Scared of ringing in sick 3rd time

Undervalued

fred246 wrote: »

Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.

So if you run a small business with a couple of staff and one or both go long term sick (perfectly genuinely) what would you do?

Support them indefinitely until the business goes bust?

Remember that the employer (not the state) has to meet the full cost of even "statutory" sick pay.

eamon

To the OP given that you have been up at 3.49am typing its tells its own story. When you get back/to work a good read through your employers Sickness & Attendance Policy wouldn't go amiss. It should tell you all that you need to know and if they have a scheme what it is called. In the Public Sector the Bradford Scale & variations off are popular. If you are in the private sector then ask what help is available. Many employers offer various "employee well being programs". I also second what other have said you are having a bad year and I would hope that your length of service and prior impeccable attendance record speaks for itself.

In the meantime if your symptons aren't clearing up then get yourself to your GP and worry about a disciplinary later.

od244051

Ok, I went into work yesterday and my voice was breaking up towards the end plus feeling woozy. Had a slightly better night sleep. Voice is very quiet and hoarse - now hurts to cough and can't get by without doing at least 5 coughs in a fit. Can't talk, drink or eat without coughing

Rang in sick and see how work treat it. Colleagues were shocked to hear my voice and one called me by the male equivalent of my name (I'm female) as I sound like a man.

I hardly get colds or laryngitis. Last cold I had was Jan 2017 but that was manageable at work and last time I had to need to have time off work for the above was 5 years ago. Most of my time off sick has been with post surgery as had 4 surgeries, then painful leg which has gone away with physio and losing weight.

It really annoys me when many employers including mine only look at the past 12 months of sickness

stripeyfox

My company has exactly the same policy as yours. I've had one team member "trigger" the three absences in a year rule and we simply sat down it emerged that she had just been "unlucky" with a chest infection and in fact had "struggled" back to work in order to avoid the third one the week before but had ended up even more poorly.

Otherwise her work output was good and there were no other issues so no further "action" was taken.

I think the policy is there generally to "deter" those odd sick days which people take now and again (some more than others) without punishing those who are genuinely poorly - and certainly in our case, the statistics would seem to proove it works.

sew109

fred246 wrote: »

Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.

Your third sentence supports the stupidity of the second one

Mnd

fred246 wrote: »

Disgusting way to treat someone. I suppose it's what you expect when the Tories are in. Worse than Victorian times.

My wife does a 2 person receptionist job, since January her opposite number has managed 14 days off sick, 1 or 2 days at a time. She should be fired! That's not the tories fault

eamon

My employers current sickness/attendance policy started circa 12 years ago. They made it quite clear at the time that it was to address those that were sick the day after pay day, Sunday, the day before booked leave, the day after booked leave.

When I had people reporting to me I had to apply the rules. Sometimes not a pleasant conversation but it is only fair to warn people of possible outcomes if attendance at work doesn't improve/meet acceptable standards and to proceed with action when needed.

Marcon

od244051 wrote: »

It really annoys me when many employers including mine only look at the past 12 months of sickness

In most cases they don't. Sickness over a period of 12 months may trigger some form of 'disciplinary' action (which is entirely sensible), but it would be a rare employer who ignores past history completely where an employee has had years of excellent attendance. Bear in mind that 'disciplinary' is something of a catch-all term and could simply mean the employer offering help and support rather than warnings.

od244051

eamon wrote: »

My employers current sickness/attendance policy started circa 12 years ago. They made it quite clear at the time that it was to address those that were sick the day after pay day, Sunday, the day before booked leave, the day after booked leave.

When I had people reporting to me I had to apply the rules. Sometimes not a pleasant conversation but it is only fair to warn people of possible outcomes if attendance at work doesn't improve/meet acceptable standards and to proceed with action when needed.

Did it also include employees that tried to get a certain date or week off annual leave but couldn't and coincidentally rang in sick when the date was here?

Browntoa

99% of companies use the Bradford formula to manage sickness and attendance

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor

A discussion will not always be " we will sack you" but also " what can we do to manage your problems "