relaxing when off sick. They don't. Being sick is not a holiday. But if the employer is set upon thinking that it is, they shouldn't be surprised when their employees then decide that it is too!

And I may be wrong, but I suspect this will never happen. It's a classic employers gambit. Do something that will really annoy the workers, be forced to back down on that, and slip through all the stuff you really wanted without so much as a murmur while they are all looking the other way! I'd recommend taking a good look at what else they are intending.....

Thanks for this, totally agree. The only thing that would put me off taking more sick days is that they are already used to calculate who is liable for redeployment/redundancy where jobs are displaced. It is a horrible culture, and we are definitely made to feel that we're at it if we're off. Meanwhile. those who don't care are quite open about pulling sickies.

The rest of what they're suggesting won't affect me, as it surrounds overtime payments. I think that the other stuff will annoy other workers more though, and the annual leave changes will be what slips through.

We will see, interesting to hear other people's views though.

FBaby

There's two ways to look at it, the way you are, which makes it looks like it is unfair, or, you can look at it that they need to make cuts and therefore have made the decision to cut down holiday entitlement for everyone, very much like changes that have affected pensions etc..., however, as an incentive, there is the possibility to gain an extra three days. Doesn't sound so unreasonable from that perspective.

sangie595

FBaby wrote: »

There's two ways to look at it, the way you are, which makes it looks like it is unfair, or, you can look at it that they need to make cuts and therefore have made the decision to cut down holiday entitlement for everyone, very much like changes that have affected pensions etc..., however, as an incentive, there is the possibility to gain an extra three days. Doesn't sound so unreasonable from that perspective.

Cutting leave entitlement doesn't actually save any money though! And cutting leave entitlement isn't an incentive to anything (other than playing the game to get it back by actually pulling sickies ). An incentive would be get three extra days, or even one extra day, on top of your entitlement this year, for an idea that saves money. Cutting with one hand and giving it back with the other is actually a recipe for just annoying the hell out of an already demoralised workforce. In the long run, it won't save anything, but it will certainly cost something - it will cost the employer loyalty, trust, support, good morale, and positivity. In the end, those things cost an awful lot as people start doing the job, just the job, and no more; as the best employees leave to go to employers who value them more; and as that "extra mile" disappears. Public service has always depended on goodwill and personal commitment from its employees. It is no coincidence that as more and more public sector services are privatised we are seeing more and more care scandals. The public sector wasn't always perfect everywhere. Every system is open to abuse. But their private sector is motivated by one thing and one thing only - profit. People entered public service to make a difference and because they cared. That motivation is diminishing, and it is exactly this sort of thing that is the cause.

Timpu

Where I work there's the 20 somethings who work long hours as they make a career for themselves. Then there is the older crew with young children. There's an older crew still, with elderly parents. Guess which group would most likely benefit from attendance bonuses? I think it's an interesting idea but the employer needs to be careful not to disadvantage people. What can they do, start adding a weighting based on your personal circumstances? Ummm, good luck with that.

There are people who haul themselves into the office and infect others. While they live around the corner and can get through the day, others have long complicated commutes and can't stumble in. Why should the inconsiderate colleague get the bonus for knocking out others?