What is considered a lot of time off work?

eamon

As with other posters Income Protection policies are usually not cheap and have qualifying periods. If your work involves heavy lifting & climbing then you need to ask yourself why you continue to do it given your medical history. Its likely that some of your incidents have been reportable (RIDDOR) as well. The HSE is rightly concerned about industrial injuries and from both points of view the yearly toll of injuries & death is scary.
If you are employed you should be asking for training on risk assessing some of these topics, lifting and handling, working at heights etc. Additionally training as well. Also don't forget if you are using machinery & equipment they are also subject to regulations such as LOLER & PUWER. If you are self employed the regulations also apply.

JustAnotherSaver

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

My employer has recently introduced a policy that if you have more than 10 days' sickness in a rolling year, you have to have a formal structured return to work interview (rather than the "hi, you're back, are you OK now?" which it's been up to now ...)

So I'd say 10 days was a lot.

I'm the first person to breach this limit. I just had two weeks off with something which turned into a chest infection, with some shorter absences earlier in the year for other things. As this is the first one we've done, our HR consultancy company are coming in next week to do this, with my manager sitting in.

It's scheduled to last 1.5 hours and I'm not sure I've got much to say ...

1.5 hours? What do they hope to fill that with?

What can you honestly say? If you're ill then you're ill. If you're too ill to work then you're too ill to work.

I remember there was one day when i was sick through the night, real sick. Let's just say my body wasn't holding fluids.

When i woke i still felt terrible. Crippling stomach pains, aching, no energy. There's no way i'd have been able to do my job so i called in.

That was a Saturday, we don't work Sunday's. I went in on the Monday to be called upstairs & given a right dressing down. Told i wasn't dying & i could've gone in. 30 minutes of interrogation trying to get me to 'trip myself up'. Well maybe if i was lying i would've tripped up but i just told them what the situation was. All they could say was i wasn't dying & i should've gone in.

Then i got crappy jobs for a while, i guess to 'teach me a lesson'.




As for that Bradford thing, my sisters workplace has that. I'm glad mine doesn't.



Regards building up a pot instead of income protection, that'd be fine if the problem isn't TOO long term but what if something drastic was to happen which made me unable to work? Chances are it wont & obviously hope it doesn't but what if? We're talking years. A pot of savings will only last so long? Or does income protection not cover you for year after year & have i misunderstood it?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

1.5 hours? What do they hope to fill that with?
Regards building up a pot instead of income protection, that'd be fine if the problem isn't TOO long term but what if something drastic was to happen which made me unable to work? Chances are it wont & obviously hope it doesn't but what if? We're talking years. A pot of savings will only last so long? Or does income protection not cover you for year after year & have i misunderstood it?

OK so policies have some maximum payout period - they don't pay for ever. Typically you choose between You can choose from a minimum of 4 to say 156 consecutive weeks. The longer they pay, the more expensive naturally.

Take a look at your policy docs to see what your £30 a month buys you and then you can compare / contrast options.

But you are right - there is no perfect answer - if it happens tomorrow is why having a policy can make sense. And it is made worse by rather naive or judgemental, unfriendly employers.

27cool

It seems to me, that if you are getting injuries at work. Then there is something seriously wrong with either, your training, or risk assessments carried out by whoever you are working for.

Harryp_24

5 days is the be all and end all. no more no less.

JustAnotherSaver

The policy I was looking at had a 6month wait period. Actually it could've been less but I chose 6 months. This would've been a cost of £9 per month.

Was gutted when I was rejected. The next cheapest (&a this was like 3 years ago) was £25 per month. Quite a jump.

Harryp_24 wrote: »

5 days is the be all and end all. no more no less.

Wow no less? So if I only have 4 days then I'm a bad guy

Undervalued

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

The policy I was looking at had a 6month wait period. Actually it could've been less but I chose 6 months. This would've been a cost of £9 per month.

Was gutted when I was rejected. The next cheapest (&a this was like 3 years ago) was £25 per month. Quite a jump.

That actually strikes me as quite cheap (obviously depending on what exclusions there were and the level of salary it was covering).

To be honest the chances of a reasonably fit and well person being medically unable to work for six months or more are pretty low but, if it does happen, for many people it can be financially devastating. However it you want something to cove you against the much higher chance of being off for a few weeks then the costs are obviously much higher.

The real answer is your own "rainy day" fund backed up by long term relatively low cost insurance.

It really bothers me how many people with a perfectly adequate income have virtually no savings. Like everything there is a balance to be found but it is best not to find it the hard way.

Dakota_Deville

i've worked for the private and public sector and now self employed. Times have changed and some firms feel that a day off and then another is too much. It depends on your manager if they like you or not at times. Then there is the company sick pay, some will not pay you after a second episode of sick within 18 months or so. Public sector is the most generous I believe.