In a 6 month period how many sick days are "acceptable"
Discussion
R1 Loon said:
Custard Test said:
liner33 said:
In the last 6 months my niece has had 5 days off with swine flu ewith doctors note and 5 days off with Norovirus again doctors note
She got a written warning from her employer due to excessive sickness .
That is harsh and I would appeal that decision.She got a written warning from her employer due to excessive sickness .
When you enter into a contract of employment you are implicitly agreeing that you are ready, willing and able to work. If you are not, then you are not fulfilling the terms of your contract.
Whilst some employers can absorb some absence, not all can, and if your absence ends up costing the company, then they are well within their rights to discipline as they feel appropriate.
It'd be interesting to know more though, as there is probably a history of absence and these were just the last two examples. The normal excuse is "But I was genuinely sick this time", which is imediately followed wiht the question from me "Are you suggesting that the otherinstances were just sickies?".
Disciplinary action is only ever taken with a trend or multiple examples, yet people confuse it with occurring because of the last instance, when in fact it relates to all absences over a period of time.
Should she now head to the quacks and ask to be put on in-capacity benefit for the rest of her life as she's clearly not capable of holding a job down.
Edited by 69 coupe on Thursday 31st March 20:36
Carrot said:
Roberty said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why the hell should there be a difference?69 coupe said:
So what in effect you are saying is she's to ill to work as went she signed here contract she was ready able and willing, now through no fault of her own she's dead weight.
Should she now head to the quacks and ask to be put on in-capacity benefit for the rest of her life as she's clearly not capable of holding a job down.
Pardon me for quoting fact.Should she now head to the quacks and ask to be put on in-capacity benefit for the rest of her life as she's clearly not capable of holding a job down.
A contract is valid for the term of the contract not just the point at which you sign it. For example try signing up for a mobile phone for 12 months and then deciding a week later that you don't need it anymore and want to exit the contract.
At no point did I say she is "dead weight".
I didn't suggest she should go on incapacity benefit.
I said that appealing because she was genuinely ill is no grounds for appeal and whilst some companies my be able to absorb periods of absence, others might not, as such sickness policies vary between employers.
I'll exit the thread now and leave you naive posters to your rantings.
R1 Loon said:
Why? There is no exemption from disciplinary action because the illness is genuine, as I've posted before non-genuine absence is potentially gross misconduct.
When you enter into a contract of employment you are implicitly agreeing that you are ready, willing and able to work. If you are not, then you are not fulfilling the terms of your contract.
Whilst some employers can absorb some absence, not all can, and if your absence ends up costing the company, then they are well within their rights to discipline as they feel appropriate.
It'd be interesting to know more though, as there is probably a history of absence and these were just the last two examples. The normal excuse is "But I was genuinely sick this time", which is imediately followed wiht the question from me "Are you suggesting that the otherinstances were just sickies?".
Disciplinary action is only ever taken with a trend or multiple examples, yet people confuse it with occurring because of the last instance, when in fact it relates to all absences over a period of time.
No other sickness or lost time in the last 18mths, she works in a call centre, an industry known for a high turnover of staff , you can see why When you enter into a contract of employment you are implicitly agreeing that you are ready, willing and able to work. If you are not, then you are not fulfilling the terms of your contract.
Whilst some employers can absorb some absence, not all can, and if your absence ends up costing the company, then they are well within their rights to discipline as they feel appropriate.
It'd be interesting to know more though, as there is probably a history of absence and these were just the last two examples. The normal excuse is "But I was genuinely sick this time", which is imediately followed wiht the question from me "Are you suggesting that the otherinstances were just sickies?".
Disciplinary action is only ever taken with a trend or multiple examples, yet people confuse it with occurring because of the last instance, when in fact it relates to all absences over a period of time.
liner33 said:
R1 Loon said:
Why? There is no exemption from disciplinary action because the illness is genuine, as I've posted before non-genuine absence is potentially gross misconduct.
When you enter into a contract of employment you are implicitly agreeing that you are ready, willing and able to work. If you are not, then you are not fulfilling the terms of your contract.
Whilst some employers can absorb some absence, not all can, and if your absence ends up costing the company, then they are well within their rights to discipline as they feel appropriate.
It'd be interesting to know more though, as there is probably a history of absence and these were just the last two examples. The normal excuse is "But I was genuinely sick this time", which is imediately followed wiht the question from me "Are you suggesting that the otherinstances were just sickies?".
Disciplinary action is only ever taken with a trend or multiple examples, yet people confuse it with occurring because of the last instance, when in fact it relates to all absences over a period of time.
No other sickness or lost time in the last 18mths, she works in a call centre, an industry known for a high turnover of staff , you can see why When you enter into a contract of employment you are implicitly agreeing that you are ready, willing and able to work. If you are not, then you are not fulfilling the terms of your contract.
Whilst some employers can absorb some absence, not all can, and if your absence ends up costing the company, then they are well within their rights to discipline as they feel appropriate.
It'd be interesting to know more though, as there is probably a history of absence and these were just the last two examples. The normal excuse is "But I was genuinely sick this time", which is imediately followed wiht the question from me "Are you suggesting that the otherinstances were just sickies?".
Disciplinary action is only ever taken with a trend or multiple examples, yet people confuse it with occurring because of the last instance, when in fact it relates to all absences over a period of time.
)With regards to her absence - 10 days in 6 months is a lot. My guess is that its a "warning shot" by management. If her absence continued to be poor and dismissal was on the cards AND no action had been taken previously by management (to warn her) then she would have grounds for claiming unfair dismissal.
Its petty minded and doesnt look at the big picture clearly these people dont really know how to manage people effectively
For example would it be any better if she came into work with either illness and spread it across the whole place??
Which action would have the greater impact on the business??
Humans get sick its a fact of life, whilst repeated illness should be looked at those that are genuinely ill are better off at home
For example would it be any better if she came into work with either illness and spread it across the whole place??
Which action would have the greater impact on the business??
Humans get sick its a fact of life, whilst repeated illness should be looked at those that are genuinely ill are better off at home
Companies have to be seen to be treating every one equally, weather is was genuine sickness or not. It sounds like the issue is not management but HR and there procedures.
Our company policy is 4 instances in any 12 month period, reagrdless of the number of days, however they made a change to this to add 4 mondays or fridays in a 12 month period, to account for the long weekend sickies that were being pulled.
Our company policy is 4 instances in any 12 month period, reagrdless of the number of days, however they made a change to this to add 4 mondays or fridays in a 12 month period, to account for the long weekend sickies that were being pulled.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That happens all the time - action taken would depend upon HR policy and previous sickness record.You would have my sympathies
I know how bad it can be. My fotrmer payroll manager had chicken pox as an adult - he had the last rites read to him by his priest. Just to add I had shingles as well - it was like having a cheese grater scraped over my back every time I moved.I'd estimate I have about 5 or 6 off a year. Maybe as high as 10.
They're usually one bout of something really nasty a year. last year I actually managed to time my illness with my holiday time off so the 2 weeks I wanted to spend relaxing was actually spent in bed coughing up blood, puking and s
tting. fking bullst.
They're usually one bout of something really nasty a year. last year I actually managed to time my illness with my holiday time off so the 2 weeks I wanted to spend relaxing was actually spent in bed coughing up blood, puking and s
tting. fking bullst. liner33 said:
Its petty minded and doesnt look at the big picture clearly these people dont really know how to manage people effectively
I don't know about petty minded. I know most managers find it a real PITA - the problem is you have to apply the policies fairly and consistently to everybody. This can be construed as petty minded by those with a victim complex. Those with a genuine illness and an understanding of company policy will know why its being done.liner33 said:
For example would it be any better if she came into work with either illness and spread it across the whole place??
I've heard this often, usually from union reps at Attendance Review Say, hypothetically, this did happen ¡ who would be worse off ? The employee (whose absence record becomes better and gets full pay instead of SSP) or the Employer who suddenly has 3 / 4 more members of staff off sick? Its very noble of employees to suggest they're acting in the Company's best interests but, if the Company is being hard-assed, why do you care if you spread your illness ? It will be the petty minded manager who will suffer the consequences more than anybody else.liner33 said:
Humans get sick its a fact of life, whilst repeated illness should be looked at those that are genuinely ill are better off at home
Therein lies the dilemma ¡ everybody has a different threshold for "sickness¨. I know a lot of staff who come in when really they shouldn't. I have known 2 staff who would have sick leave right up to the Trigger points. To avoid accusations of discrimination/harassment I have to treat everybody the same. KrazyIvan said:
Our company policy is 4 instances in any 12 month period, reagrdless of the number of days, however they made a change to this to add 4 mondays or fridays in a 12 month period, to account for the long weekend sickies that were being pulled.
Years ago I worked for a Private Sector Utility company which had recently been privatised. The sick pay policy changed from "Full Pay for 6 months" to "No pay for the first 3 days absence". As a result of this average sickness per employee fell from 9 days per annum to 3 days per annum. One-day absences on Mondays fell by 95%.Lobster43 said:
If you're a Contractor, the average sick time per year is 0.
It's amazing how that hangover
in the morning doesn't turn into a sickie when you don't get paid.
The first 3 days should never be paid in my opinion and that would clear up most of the malingerers ! I don't know if I spelt that right so if it does not make sence replace with Lazy Feckin work shy 8astrds!It's amazing how that hangover
in the morning doesn't turn into a sickie when you don't get paid.Countdown said:
Therein lies the dilemma ¡ everybody has a different threshold for "sickness¨. I know a lot of staff who come in when really they shouldn't. I have known 2 staff who would have sick leave right up to the Trigger points. To avoid accusations of discrimination/harassment I have to treat everybody the same.
If you do have to treat everyone the same then the policies are wrong, you dont motivate or manage people effectively if you start to issue written warnings in these kind of circumstances.Big difference to 5 days off with a doctors note and someone taking 5 Mondays off
liner33 said:
Big difference to 5 days off with a doctors note and someone taking 5 Mondays off
Why? I have a member of staff who suffers from Migraines. They come and go but they are extremely bad. As a result she's had 5 mondays off. From what you're suggesting I should treat her less favourably than somebody who has one incident of 5 days sickness, because she's got a doctors note ?
I had one member of staff who was off twice with Swine Flu. When I asked her that it was impossible to get swine flu twice within 3 months she said "Oh the GP thinks he must have misdiagnosed it the last time"
Although it sounds unfair to be applying the same procedure to everybody IME if you are fair and consistent there shouldn't be a problem. Start cutting people slack (rightly or wrongly) and there's a good chance it will come back to bite you in the behind.
None.
But then I am a contractor and haven't had a day off sick for more than 10 years.
I did once have a day of sick back in about 1996, but I really was ill that day.
I did used to take the odd day off, in my second job after leaving college, when I realised I could just phone in if I didn't fancy it. But I was staff then and would still get paid.
I think people should be paid nothing if they don't turn up unless they submit a proper doctor's note. That would probably reuce sick pay to about 10% of current levels.
But then I am a contractor and haven't had a day off sick for more than 10 years.
I did once have a day of sick back in about 1996, but I really was ill that day.
I did used to take the odd day off, in my second job after leaving college, when I realised I could just phone in if I didn't fancy it. But I was staff then and would still get paid.
I think people should be paid nothing if they don't turn up unless they submit a proper doctor's note. That would probably reuce sick pay to about 10% of current levels.
Piersman2 said:
None.
But then I am a contractor and haven't had a day off sick for more than 10 years.
I did once have a day of sick back in about 1996, but I really was ill that day.
I did used to take the odd day off, in my second job after leaving college, when I realised I could just phone in if I didn't fancy it. But I was staff then and would still get paid.
I think people should be paid nothing if they don't turn up unless they submit a proper doctor's note. That would probably reuce sick pay to about 10% of current levels.
You can't get a sick note for first 5 days you self certify that's why no one should be paid for first 3 days to weed out the lead swingers!But then I am a contractor and haven't had a day off sick for more than 10 years.
I did once have a day of sick back in about 1996, but I really was ill that day.
I did used to take the odd day off, in my second job after leaving college, when I realised I could just phone in if I didn't fancy it. But I was staff then and would still get paid.
I think people should be paid nothing if they don't turn up unless they submit a proper doctor's note. That would probably reuce sick pay to about 10% of current levels.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff