Scared of ringing in sick 3rd time

justaquestion

In a lot of cases there is more understanding if a machine or work related appliance breaks down at a work place, rather than an employee being genuinely sick.

Sad that but that is the way it is.

scaredofdebt

I wouldn't worry too much, but I don't know your employer, has anyone been "sacked" for being off sick?


These types of things are to identify and catch people who take a lot of "sickies" - if you've had 3 genuine bouts of sickness you should be fine, your previous 15 years have been relatively sick free I presume?


Most companies tend to "budget" for about 10 days sick a year per person, older employees, smokers etc, tend to have more. Some years you will have more than 10 days, some years less but it averages out.


Personally I had half a day off sick up to I was 27 years old and then I got diagnosed with Crohns............

ohreally

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Most companies tend to "budget" for about 10 days sick a year per person

Where did you get this from?

Undervalued

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much, but I don't know your employer, has anyone been "sacked" for being off sick?


These types of things are to identify and catch people who take a lot of "sickies" - if you've had 3 genuine bouts of sickness you should be fine, your previous 15 years have been relatively sick free I presume?


Most companies tend to "budget" for about 10 days sick a year per person, older employees, smokers etc, tend to have more. Some years you will have more than 10 days, some years less but it averages out.


Personally I had half a day off sick up to I was 27 years old and then I got diagnosed with Crohns............

That is a bit like saying large stores budget for X percent of the stock being shoplifted! That doesn't make it legal. Quite rightly shops take steps to reduce the amount that is stolen and inevitably that occasionally causes inconvenience to customers who are entirely honest.

Taking paid sick leave when not genuinely ill is, in effect, stealing. Policing that will sometimes make those that were genuine feel they are being unfairly scrutinised.

So, what is the answer?

Undervalued

justaquestion wrote: »

In a lot of cases there is more understanding if a machine or work related appliance breaks down at a work place, rather than an employee being genuinely sick.

Sad that but that is the way it is.

Yes but machines don't take "duvet days" and are not more prone to breaking down around bank holiday weekends!

Sadly a minority of employees do take sick leave that is not genuine and the knock on effect of that is that those who are actually ill can be closely scrutinised.

fred246

I worked for 28 years and it was only in the last 5 years or so that this silliness of saying that being ill was a disciplinary offence started. I think it caused massive disillusionment in the whole of our workforce. I was massively skilled and almost impossible to replace so people in my position could be off with sickness but it was awful when lesser skilled people were sacked for being ill. I remember someone coming to me in tears saying they had inflammation of the gall bladder. She could have it removed which would cure the problem but she would be sacked for having surgery. If she didn't have surgery and had another bout of inflammation she would be sacked. I retired early disillusioned with it all. They are now recruiting from abroad.

Undervalued

fred246 wrote: »

I worked for 28 years and it was only in the last 5 years or so that this silliness of saying that being ill was a disciplinary offence started. I think it caused massive disillusionment in the whole of our workforce. I was massively skilled and almost impossible to replace so people in my position could be off with sickness but it was awful when lesser skilled people were sacked for being ill. I remember someone coming to me in tears saying they had inflammation of the gall bladder. She could have it removed which would cure the problem but she would be sacked for having surgery. If she didn't have surgery and had another bout of inflammation she would be sacked. I retired early disillusioned with it all. They are now recruiting from abroad.

No it wasn't! How tightly sickness rules are applied is ultimately a matter for each individual company (obviously within the law).

What has changed, for small businesses, is the fact that they have to meet the full cost of SSP. Although even that change goes back further that you might think. I am fairly sure it pre-dates the 2010 Conservative / Lib Dem coalition government.

Ultimately providing sick pay is a significant cost and, in effect, a form of insurance. Any self employed person who wisely chooses to have sickness insurance will tell you it is not cheap, particularly if you want it to kick in after a short period of time. Ultimately if an employer provides similar it has to be paid for somehow as it is part of the total cost of employing staff.

Sadly a significant minority of employees abuse paid sick leave which ultimately makes less money available to pay those that are genuine. Either the employer just puts up with this or they take steps to police it. If they do, then inevitably those that are genuinely ill will feel they are being unfairly scrutinised.

Although you clearly have strong political views I have yet to see you make a single positive suggestion as to how this should be fairly balanced in the real world.

SingleSue

I became aware of sickness rules and disciplinary prior to 2005, so it isn't exactly a new thing.

I don't earn enough to be eligible for SSP nor do we get paid sick leave, so the pressure is really on when I have any kind of illness and I have to weigh up the need for rest/recuperation against the need to pay bills....I usually opt for the need to pay bills/eat even if that may not be the most sensible or advised choice.