Privacy and HR

Malthusian

Comms69 wrote: »

Its very generous.

Legally the minimum is zero.

It's not generous in the slightest, for the same reason that buying your wife a 50p card and nothing else on your anniversary is not generous, even though the legal minimum you are obliged to buy her is also zero.

More than the legal minimum, yes, generous, no.

Undervalued

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Lots of employees would have given longer. I know for a fact mine would have - they have supported several people through difficult situations with generous amounts of bereavement leave.

There are significant benefits for employers of acting ethically and treating employees well - like increased staff retention and morale. A high staff turnover is incredibly costly to most business.

I wouldn't be happy working for the employer described in the OP. It sounds unethical, unfriendly and far less supportive than any employer I have worked for before. If my employer treated a colleague like that, I would look to leave, and that would be my employer's loss.

The other extreme of course is the self employed person who has to take full responsibility for every eventuality themselves.

There was another thread on here recently from somebody who had a day surgery procedure cancelled by the NHS at very short notice. They had still taken the day off work and fully expected their employer to cover them again when the procedure was rescheduled. "It's not my fault and I'll get the union involved if they don't" was the attitude!

As you say, providing good employee benefits can create goodwill and help staff retention. However it comes at a significant cost (which may or may not be offset financially in the way you describe). Ultimately any net costs are spread across the whole salary budget.

In effect it is a form of hidden insurance but it also engenders an attitude of expecting to be financially buffered rather than making prudent provision for yourself.

No simple answer......

jonnygee2

However it comes at a significant cost (which may or may not be offset financially in the way you describe)

I think a lot of employers and managers agree that treating people fairly pays dividends.

I am directly responsible for my departments P&L. I realise it's industry specific but in my role, staff turnover is by far the biggest detractor to long term performance. Hiring and retaining good quality staff is a must, and far outweighs the costs of being an ethical employer.

A little compassion goes a long way too. Instances like this are relatively rare and in reality the costs of supporting people through exceptional circumstances are marginal. It;s a few weeks of net pay. The lost productivity isn't a factor because you would lose a lot more productivity if you had to recruit someone new, and an unhappy worker in mental distress is unlikely to be working at high productivity levels anyway. Recruitment is incredibly expensive, too, in terms of money and productivity.

Moreover, being ethical also makes it a much nicer place for everyone to work, including me and my managers. We are more than profitable and extremely successful, thanks mainly to our well trained, long term employee base.

To me, this is a fundamental business sense that any senior manager should be aware of (not that I'm really an SM, but I know the SM team agree). I disagree with strategies that involve sticking to legal minimums to restrict short term costs, at the potential expense of a happy, motivated and productive workforce.

ReadingTim

The OP was not forced to go back to work - they chose to go back rather than take unpaid leave. It is not the employer's fault if one of their employees' finances are on such a knife edge that they cannot afford to take a few days unpaid leave.

Furthermore, the OP could have taken some holiday if they wanted to be paid for the time off - but again, they have chosen not to do this.

The OP's employer is not being unsympathetic to the OP's grief - they're just not going to subsidise it for very long.

TELLIT01

Different companies have different policies on bereavement leave and often individual managers and HR have no flexibility in how it's handled. One place I worked a colleague was off for nearly a month when his father dropped dead totally unexpectedly when they were out together. He was told to come back when he felt able. I had moved to another employer when my brother died, equally suddenly and unexpectedly, and was told I could have 1 week and if I needed any more I either needed to take it as annual leave or get a medical certificate.
I'm not saying one or the other was right or wrong, just that how the situation is handled differs.

jonnygee2

The OP was not forced to go back to work - they chose to go back rather than take unpaid leave.

Firstly, that's not what the post actually says, it says "After being told bereavement pay was only 2 days I had no choice but to go into work yesterday.". No mention of unpaid leave and there is no obligation for employers to offer this, nor to accept a holiday request at such late notice.

Secondly, I still don't believe that's a choice employees in these circumstances should have to make.

ReadingTim

jonnygee2 wrote: »

Firstly, that's not what the post actually says, it says "After being told bereavement pay was only 2 days I had no choice but to go into work yesterday.". No mention of unpaid leave and there is no obligation for employers to offer this, nor to accept a holiday request at such late notice.

Secondly, I still don't believe that's a choice employees in these circumstances should have to make.

As the context of the sentence is "bereavement pay", it's a reasonable assumption that the motivating factor behind the choice/decision to return to work was financial. And yes; while there is no mention of unpaid leave, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the option might be available to the employee should they wish to avail themselves of it. Similarly, again whilst there is no obligation to accept a late notice holiday request, it would be a pretty unsympathetic employer to reject it - and there is no suggestion that this is the case here.

Finally, whilst this is an extreme example, there are numerous reasons why someone may need or want to take unpaid leave at short notice, and why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund/savings for catastrophes like this. The fact that the OP appears to lack one isn't the fault or problem of their employer.

jonnygee2

The fact that the OP appears to lack one isn't the fault or problem of their employer.

As an employer, rather than attempt to attribute blame, I would consider what's best for the employee and my business.

I really do think it's a very sensible business decision, all round, just to extend the bereavement leave by a couple of weeks and make this known with a sympathetic phone call. And there are a lot of other employers who would do this, too. I don't know if it's a majority but it's definitely a majority among the employers I've worked for.

peachyprice

Comms69 wrote: »

In fairness I think both manager and MD would need to know.


Aside from anything else - so they can authorise payments and arrange cover.

No, they wouldn't. All they needed to to know was that OP was not coming in due to a death in the family so will be on bereavement leave, that's it, nothing else.

Comms69

Malthusian wrote: »

It's not generous in the slightest, for the same reason that buying your wife a 50p card and nothing else on your anniversary is not generous, even though the legal minimum you are obliged to buy her is also zero.

More than the legal minimum, yes, generous, no.

Well maybe if you were sleeping with your boss you might get more...