Afraid to call in sick. :(

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Gozunda,

I was waiting to see if you would thank Wander's post where he dismisses his employment contract as "useless" - it's hard to see where you are coming from if you dismiss the rule of law.

I am now 100% convinced you are trolling, and are merely continuing the argument for argument sake. Therefore your comments can be ignored.

I'll be giving Wander the benefit of the doubt for now, but I've my suspicions here as well.

I am glad I met your expectations. But I happen to agree with some of the points made. I did not know this is not permitted. Btw I have thanked other posters including Proceastinstudies . Is that truely relevant?

But no in this your are incorrect. I am giving my honest opinion however distasteful that may be. I am not dismissing any rule of law that I am aware of. I am questioning the application of BTWIs. I have already stated they may be of some use in cases of long term absences.

May I suggest that we have all have coffee and resume the previous good natured discussion?

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Ha QED sherlock...

Employees don't feel BTWIs have failed - you and one other person on this thread does. The vast majority understand the purpose. You yourself have admitted the sickness policy is abused but duvet days. HA concrete reason why, after conducting a BTWI I might conclude that someone is telling porkies. However as I've said thats kept to yourself and the sickness is treated as genuine.

Do you actually read the entire post or just the bit you think strengthens your case? If I strings random sentances of yours togetaher I'm sure I can get you to admit you've Shergar in your basement.

You've still not suggested what the alternative is.

Two people dont agree with it on this thread, there could be thousands more for all you know. I know its only a few more but a few people I work with dont agree with them either as the set up is too stiff and informal, you are explaining yourself after a doctor signed you off, which is very unprofessional. Oh I understand its not always easy with insurance claims etc and they need something on paper but why not just call it what it is, a means to see if you are telling the truth or not. This cosy little "Oh we are concerned about your wellbeing, what work practices caused this" etc etc is just rubbish. HR just want a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. And if you think your boss doubts you from the off of course thats going to change your perception of it.

Alternative? Take the word of a doctor and any issues in future bring it back to them.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Wanderer - PS is not a manager at present - I think I had this discussion previously. He is currently studying law but think he may have previously held a management type role.

I do believe this discussion has been very enlightening tbh

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Two people dont agree with it on this thread, there could be thousands more for all you know. I know its only a few more but a few people I work with dont agree with them either as the set up is too stiff and informal, you are explaining yourself after a doctor signed you off, which is very unprofessional. Oh I understand its not always easy with insurance claims etc and they need something on paper but why not just call it what it is, a means to see if you are telling the truth or not. This cosy little "Oh we are concerned about your wellbeing, what work practices caused this" etc etc is just rubbish. HR just want a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. And if you think your boss doubts you from the off of course thats going to change your perception of it.

Alternative? Take the word of a doctor and any issues in future bring it back to them.

Where did I say if someone had a doctors not I'd not treat it as genuine.

About 50 posts back we explained why te model suggested wont work. Next suggestion?

As for a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. They already have that it's called a contract. I notice further up your treatment of them seems very sloppy at best. 'There has to be leeway' I believe was you comment - well thats not how contracts work. If you dont like the contract (subject to it being legal) then don't work there or engag the union to renegotiate.

Simply put signing something to say you'll do one thing and then do another is simply dishonest.

EDIT: there could be millions more that agree with yhe majority position... we simply don't know. We can only go on whats infront of us, unless you want to go an dig out some stats. I think you'll find a week per year would be on the high side given I've seen stats for the various compnaies I''ve worked for and have seen the number of sickdays taken by people in my own family.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

Thanks for that but i don't believe we have met? I do not have a cause btw.
Yes humans are human and there at times that I'm sure sickness may be stretched etc
But at the end if the day there are many employment practices out there - not all in any way set up in the interest of employees - some are at best borderline in terms of their application by some employers.

I remain unconvinced that BTWIs are the panacea to employees that they are being made out to be.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

You have no idea who I am and actually after reading your above post I can see why you might think everyone abuses the system- you are judging ALL employees based on the few that took the mickey when they wanted to go to Oxygen. Just because a few employees splutter their way through one of your BTWI foesnt give you the right to judge all other people on that yardstick.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

I remain unconvinced that BTWIs are the panacea to employees that they are being made out to be.

Anyone who hangs in a thread this long has a cause or is trolling.

While you may not that's atleast a bit of healthy sceptism rather than just out and out bloodymindedness. The fact is they have to be done for legal and practical reasons. Whle I may not be able to convince you otherwise, at least bear that in mind.

If you think they being abused then get a union rep into the meetings. I don't knw any employer that would have an issue with that.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

You have no idea who I am and actually after reading your above post I can see why you might think everyone abuses the system- you are judging ALL employees based on the few that took the mickey when they wanted to go to Oxygen. Just because a few employees splutter their way through one of your BTWI foesnt give you the right to judge all other people on that yardstick.

Where have I said everyone abuses the system? Where have I said I judge everyone the same?

You're the one suggesting everyone be treated the same - that noone ever abuses the system. Thats just daft. In this thread alone both of us have admitted that people take duvet days - myself included. Why are you taking constantly taking the contrary position no matter how non-sensical?

Still waiting for your alternative to BTWIs

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Anyone who hangs in a thread this long has a cause or is trolling.

While you may not that's atleast a bit of healthy sceptism rather than just out and out bloodymindedness. The fact is they have to be done for legal and practical reasons. Whle I may not be able to convince you otherwise, at least bear that in mind.

If you think they being abused then get a union rep into the meetings. I don't knw any employer that would have an issue with that.

By that logic you yourself would be guilty of this on the thread ???

Do you yourself have a cause or are trolling? I would be very interested what the legal and other reasons that BTWI have came into being - what about companies that don't use this practice. Is there specific case law that is relevant and has caused employers to suddenly start being so apparently conscientious?

As I said previously I can see [some] merit but not as an universial panacea

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

By that logic you yourself would be guilty of this on the thread ???

Do you have a cause or are trolling? I would be very interested what the legal and other reasons that BTWI have came into being - what about companies that don't use this practice. Is there specific case law that is relevant and caused employers to suddenly start being so apparently conscientious?

As I said previously I can see [some] merit but not as an universial panacea

I most certianly do - retail employee rights. I think people in the retail sectors are treated appalingly myself included at the end with one particualr company.

Legal reasons are;

Health and Safety
Ensuring absence is recored properly (yes in case they terminate someone but also for other reporting reaons)
Putting people on notice if their absence is starting to creep up
Making sure various obligtions under legislation are adhered to such as ensuring people aren't under stress.

There would be other indistry specific ones - they all braodly fall under H&S. For example you cant have an upset stomach working in food retail/prep.

monkeypants

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Yeah I agree, and furthermore managers think they have great relationships with their employees, what gives them that idea?? As said before, employees arent likely to just say outright what they think of them, managers dont want to know and the employee could get sacked so managers, a lot of them are living in fantasy land.

We run a set of meetings where employees get to give feedback. I'm not in the room and neither is the HR manager. All feedback is anonymised before I get it. Haven't received anything bad about myself yet, but I know that some managers have.

If anyone can suggest a better way of receiving such feedback, please do.

Procrastastudy

monkeypants wrote: »

We run a set of meetings where employees get to give feedback. I'm not in the room and neither is the HR manager. All feedback is anonymised before I get it. Haven't received anything bad about myself yet, but I know that some managers have.

If anyone can suggest a better way of receiving such feedback, please do.

To be fair we used to do surveys - they are inherently bias. Managemnt used to hold up this 80% approval on this 90% on that. The way the reporting was done was simply put bollocks.

The only alternative is to make it written and completely anonymous - that works the oppisite way. People start talking rubbish and exagerting their positions e.g. it's all managers rather than just 1 or 2.

Not that I'm saying its not worth doing - just any system is usually flawed.

monkeypants

Procrastastudy wrote: »

To be fair we used to do surveys - they are inherently bias. Managemnt used to hold up this 80% approval on this 90% on that. The way the reporting was done was simply put bollocks.

The only alternative is to make it written and completely anonymous - that works the oppisite way. People start talking rubbish and exagerting their positions e.g. it's all managers rather than just 1 or 2.

Not that I'm saying its not worth doing - just any system is usually flawed.

I'm only interested in feedback from my own team and yes, not all of it is valid. Sometimes you get feedback on something that there was no alternative to at the time or that you didn't have a choice over. Some of the feedback might be from months previously and is no longer valid. But sometimes you do get something that you can change right away.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I most certianly do - retail employee rights. I think people in the retail sectors are treated appalingly myself included at the end with one particualr company.

Legal reasons are;

Health and Safety
Ensuring absence is recored properly (yes in case they terminate someone but also for other reporting reaons)
Putting people on notice if their absence is starting to creep up
Making sure various obligtions under legislation are adhered to such as ensuring people aren't under stress.

There would be other indistry specific ones - they all braodly fall under H&S. For example you cant have an upset stomach working in food retail/prep.

Ok get what you are saying - but would the majority of these not be normal management responsibilities that an employees manager should undertake as part of their regular responsibilities ?

I am interested that BTWI have suddenly and relatively recently been adopted.

I am not aware of any specific provision in law or even case law that has brought this about - have you come across anything in this field?

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Ok get what you are saying - but would the majority of these not be normal management responsibilities that an employees manager should undertake as part of their regular responsibilities ?

I am interested that BTWI have suddenly and relatively recently been adopted.

I am not aware of any specific provision in law or even case law that has brought this about - have you come across anything in this field?

Yes BTWI in reality have always been conducted by mangers with a clue, albeit informally and possibly without either party knowing thats what they were doing.

As for where they come from - they came out of the need for better reporting. That's a double edged sword in that on the one hand it protects employees on the other it makes it much easier to spot absence patterns and take apropriate action. That would be anything from an informal chat to a full blown disciplinary procedure.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Yes BTWI in reality have always been conducted by mangers with a clue, albeit informally and possibly without either party knowing thats what they were doing.

As for where they come from - they came out of the need for better reporting. That's a double edged sword in that on the one hand it protects employees on the other it makes it much easier to spot absence patterns and take apropriate action. That would be anything from an informal chat to a full blown disciplinary procedure.

Yes I understand but BTWI appear to have metamorphosed into much more than just an informal talk with your manager on your return to work (which no employee would see as an issue imo). That is the main issue. It appears to be often a (a very large) hammer to break a (very small) walnut used without discretion

Of interest - I don't necessarily accept that BTWI always protects the employee. I have seen some arguments to that effect here but they have been less than convincing tbh.

Procrastastudy

I don't really get where you feel a BTWI is cracking anyones nuts. The procedure to be followed would be;

Several BTWI - establishing a pattern. At each stage the employees input is recorded.

An investigation where further information was gathered. All information passed to another party for a disciplinary hearing.

Employee and represenative are heard, employer side heard (or taken from notes)... one of two things then happen

a) Employee finally lets management know thier kid is on drugs and the game and they've been trying to dort things out / cat has died and management take no further action.

b) No reasoning is given - employee gets a verbal warning and the process starts all over again.

I really dont see how this process is in anyway unfair to the employee. They are being given ample oppitunity to change/explain.

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them. What is so sinister about a BTWI - what do you think they are trying to achieve?

Sorry to address your first point; yes they have morphed from an informal chat to a formal one - this is just a trend in the work place for various reasons from bothsides of the employee/employer divide.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them.

Eh, such as? Employees have more rights to stand up to bullying tactics from managers than managers do to bully them, Im curious as to what you mean by the highlighted. You say you were a manager in retail for 10yrs and you are 32 now, I think 22 or 23 is far too young to be a manager, you simply havent the experience or maturity to manage at that age. This may cloud your reasoning when it comes to judging other people on their sick leave as you presume everyone is taking the mickey when thats not the case..

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I don't really get where you feel a BTWI is cracking anyones nuts. The procedure to be followed would be;

Several BTWI - establishing a pattern. At each stage the employees input is recorded.

An investigation where further information was gathered. All information passed to another party for a disciplinary hearing.

Employee and represenative are heard, employer side heard (or taken from notes)... one of two things then happen

a) Employee finally lets management know thier kid is on drugs and the game and they've been trying to dort things out / cat has died and management take no further action.

b) No reasoning is given - employee gets a verbal warning and the process starts all over again.

I really dont see how this process is in anyway unfair to the employee. They are being given ample oppitunity to change/explain.

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them. What is so sinister about a BTWI - what do you think they are trying to achieve?

Sorry to address your first point; yes they have morphed from an informal chat to a formal one - this is just a trend in the work place for various reasons from bothsides of the employee/employer divide.

Ok I get your reasoning however for small periods of sickness this procedure is way OTT in my opinion

I would suggest that such a procedure would be only recommended by a manager when there is regular and unusual absences

Otherwise normal management structures would apply

This should not be a procedure for 'interviewing' the conscientious employee that has to take some genuine sick time

Where it is used indiscriminately there will be employees who will genuinely be afraid (often without cause) and management who will use it so

Hence sledgehammer and walnuts analogy

To bring in such draconian 'you better be careful to not get sick again' attitude as was indicated by the OP is poor management at best imo

But I can agree to disagree on our opinions here

I still do not see why such a 'trend' has become practice. Unless its the latest trend from that employment paradise - the US

If anything employers are giving employees less benefits especially with referred to sick pay etc. yes I know it may be a cost to the employer but that's one of the joys of actually employing normally functioning humans.

Good management practices and good staff / management relationships are not best served by such trends being adopted without thought as to their real effects on employees. Time will tell.

Wicklowandy

smcgiff wrote: »

That is surprising - not that companies are afraid to give people permanent contracts (what with people thinking you don't need to work to get paid) - but that companies will train people and let them go. It would make sense for seasonal work perhaps.

The other thing is that after a certain period of time contract workers become permanent anyway.

I think thats 12 months for permanant rights regardless of contract? Maybe the idea of hiring for 9 months, laying off and rehiring is to circumvent this? And with the jobs market as it is, companies can be reasonably confident of getting quite a few of the trained layed off staff back.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh, such as? Employees have more rights to stand up to bullying tactics from managers than managers do to bully them, Im curious as to what you mean by the highlighted. You say you were a manager in retail for 10yrs and you are 32 now, I think 22 or 23 is far too young to be a manager, you simply havent the experience or maturity to manage at that age. This may cloud your reasoning when it comes to judging other people on their sick leave as you presume everyone is taking the mickey when thats not the case..

You keep refering to bullying. I've not bullied people - I've actively stood up to people that have. That said I'm no mug either. As I've said the people that cry wolf damage employee rights and not only that make it more difficult for people who are genuine victims of bullying rather than legitimate managment efforts to get rid of people who are not performing.

As for not having the maturity and clouded reasoning - how old are you out of interest?

Still waiting for you solutions btw...

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Ok I get your reasoning however for small periods of sickness this procedure is way OTT in my opinion

I would suggest that such a procedure would be only recommended by a manager when there is regular and unusual absences

Otherwise normal management structures would apply

This should not be a procedure for 'interviewing' the conscientious employee that has to take some genuine sick time

Where it is used indiscriminately there will be employees who will genuinely be afraid (often without cause) and management who will use it so

Hence sledgehammer and walnuts analogy

To bring in such draconian 'you better be careful to not get sick again' attitude as was indicated by the OP is poor management at best imo

But I can agree to disagree on our opinions here

I still do not see why such a 'trend' has become practice. Unless its the latest trend from that employment paradise - the US

If anything employers are giving employees less benefits especially with referred to sick pay etc. yes I know it may be a cost to the employer but that's one of the joys of actually employing normally functioning humans.

Good management practices and good staff / management relationships are not best served by such trends being adopted without thought as to their real effects on employees. Time will tell.

I'll come back to you but dinner is on

Right - no one is sugesting that a BTWI is a standard format. If its a very concietious employee they are normally the ones most in need of a BTWI as they are the most likeily to come back early. I think the issue we disagree on is that a BTWI is part of normal management structure in most places.

OPs employer is right in wanring them - they are on probation. The benefit of the doubt is not affored probationers generally. Even more reason and more favourbale to the employee to do so.

As for the US - I have no desire to see the model intorduced here but if the system gets aboused by people that thing a week a year is accepetable every year then thats where you end up.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'll come back to you but dinner is on

Nah your grand - I think we've been around the block a few times tbh.

Enjoy the dinner...

Procrastastudy

Too late

Your ultimate point isnt lost on me BTW - they are open to abuse, granted. Just not to the point of the good outweighing the bad imho. That said I do see where you are coming from.