Absent levels

Brie

Undervalued said:

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.

It will come down to how disabled is defined. 

Someone who can't walk or is blind - well that's obvious.  Someone who is dyslexic - not considered in the same league by some but still requiring adjustments to give them a level playing field.  I don't consider myself disabled but can't write extensively due to torn ligaments in my wrist a zillion years back.  I also have been provided a special keyboard and a left handed mouse which means I can type with ease and little error.  There are all reasonable adjustments.  

When it comes down to illness - there are even more nuances but many things are considered to require reasonable adjustments.  Often these are referred to as soft adjustments - it may be giving lower targets or more time to reach a target, it may be more frequent or less structured breaks or more flexible working hours (common for someone with IBS).  Mental health issues also often have to be catered for.

Any employer that ignores these things can be letting themselves into some serious legal problems.

[Deleted User]

Jillanddy said:

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.

Again this is me personally talking. I don’t have to revisit the word screwed as it can mean many things on different levels to an individual at the same time. I am in no position to tell anyone what they must or mustn’t do when it comes to feeling unwell and deciding if they should go to work. It’s a personal and moral decision for them to make and I would not hold it against them for whatever decision they felt was right.

Undervalued

Brie said:

Undervalued said:

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.

It will come down to how disabled is defined. 

Someone who can't walk or is blind - well that's obvious.  Someone who is dyslexic - not considered in the same league by some but still requiring adjustments to give them a level playing field.  I don't consider myself disabled but can't write extensively due to torn ligaments in my wrist a zillion years back.  I also have been provided a special keyboard and a left handed mouse which means I can type with ease and little error.  There are all reasonable adjustments.  

When it comes down to illness - there are even more nuances but many things are considered to require reasonable adjustments.  Often these are referred to as soft adjustments - it may be giving lower targets or more time to reach a target, it may be more frequent or less structured breaks or more flexible working hours (common for someone with IBS).  Mental health issues also often have to be catered for.

Any employer that ignores these things can be letting themselves into some serious legal problems.

A person is considered Disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if

they have a physical or mental impairment

and

the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

and

Impairment has a long term effect if it has lasted or is likely to last for more than 12 months. If you have a fluctuating condition, you would be covered as long as the effects of it reoccur for 12 months or more

 "Reasonable adjustments" in an employment law context are only legally required if the employee meets the threshold of being disabled and the employer has been made aware of the disability (or it is so obvious that any reasonable employer should have been aware).

As I said earlier, many decent employer go much further than the law would require, both in terms of the level of adjustments they are prepared to make for a disabled employee and in providing adjustments for sickness / injury that is not technically a disability. 

However, legally, no adjustments at all need to be made for an employee who is "only sick" but is not (legally) disabled. So, your third paragraph is wrong.

lincroft1710

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 heard about this in the early 1970s, but certainly in the CS department I worked, this had died out. Didn't realise it was still in existence in some CS departments as late as the 1980s!  

Jillanddy

Deleted_User said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Again this is me personally talking. I don’t have to revisit the word screwed as it can mean many things on different levels to an individual at the same time. I am in no position to tell anyone what they must or mustn’t do when it comes to feeling unwell and deciding if they should go to work. It’s a personal and moral decision for them to make and I would not hold it against them for whatever decision they felt was right.

You see, this is where we part ways. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with morals. People who take time off work because they are sick are not "immoral". But your posts do come across very much as you considering it a badge of honour that you have had almost no time off work and have gone to work when sick. Yes, that is up to you - although I still consider it selfish that people are willing to risk infecting others (assuming an infectious illness) or even those their colleagues live or mix with (Covid didn't introduce the concept - a cold can kill a vulnerable person just as easily). Your personal decision has impacts on others. And if there are morals involved, it is the morals of deciding to risk impacts on other people when they have no choice in the matter.

JGB1955

lincroft1710 said:

I heard about this in the early 1970s, but certainly in the CS department I worked, this had died out. Didn't realise it was still in existence in some CS departments as late as the 1980s!  

You're probably right - I'm talking 1973 to 1985.  Lord Chancellor's Department (as it was, then).  I took maternity leave in late 1984 and went back to 'work' (loosely speaking - it was the Easter recess) to reclaim my maternity pay for 4 days in 1985.  By day 4 they just said 'bring the baby to work'... which I did!  Times have changed!

[Deleted User]

Jillanddy said:

Deleted_User said:

Jillanddy said:

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.

Again this is me personally talking. I don’t have to revisit the word screwed as it can mean many things on different levels to an individual at the same time. I am in no position to tell anyone what they must or mustn’t do when it comes to feeling unwell and deciding if they should go to work. It’s a personal and moral decision for them to make and I would not hold it against them for whatever decision they felt was right.

You see, this is where we part ways. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with morals. People who take time off work because they are sick are not "immoral". But your posts do come across very much as you considering it a badge of honour that you have had almost no time off work and have gone to work when sick. Yes, that is up to you - although I still consider it selfish that people are willing to risk infecting others (assuming an infectious illness) or even those their colleagues live or mix with (Covid didn't introduce the concept - a cold can kill a vulnerable person just as easily). Your personal decision has impacts on others. And if there are morals involved, it is the morals of deciding to risk impacts on other people when they have no choice in the matter.

I did not say it was immoral to take time off work what I said it was a personal and moral decision for the individual if they wish to go into work if sick or indeed stay home. I am not going to stand over other people and tell them they must do what I do as if I am the one with the correct moral standards that everyone else must adhere too. 

Thousands if not millions of people have gone into work with a cold or the start of a flu and that is partly down to no legal requirement that you must stay home and a health system that can't easily test and confirm what type of sickness you have that may or may not affect people at your place of work. 

If someone wishes to take time off work as soon as they get a sniffle or cough so they don't give it to anyone else then more power to them but they aint morally better or worse than the person who does go into work. They just have a different set of moral standards and priorities in life and I'm comfortable with that because society does not revolve around me

Marvel1

2 People srsrt work the same day on temporary for 12 months, times comes close to the 12 month period, the company needs 1 to stay permanent and 1 let go.

Not sure how this works but my thinking as an employee only, 2 are really good, their output roughly the same, however 1 has been off sick on 3 different occasions for a cold.  The other has not taken sick. 

Just wondering who would be offered the permanent position?

Undervalued

Marvel1 said:

2 People srsrt work the same day on temporary for 12 months, times comes close to the 12 month period, the company needs 1 to stay permanent and 1 let go.

Not sure how this works but my thinking as an employee only, 2 are really good, their output roughly the same, however 1 has been off sick on 3 different occasions for a cold.  The other has not taken sick. 

Just wondering who would be offered the permanent position?

Quite possibly the one with the better sick record. However, given that neither have any security of employment the company can decide on whatever criteria they please.

TELLIT01

lincroft1710 said:

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 heard about this in the early 1970s, but certainly in the CS department I worked, this had died out. Didn't realise it was still in existence in some CS departments as late as the 1980s!  

It's certainly not true in the Civil Service, but I know somebody who works for Royal Mail who was told by his union rep to make sure he took all his sick leave entitlement!  The other side of the coin is another person I know who also worked for Royal Mail was off following hip replacement and was warned on his return that his absence record was unacceptable.  He had no absence other than the time around the operation.