Absent levels

Jillanddy

JGB1955 said:

Jillanddy said:

Not that extraordinary though - I'm public sector (who always get told we have such great terms) and our first trigger is 9 days in any 12 months period (or three separate occasions). 

Things have obviously tightened up since my Civil Service days in the 1980s.... we used to be reminded if we hadn't 'taken' our '2 weeks sick leave' every year!

I do recall once overhearing a conversation between two senior officers, where one commented that he had only taken 6 weeks sick leave this year, so he needed to take some more. That was the early 90's. But, to be fair, he was dismissed about four months later for fiddling his travel expenses. To the tune of about £12. Which he claimed was an error. And might have been. But I guess his approach to work may have been noted!

It is a lot tighter these days. I should perhaps point out that the general trigger for stage one is 9 days, but because I am severely disabled, I get a much more generous trigger point. Mine is 11 days 

Undervalued

Brie said:

Use the meeting as an opportunity to discuss what reasonable adjustments you need to ensure you don't need more time off.  

There is no legal entitlement to "reasonable adjustments" unless the employee is disabled (for employment law purposes). Whilst a GP can make suggestions on a fit note they are not binding on the employer.

That doesn't mean a decent employer won't be willing make adjustments for an employee that is "only sick" (but not disabled). However it does meant they don't have to make any adjustments unless they choose to do so.

If they want to be hard or difficult they can simply say "either come to work and do your full job or stay off sick until you can". If that triggers their absence policy then so be it.

TELLIT01

When the limitation of 3 periods of sickness or 8 days, whichever is less, was introduced where I worked for DWP, it backfired spectacularly with some people.  I knew of a few who, if they had 2 x 2 day absences would then take 4 days on the next sickness whether they needed it or not.  Their logic being that it wouldn't be a fact finding mission to help the employee, it would be the first step in the disciplinary process, therefore they might as well get the most out of the absences.  For the most part they were correct in their assumption.

tizerbelle

Deleted_User said:
I'm not one for taking time off work (off twice in 10 years between 2 employers). I have always known about the 3 separate occasions in 6 month period throughout my working life. 

Deleted_User said:
oh I meant screwed as in the meeting is triggered as I said I have prided myself in never having those meetings in my long working life even though I have had maybe 4 occasions time off that would fall under the policy that your employer and my current one has

I just think this is a really odd thing to take pride in. 

It's not the typical "I've never had a day off sick in my life"  / I've not had a day off in X years" refrain both of which either mean you have been very fortunate in the time period so not exactly your own achievement, just dumb luck or it means you still go to work even when you shouldn't (bad case of flu for example) and put your colleagues at risk.

But being proud that you haven't triggered an absence meeting - that just sounds like you are bragging about playing the system. These triggers aren't universally applied anyway - not all employers have absence monitoring policies so to me it just seems a really bizarre thing to be proud of.  I can't imagine ever saying "in my 32 year career I have never had an absence meeting".  It's true, I haven't but what does it prove?  Have I played the game and kept my head below the parapet, have I gone to work sick when I shouldn't to stay below the threshold, have I been damn lucky not to need any time off sick, have I worked at places that take a more holistic view of their employees than attendance rates, or have I worked at places with no absence policies or with bigger issues going on that HR have to deal with? 

[Deleted User]

tizerbelle said:

Deleted_User said:
I'm not one for taking time off work (off twice in 10 years between 2 employers). I have always known about the 3 separate occasions in 6 month period throughout my working life. 

Deleted_User said:
oh I meant screwed as in the meeting is triggered as I said I have prided myself in never having those meetings in my long working life even though I have had maybe 4 occasions time off that would fall under the policy that your employer and my current one has

I just think this is a really odd thing to take pride in. 

It's not the typical "I've never had a day off sick in my life"  / I've not had a day off in X years" refrain both of which either mean you have been very fortunate in the time period so not exactly your own achievement, just dumb luck or it means you still go to work even when you shouldn't (bad case of flu for example) and put your colleagues at risk.

But being proud that you haven't triggered an absence meeting - that just sounds like you are bragging about playing the system. These triggers aren't universally applied anyway - not all employers have absence monitoring policies so to me it just seems a really bizarre thing to be proud of.  I can't imagine ever saying "in my 32 year career I have never had an absence meeting".  It's true, I haven't but what does it prove?  Have I played the game and kept my head below the parapet, have I gone to work sick when I shouldn't to stay below the threshold, have I been damn lucky not to need any time off sick, have I worked at places that take a more holistic view of their employees than attendance rates, or have I worked at places with no absence policies or with bigger issues going on that HR have to deal with? 

Erm we can take pride in a lot of things we do in life and they don’t have to be the exact same things as the person next to us. 

Yes I might be fortunate to only be off 4 times in 18-20 years but also ensuring my physical, emotional and mental health and personal life is in check contributes greatly to it too.

erm and no I have not played the system and yes one of the times was the flu and with it being the flu I could not get out of bed. But yes went into work under the weather on other occasions.

The 3 employers I have worked in that time span all had an absent policy and it was the 3 in 6 month rule with only this current one having the 3% of contractual hours as a threshold too 

Jillanddy

Deleted_User said:

tizerbelle said:

Deleted_User said:
I'm not one for taking time off work (off twice in 10 years between 2 employers). I have always known about the 3 separate occasions in 6 month period throughout my working life. 

Deleted_User said:
oh I meant screwed as in the meeting is triggered as I said I have prided myself in never having those meetings in my long working life even though I have had maybe 4 occasions time off that would fall under the policy that your employer and my current one has

I just think this is a really odd thing to take pride in. 

It's not the typical "I've never had a day off sick in my life"  / I've not had a day off in X years" refrain both of which either mean you have been very fortunate in the time period so not exactly your own achievement, just dumb luck or it means you still go to work even when you shouldn't (bad case of flu for example) and put your colleagues at risk.

But being proud that you haven't triggered an absence meeting - that just sounds like you are bragging about playing the system. These triggers aren't universally applied anyway - not all employers have absence monitoring policies so to me it just seems a really bizarre thing to be proud of.  I can't imagine ever saying "in my 32 year career I have never had an absence meeting".  It's true, I haven't but what does it prove?  Have I played the game and kept my head below the parapet, have I gone to work sick when I shouldn't to stay below the threshold, have I been damn lucky not to need any time off sick, have I worked at places that take a more holistic view of their employees than attendance rates, or have I worked at places with no absence policies or with bigger issues going on that HR have to deal with? 

Yes I might be fortunate to only be off 4 times in 18-20 years but also ensuring my physical, emotional and mental health and personal life is in check contributes greatly to it too.

Whilst I don't generally disagree with you, not everyone gets a choice about keeping things "in check", whatever that means. If you are fortunate enough to have total control over all these aspects of life, then that is the fortunate thing.

But it is certainly nothing to be proud of, going to work "under the weather". The recent pandemic brought that sharply into focus, but it seems that the lessons haven't been learned. Covid-19 is not the only potentially dangerous virus in common circulation, and yet many employers (and employees) have perpetuated a mythology that "just a bad cold" or something similar is a thing to work through, putting those more at risk from such infections in harms way simply because it is viewed as weakness or disloyalty to take a couple of days off when ill. Public policy has reinforced that with "waiting days" (waiting for what, exactly???) which force many people in to work when they are not well, risking themselves getting worse and others getting infected. One might have hoped that the pandemic would have taught some lessons, but no - it is still viewed as a weakness to have a few days off work, and we still force many sick people into work with inadequate sick pay. 

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of reasoned approaches to managing sickness absence. But what we have now is not a reasoned approach. I was also fortunate, in having taken only five days sickness in total in 30+ years of working. Now I am never out of stage one because I don't have the ability to "ensure" that I don't have arthritis.  

[Deleted User]

Jillanddy said:

Deleted_User said:

tizerbelle said:

Deleted_User said:
I'm not one for taking time off work (off twice in 10 years between 2 employers). I have always known about the 3 separate occasions in 6 month period throughout my working life. 

Deleted_User said:
oh I meant screwed as in the meeting is triggered as I said I have prided myself in never having those meetings in my long working life even though I have had maybe 4 occasions time off that would fall under the policy that your employer and my current one has

I just think this is a really odd thing to take pride in. 

It's not the typical "I've never had a day off sick in my life"  / I've not had a day off in X years" refrain both of which either mean you have been very fortunate in the time period so not exactly your own achievement, just dumb luck or it means you still go to work even when you shouldn't (bad case of flu for example) and put your colleagues at risk.

But being proud that you haven't triggered an absence meeting - that just sounds like you are bragging about playing the system. These triggers aren't universally applied anyway - not all employers have absence monitoring policies so to me it just seems a really bizarre thing to be proud of.  I can't imagine ever saying "in my 32 year career I have never had an absence meeting".  It's true, I haven't but what does it prove?  Have I played the game and kept my head below the parapet, have I gone to work sick when I shouldn't to stay below the threshold, have I been damn lucky not to need any time off sick, have I worked at places that take a more holistic view of their employees than attendance rates, or have I worked at places with no absence policies or with bigger issues going on that HR have to deal with? 

Yes I might be fortunate to only be off 4 times in 18-20 years but also ensuring my physical, emotional and mental health and personal life is in check contributes greatly to it too.

Whilst I don't generally disagree with you, not everyone gets a choice about keeping things "in check", whatever that means. If you are fortunate enough to have total control over all these aspects of life, then that is the fortunate thing.

But it is certainly nothing to be proud of, going to work "under the weather". The recent pandemic brought that sharply into focus, but it seems that the lessons haven't been learned. Covid-19 is not the only potentially dangerous virus in common circulation, and yet many employers (and employees) have perpetuated a mythology that "just a bad cold" or something similar is a thing to work through, putting those more at risk from such infections in harms way simply because it is viewed as weakness or disloyalty to take a couple of days off when ill. Public policy has reinforced that with "waiting days" (waiting for what, exactly???) which force many people in to work when they are not well, risking themselves getting worse and others getting infected. One might have hoped that the pandemic would have taught some lessons, but no - it is still viewed as a weakness to have a few days off work, and we still force many sick people into work with inadequate sick pay. 

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of reasoned approaches to managing sickness absence. But what we have now is not a reasoned approach. I was also fortunate, in having taken only five days sickness in total in 30+ years of working. Now I am never out of stage one because I don't have the ability to "ensure" that I don't have arthritis.  

I would never expect others to be like me or that I'm better or worse. I'm speaking for myself and responding to the idea that I was playing the system or its just down to pure luck that I haven't been off work more. While luck has a play to part the other factors I mention also play a big part.  

Im not going to get into weeds of where lines should be drawn on when you should go into work and should not. Not every sickness is due to a person carrying some transmittable virus that could trigger social clamp downs. Our employment laws and health system is not geared in a way that allows people to just take days off work when they feel under the weather. But hey once that is mandated into law and employers get rid of their very low thresholds of allowed absenteeism then I will take time off work.

I cant stop getting old and getting an injury or a serious illness but I can ensure I'm doing as much as I can to reduce its effect so I can keep working.

TELLIT01

Jillanddy said:

But it is certainly nothing to be proud of, going to work "under the weather".

Tell that to employers who have introduced the attendance management systems.  It is far more common now to see people at work who don't feel well enough to be there but feel they are between the rocks and a hard place.  If they go in they are unpopular with their colleagues and if they don't they are at risk of disciplinary action up to the level of being sacked.

Some people are simply fortunate that they rarely do have illness of a level which they feel is bad enough to stay off work.

Jillanddy

Deleted_User said:

Jillanddy said:

Deleted_User said:

tizerbelle said:

Deleted_User said:
I'm not one for taking time off work (off twice in 10 years between 2 employers). I have always known about the 3 separate occasions in 6 month period throughout my working life. 

Deleted_User said:
oh I meant screwed as in the meeting is triggered as I said I have prided myself in never having those meetings in my long working life even though I have had maybe 4 occasions time off that would fall under the policy that your employer and my current one has

I just think this is a really odd thing to take pride in. 

It's not the typical "I've never had a day off sick in my life"  / I've not had a day off in X years" refrain both of which either mean you have been very fortunate in the time period so not exactly your own achievement, just dumb luck or it means you still go to work even when you shouldn't (bad case of flu for example) and put your colleagues at risk.

But being proud that you haven't triggered an absence meeting - that just sounds like you are bragging about playing the system. These triggers aren't universally applied anyway - not all employers have absence monitoring policies so to me it just seems a really bizarre thing to be proud of.  I can't imagine ever saying "in my 32 year career I have never had an absence meeting".  It's true, I haven't but what does it prove?  Have I played the game and kept my head below the parapet, have I gone to work sick when I shouldn't to stay below the threshold, have I been damn lucky not to need any time off sick, have I worked at places that take a more holistic view of their employees than attendance rates, or have I worked at places with no absence policies or with bigger issues going on that HR have to deal with? 

Yes I might be fortunate to only be off 4 times in 18-20 years but also ensuring my physical, emotional and mental health and personal life is in check contributes greatly to it too.

Whilst I don't generally disagree with you, not everyone gets a choice about keeping things "in check", whatever that means. If you are fortunate enough to have total control over all these aspects of life, then that is the fortunate thing.

But it is certainly nothing to be proud of, going to work "under the weather". The recent pandemic brought that sharply into focus, but it seems that the lessons haven't been learned. Covid-19 is not the only potentially dangerous virus in common circulation, and yet many employers (and employees) have perpetuated a mythology that "just a bad cold" or something similar is a thing to work through, putting those more at risk from such infections in harms way simply because it is viewed as weakness or disloyalty to take a couple of days off when ill. Public policy has reinforced that with "waiting days" (waiting for what, exactly???) which force many people in to work when they are not well, risking themselves getting worse and others getting infected. One might have hoped that the pandemic would have taught some lessons, but no - it is still viewed as a weakness to have a few days off work, and we still force many sick people into work with inadequate sick pay. 

Don't get me wrong - I am in favour of reasoned approaches to managing sickness absence. But what we have now is not a reasoned approach. I was also fortunate, in having taken only five days sickness in total in 30+ years of working. Now I am never out of stage one because I don't have the ability to "ensure" that I don't have arthritis.  

I would never expect others to be like me or that I'm better or worse. I'm speaking for myself and responding to the idea that I was playing the system or its just down to pure luck that I haven't been off work more. While luck has a play to part the other factors I mention also play a big part.  

Im not going to get into weeds of where lines should be drawn on when you should go into work and should not. Not every sickness is due to a person carrying some transmittable virus that could trigger social clamp downs. Our employment laws and health system is not geared in a way that allows people to just take days off work when they feel under the weather. But hey once that is mandated into law and employers get rid of their very low thresholds of allowed absenteeism then I will take time off work.

I cant stop getting old and getting an injury or a serious illness but I can ensure I'm doing as much as I can to reduce its effect so I can keep working.

You may have missed the fact that I was agreeing with you (mostly). But just because a sickness doesn't trigger a social lockdown does not mean that attending work whilst ill is a good idea.

Regardless. I do think that, given all you have disclosed now, that you need to revisit your definition of "screwed", since the only concern that you appear to have is that you might have to attend a managing attendance meeting and that you have never had one before and seem to believe it is a blemish on your record. You are so far (currently) off screwed to not even be on the spectrum.

[Deleted User]

TELLIT01 said:

Jillanddy said:

But it is certainly nothing to be proud of, going to work "under the weather".

Tell that to employers who have introduced the attendance management systems.  It is far more common now to see people at work who don't feel well enough to be there but feel they are between the rocks and a hard place.  If they go in they are unpopular with their colleagues and if they don't they are at risk of disciplinary action up to the level of being sacked.

Some people are simply fortunate that they rarely do have illness of a level which they feel is bad enough to stay off work.

This is so true. Found this with an ex-colleague who was suffering from mental health issues and was exactly in that position of unpopular with colleagues and risk of disciplinary action