Afraid to call in sick. :(

Wicklowandy

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Topics/Confined_Spaces/#cs

You employ people in multiple outlets and seem to have a very poor knowledge of h and s. By asking for that definition, you confirmed to me that risk assessments are not conducted properly by you.

You have shirked YOUR responsibility, and now try to blame someone for taking advantage of you.

Any employment solicitor is going to construct a claim based on:

Lack of ppe
Lack of training
Undefined work practices

I think any award given by a representative body lacks credence. And any employer that has faced previous claims, but has not identified how they found themselves in that position, is far from a best employer to work for.

Wicklowandy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh? From the first quote, you only hire "foreigners"?? What is that about?

Thinly veiled racist comment Regarding doctors and workers 'from a certain place.' by braind3

ulyssescohen

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - this thread has gone way off topic.

Shinaynay

I started a thread with the same title a few months ago.

Your employee will have bo respect for u if you go in dying. Have some self respect & look after yourself.

If they let you go as a result they are not worth working for.

Wanderer2010

Wicklowandy wrote: »

I'd reckon them foreigners(paraphrasing you) will have a good claim from you. And you deserve it. And id be surprised if it'll be the first or last time.

Excuse me but the above quote was from YOU and not me :rolleyes:

Wicklowandy

BrianJD wrote: »

I currently have a staff member out for 4 weeks due to Frostbite having been in a freezer for 30 mins one day and 15 mins another day. She got her cert from a Dr from her own country but based in Ireland.

I sent her to our company Dr who had never seen frostbite formed in this country in 30 years and she felt that while there was inflammation, it was not frostbite. Apparently there had been a big increase in Doctors from this particular country giving long certs.

In another of our outlets we have a staff member also from this country certed out for 6 weeks over Xmas with a bad back.

I can't see how a doctor can cert somebody out for 6 weeks and not request a weekly visit.

This was the post and poster i referenced

gozunda

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

..,,

Yes, people often do take the mickey with the sick days I dont deny that, but what Im saying is that being quizzed the moment you return from CERTIFIED sick leave (the clue is in the word certified) about how many days you were off and the reason, its a subtle form of bullying as you are explaining, almost justifying, taking time off for genuine sickness. Employees are far too quiet on issues like this, its a shame employers with no unions are so despicable when treating the genuine cases.

^^^^This


Employers need to be aware that BTWI may be seen as a form of bullying. They should not be necessary where there are good working relationships between employees and management and for certified low rated absences. I am surprised how this management technique has spread in recent years with little or no corresponding improvements in employees conditions of employment. This is I believe a cause of some concern.

BrianJD

Wicklowandy wrote: »

Thinly veiled racist comment Regarding doctors and workers 'from a certain place.' by braind3

Are you for real? How can mentioning that somebody from another country was involved be classed as racism.

This is the exact reason I normally don't get involved in these discussions On Boards because people like you who know absolutely nothing about you make ridiculous statements like this.

You were the one that first mentioned "them foreigners" Why do you keep mentioning them, do you not like them? I don't know why you wouldn't cause I generally love working with all of my colleagues irrespective of their nationality

I'm not conversing with you on this matter again as I prefer to communicate to somebody with a bit of cop on.

Wicklowandy

You said that doctors and employees from a certain country present questionable certs.

Thats thinly veiled racism, and from anyone else i would find it offensive to be accused of racism.

Good luck with your impending claim;)

Wanderer2010

Wicklowandy wrote: »

You said that doctors and employees from a certain country present questionable certs.

Thats thinly veiled racism, and from anyone else i would find it offensive to be accused of racism.

Good luck with your impending claim;)

Hey, you accused ME of racism and you didnt even know what you were talking about, get a bit of sense whoever you are..:rolleyes:

As for the post about Back To Work Interviews, I maintain its just another subtle way to bully the employee and send a strong message, albeit hidden, that you should never go out sick as you have the hassle of, in many companies, filling out the BTWI form, explaining the reason for your absence and going to the company doctor who only wants to hear that you are 100% fit and able for full duties. Its a disgraceful way to treat someone, you can be damn sure that if a pregnant woman was treated like that on her return from maternity leave there would be uproar and new discrimination laws would be enforced but employees are easy prey when they take sick leave, I dont blame people for taking sick leave from stress when they are treated like this on return to work...employers want it all- employees to be there 24/7 and never take a sick day but they dont provide any support when people inevitably do get sick and need leave...:rolleyes:

hattoncracker

ulyssescohen wrote: »

It would be helpful if the OP came back and provided an update. I'm sure that there are many people in the same boat - and it would be helpful to have some sort of resolution. If not the thread should be closed.

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Stheno

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Are you getting proper treatment for the pneumonia?

And has your doctor advised you to stay out of work?

Wicklowandy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Hey, you accused ME of racism and you didnt even know what you were talking about, get a bit of sense whoever you are..:rolleyes:

As for the post about Back To Work Interviews, I maintain its just another subtle way to bully the employee and send a strong message, albeit hidden, that you should never go out sick as you have the hassle of, in many companies, filling out the BTWI form, explaining the reason for your absence and going to the company doctor who only wants to hear that you are 100% fit and able for full duties. Its a disgraceful way to treat someone, you can be damn sure that if a pregnant woman was treated like that on her return from maternity leave there would be uproar and new discrimination laws would be enforced but employees are easy prey when they take sick leave, I dont blame people for taking sick leave from stress when they are treated like this on return to work...employers want it all- employees to be there 24/7 and never take a sick day but they dont provide any support when people inevitably do get sick and need leave...:rolleyes:

No, i didnt, and i spelled that out by quoting the post that i was talking about. If you took the wrong impression, i apologise.

Try and read what someone posts, before taking the high horse. The poster i was criticising seems ignorant of his responsibilities to health and safety as an employer.

Wanderer2010

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Wow thats terrible, telling you to watch the sick days, you cant help being sick for God sake :rolleyes: If this is how they treat you now, can you imagine asking for some holidays (your right) or if you have an accident down the line, they sound a right unreasonable employer in my opinion. I do sympathise OP because you are in a delicate stage of employment and need to pay bills etc but make sure you that if you are not able to go to work then dont do it, your health is your wealth and you dont want to be collapsing mid job, I wish you the best.

hattoncracker

Stheno wrote: »

Are you getting proper treatment for the pneumonia?

And has your doctor advised you to stay out of work?

I'm on really strong antibiotics, I've only had to work 2 days since I got diagnosed last Thursday so I've been resting a lot, apart from the travelling. She wasn't too happy about me working, but I would feel worse at home sick with worry, than I was in work not having to worry about jeopardizing my job.
Slowly gettin better... I've had it before, and this isn't as bad as last time so thank goodness for small miracles.

Mrs OBumble

ulyssescohen wrote: »

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - this thread has gone way off topic.

ModNote:

The thread has certainly spawned a lot of discussion.

But the OP is still being considered, and has replied. And I think that the other discussion is useful in terms of helping people understand the other side's perspective of related issues.

I've been watching as well as participating, and I think that at least one of the other mods has been too.

There are a couple of comments (from both sides) that are close to the line in terms of uncivilized - but the person they were directed at doesn't seem to have taken offence so I haven't seen a need to take any actions.

I don't see any problems at the moment - but as always if anyone thinks that particular comments are problem, please use the Report Post button.

Mrs OBumble

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Unions should be in every work-place, government funded and joined by all. However, and I come from a family heavily involved in the UK printing unions, the best unions work with management to ensure procedure are in-place that best solve problems not taking an adverserial approach. A good union would insist on a properly conducted BTWI.

Ahh, government funded? Isn't the whole point of unionism to be collective voice for the workforce, funded and organised by them? If the government funds it, then surely it cannot be a genuine worker collective???

Also, you do realise that unions can often be bigger bullies than employers? I don't have links at hand, but there are some dramatic stories of unions being blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic etc. And they often have a strong preference for full-time jobs - even if that's not what would suit the employers or some members of the workforce.

That said, I do believe in the principles of union membership. Did three years as a local delegate, and continued to belong even long after the union was likely to be able to do anything for me, due to the role I was in. But they're no panacea for all the wrongs of workplaces.

gozunda

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Sorry I missed your post HC. Pneumonia is no joke - mind yourself . Not too sure how anyone 'prevent' themselves getting sick tbh when individuals do and can get sick - some employers need to get over themselves and realise that employees are not machines and do get sick from time to time.

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Mind yourself.

Hope you feel better soon.

tatli_lokma

OP - I hope you feel better soon. It is an unfortunate situation to find yourself in.

However, I would just like to remind everyone, that OP's original 2 days 'sick' leave, were not actually sick leave at all, but personal leave to attend to his sick mother. Had OP taken the time as per its true purpose and not sick leave, he would most likely not have been subjected to a BTWI, nor would there be 2 instances of sick leave in such quick succession.

OP, can I suggest perhaps, that you discuss this with your supervisor. Ask is it possible to change the 2 days you were off due to your mum's illness to unpaid leave or even if they will permit it as force majeure (although they may not allow FM but some companies are more generous as to what they consider FM than others, so worth a try). If they agree, then at least at the end of the probation, you will only have had one instance of illness and not two.

In the future, if you genuinely are not well enough to go to work, then don't be a martyr - take the time off. I know it is stressful wondering if it will affect your probation, but at the end of the day, your probation decision will be based on other factors, and not sick leave alone. The best you can do is that when you are in work that you perform to your utmost abilities and let your work speak for you. Hopefully it will speak louder than the sick leave. Also, pneumonia is not a mild illness so you should not be suspected of faking it. And I doubt that this will be the case.

As I mentioned before, I would guess that all your sick leave etc is entered into a matrix for assessment purposes. Your direct supervisor is most likely just following procedure. In fact, I would be fairly certain, that your supervisor is also assessed on their performance in regards to monitoring HR issues and following procedures, so it is not personal, they are just doing their job. This is standard practice in call centre environments, where the very nature of the work and the average age of the staff tends to increase the number of duvet days if sickness leave is not monitored and attended to. So as long as you can convince your supervisor that you do have a good work ethic and that you are considerate of the fact that unscheduled leave can place other team members under pressure then you should be ok. Remember, they were reasonable enough to allow you time off to look after your mum, so they might not be as black as some posters paint them to be, just because they conduct BTWI.

Good luck and I hope you feel better soon.

Procrastastudy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, government funded? Isn't the whole point of unionism to be collective voice for the workforce, funded and organised by them? If the government funds it, then surely it cannot be a genuine worker collective???

Also, you do realise that unions can often be bigger bullies than employers? I don't have links at hand, but there are some dramatic stories of unions being blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic etc. And they often have a strong preference for full-time jobs - even if that's not what would suit the employers or some members of the workforce.

That said, I do believe in the principles of union membership. Did three years as a local delegate, and continued to belong even long after the union was likely to be able to do anything for me, due to the role I was in. But they're no panacea for all the wrongs of workplaces.

It is/was. I think the old model on unions needs to be readjusted. You've mentioned just some of the flaws that crept into the current system. They should be an extension of something like NERA in my opinion. They don't need to be fully independant - just independant of the employer. As indicated the adverserial approach some union membes seem to adopt isn't helpful to anyone. Just my 2 cents.

monkeypants

gozunda wrote: »

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Depends on perspective I suppose. I may be seen as an employer by those that work for me, but I'd consider myself as another employee, just with different objectives. If I started taking days off sick here and there, I'd expect to be called in for a chat about it.

Wanderer2010

gozunda wrote: »

k from time to time.

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Hope you feel better soon.

I am suprised at that as well, maybe a lot of employers lurk here to see what the current issues are or just out of curiosity to see how workplace issues affect people. Im also interested to see so many employers that have a zero tolerance on sickness and then others who are more understanding towards the human condition! It really does depend on the boss, that makes all the difference.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I am suprised at that as well, maybe a lot of employers lurk here to see what the current issues are or just out of curiosity to see how workplace issues affect people. Im also interested to see so many employers that have a zero tolerance on sickness and then others who are more understanding towards the human condition! It really does depend on the boss, that makes all the difference.

Many of us at one point or another in our careerers have managed other people and been responible for their sickness. Some people work in retail and call centres and would agree that they aren't the nicest places to work and could do with some rebalancing in terms of employee rights.

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

I am not being funny but I do not know of individuals being 'allowed' to take a week or so of sickness

Either you are sick or you are not. Employment contracts normally allow for this and insist on medical certification. That's ok but to then make employees fearful if ringing in sick - that in my opinion just one step to far.

smcgiff

OP,

For the love of god if you've pneumonia stay at home and get better.

Re this thread. It is indeed very interesting.

My own opinion (manager, not an employer (and will do my best to remain so) - but have some of those duties in an agent capacity) - employees work and get paid for time worked. If they are out of work due to illness they can claim social welfare.

To ask for more than that from an employer is indeed asking too much. As it stands the employer will pay 29 days of absence (20 statutory holidays and 9 bank holidays).

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Many of us at one point or another in our careerers have managed other people and been responible for their sickness. Some people work in retail and call centres and would agree that they aren't the nicest places to work and could do with some rebalancing in terms of employee rights.

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

smcgiff

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

Game, set and match. I'd be surprised if it's not popular.

Yet you blame the system. The same system that tries to discourage such a practice - the interview. This is the equivalent of stealing, and I'd have no sympathy for someone that gets fired for stealing.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

I am not being funny but I do not know of individuals being 'allowed' to take a week or so of sickness

Either you are sick or you are not. Employment contracts normally allow for this and insist on medical certification. That's ok but to then make employees fearful if ringing in sick - that in my opinion just one step to far.

If you need a week of sick per year or there abouts you need to address your own ill health and not inflict that on the place you work. There is a difference between somone being bullied anf the being rightly concerned that an employer may call them on not being able to fullfil they're contractual obligations.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Explained above - people feel that a week, if genuine, is fine. It's not.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

This isn't a great argument. Sick days are there for an emergency not an entitlement to be used. The old blame the system argument is indicative of people who lack personal responibility. If the employee is being worked so hard they are forced to take duvet days they need to address their own perosnl wekaness or the work they are being given.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

Done to death in previous posts in this thread. There are many reasons why BTWI are a good idea. Anything can be used for the wrong reason most use it for the right ones.

Wanderer2010

smcgiff wrote: »

Game, set and match. I'd be surprised if it's not popular.

Yet you blame the system. The same system that tries to discourage such a practice - the interview. This is the equivalent of stealing, and I'd have no sympathy for someone that gets fired for stealing.

No, the interview is there to drop a huge hint not to go out sick again in the future and its designed to humiliate the employee. Companies can hardly have it both ways can they- allow a lot of sick leave but punish people who use it??

tatli_lokma

gozunda wrote: »

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

smcgiff wrote: »

OP,


My own opinion (manager, not an employer (and will do my best to remain so) - but have some of those duties in an agent capacity) - employees work and get paid for time worked. If they are out of work due to illness they can claim social welfare.

Totally agree with smcgiff here. Gozunda, you seem to read employer when in fact it is often manager giving advice. And just because you are a manager and have policies in place which you must follow, does not mean that you stop being an employee, nor does it stop you from appreciating that some policies need to be changed. And I would say that rather than a lot of employERs being on here, in fact there are a lot of managers who are also employEEs, and who often feel caught between a rock and a hard place.

As a manager I see myself as somewhat of devils advocate on many occasions. Because I am a manager, I have responsibility to enforce policies, and manage staff and make sure that the business runs smoothly. This is part of what my performance is assessed on. On the other hand, I too am an employee, just a number like everyone else, I worry about job security and I want my rights to be protected the same as everyone else, and I have a manager I have to report to (and my manager is the owner, so often has no understanding of the employee perspective). I often find myself in with my manager arguing the pros and cons of a particular procedure for the benefit of my team. Equally, I often have to deal with the fallout if one of the team starts to take the p!ss. Many of the conditions we have in our place whilst great for staff who don't manage anyone else, are a right pain in the arse for those of us who do manage people - they create extra work and in some cases a sense of entitlement which in itself can be one of the hardest things to manage. Equally, there are some aspects of employment law that I have to stick to my guns about to make the boss realise just how important these things are and why there are laws in place to protect them.

So for those who think many posts are biased, I would counter that perhaps your view is more blinkered than you are prepared to accept. Unless you have actually been responsible for managing others, then often it appears that the big bad industrialist work lords are terrorising the poor put upon worker. This is often not the case. I find that much of the advice given here by managers is usually well balanced and informative. It gives a perspective from both sides. There are employees out there who forget that their employment is not all about them - there are so many other factors involved than most employees realise, and unless you have experience of the HR, financial and H&S aspects of an issue, you are very much seeing it from a very unbalanced perspective.