Will we be sent home now from work with the flu or a cold in future?

marklazarcovic

I mean, everyone's gonna be paranoid now,in my job if you had a mild flu or a cold etc,you were expected to work as normal, probably infecting others as my day starts in close proximity with over 100 others,and it's indoors to begin with,then remainder outdoors.

Will it be a case of .. 'cough cough splitter splutter' .. being sent home instead of taking a few days sick leave.. thoughts?

Banana Republic.

marklazarcovic wrote: »

I mean, everyone's gonna be paranoid now,in my job if you had a mild flu or a cold etc,you were expected to work as normal, probably infecting others as my day starts in close proximity with over 100 others,and it's indoors to begin with,then remainder outdoors.

Will it be a case of .. 'cough cough splitter splutter' .. being sent home instead of taking a few days sick leave.. thoughts?

I thought this too when Dr T was speaking about employers sending employees home or employees not coming in because of a cold, he set a dangerous example there without government back up. The usual p**s takers will be all over this. The work place won’t be the same again ie: call centres. You can imagine going into one of those now Hell on earth & if it wasn’t like that in the first place. We definitely look at things very different now, the amount of times we’ve had to suffer in work or work beside someone with flu hopefully is over which can only be a positive.

pure.conya

marklazarcovic wrote: »

I mean, everyone's gonna be paranoid now,in my job if you had a mild flu or a cold etc,you were expected to work as normal, probably infecting others as my day starts in close proximity with over 100 others,and it's indoors to begin with,then remainder outdoors.

Will it be a case of .. 'cough cough splitter splutter' .. being sent home instead of taking a few days sick leave.. thoughts?

Shouldn't somebody sick be avoiding people already, i never understand others insistence on going to work or wanting to call for a visit while sick, no thanks, give me a shout a few days after you're feeling better

storker

I can recall two particularly bad occasions where I ended up off sick for a few days (and one weekend ruined) because some idiot just had to bringhis germs in with him and share them around.

"I'm not well at all I really shouldn't be in."
Thinks: "Well fcuk off then"

_Kaiser_

pure.conya wrote: »

Shouldn't somebody sick be avoiding people already, i never understand others insistence on going to work or wanting to call for a visit while sick, no thanks, give me a shout a few days after you're feeling better

Not everyone gets paid for sick days, or maybe they have none left to take.

In a lot of places it's frowned upon to be out unless "actually" sick. The same sort of thing when a man having a dose is often slagged off as man flu etc.

silverharp

at least everyone is used to working from home. I could see a situation where you think you are having a cold coming on, take your laptop home, work if you can or call in sick if its flu

pjohnson

You would think people would be intelligent enough NOT to go to work sick at the best of times.


If they aren't capable of making that decision all by themseleves then they should be sent home. This is how it always shoulda been.

silverharp

pjohnson wrote: »

You would think people would be intelligent enough NOT to go to work sick at the best of times.


If they aren't capable of making that decision all by themseleves then they should be sent home. This is how it always shoulda been.

meanwhile in the real world.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FVLfG6FHgQ

hmmm

Yes, and employers for their own sake need to be saying this.

It has to be seen as unacceptable to society to travel on public transport, and turn up at work, with symptoms that might be Covid.

storker

silverharp wrote: »

at least everyone is used to working from home. I could see a situation where you think you are having a cold coming on, take your laptop home, work if you can or call in sick if its flu

I'm a contractor and on my current contract I've been able to do this for some time. It's not written down anywhere, it just evolved.

If I start to work from home and feel like taking to bed after after lunch, for example, I'll let them know I'm knocking off and will submit only the time worked on my timesheet. Some employers at least are prepared give flexibility if you're straight with them. Similarly, I've taken time off during the lockdown because I didn't want to work on a particular day even though I probably could have skated through the day easily enough and done feck all and been paid for it.

storker

silverharp wrote: »

meanwhile in the real world.....

I find antihistamines much better. Once you get through the runny/snotty phase you're home and dry (no pun intended). You're bunged up, sure, but that's much easier to work with.

I worked for a very large multinational company in the past that didn't pay for sick days. Not 1 sick day was paid for. On top of that, 1 or 2 instances of sickness would result in a disciplinary investigation with your line manager and HR.

It wasn't uncommon for people to come into work sick. Not because they are bad people, they just had rent/bills to pay.

Also, lots of people suffer from hayfever and allergies. This causes sneezing, runny nose, runny eyes etc, but its not contagious.

Personally I don't see much changing at all once the threat has died down. Companies that don't pay sick days still won't pay. Companies will still frown upon sick days. This idea that Covid is going to change everything is not going to happen, in my opinion

irishgeo

The days of sending kids to school sick too should be stopped too.

marklazarcovic

If you have flu in my job and go sick it's marked against you,after a certain amount your in a monitored for going sick phase for a couple of years,so people go to work unless death is near,that's unfair to every other employee you work beside,as you could give them the flu,and everyone reacts differently to it.

Bad and very bad,but employers don't care about that.

irishgeo

marklazarcovic wrote: »

If you have flu in my job and go sick it's marked against you,after a certain amount your in a monitored for going sick phase for a couple of years,so people go to work unless death is near,that's unfair to every other employee you work beside,as you could give them the flu,and everyone reacts differently to it.

Bad and very bad,but employers don't care about that.

They will now.

silverharp

storker wrote: »

I find antihistamines much better. Once you get through the runny/snotty phase you're home and dry (no pun intended). You're bunged up, sure, but that's much easier to work with.

I was going more for the idea that there is a cultural pressure to keep going to work backed up by advertising as opposed to people being to dumb as the poster was suggesting

_Kaiser_

irishgeo wrote: »

They will now.

I disagree. Sure, they'll do what they have to do to be compliant with the regulations and install some more hand sanitisers but many employers will only do the minimum and try to get back to business as usual as quickly as they can.

The mistake that I keep seeing on these threads is a belief that Covid will be some sort of awakening in how we lived our lives before and drive socially and other beneficial changes.

I just don't see it. This virus is a once in a generation event. It's caused massive disruption and economic damage but ultimately the expectation is that everything will eventually get right back to how it used to be.

ILoveYourVibes

Some people get strep throats all the time. Genuinely. Some people get temperatures.

What if you know something is allergies?

Some people get allergies etc ..it looks exactly like cold /flu.

MerlinSouthDub

irishgeo wrote: »

The days of sending kids to school sick too should be stopped too.

What you are proposing is very high risk. It seems that the reason children get less severely impacted by covid-19 could be that they have some immunity through the common cold coronavirus.

If we don't let kids go to school when they have mild illness, then they won't catch those mild illnesses from each other and they won't build up immunity from potentially more severe illnesses in the future.

seamus

It will all change. Employers will be legally required to send home any employee they even suspect to be sick. This in turn will require employers to put in place disciplinary processes for employees who insist on coming to work sick and a whistleblowing process to report employers who don't adhere to it.

Schools and creches will become stricter on sending kids in while sick, which will in turn require employers to be more flexible so parents can stay at home with a sick child.

There is no evidence from Ireland or elsewhere in the world, that an open sick policy results in lots of piss-takers. We know that in some parts of the public sector there are considerably higher levels of sick leave, but this is because they have defined "sick days". Employees consider these to be part of their annual leave entitlement and take these "sick days" if they haven't used them up.

An open-ended policy which doesn't define how many sick days an employee has, works better, because employees don't feel "entitled" to the days, they still have to justify them.
Studies of companies who have open-ended annual leave policies (i.e. "take all the days you want") show that these employees take less annual leave than companies with defined policies. Part of that is no doubt a culture of disapproval, but for the most part employees with a fixed amount of annual leave make sure that they take it whether they want to or not. Employees with a flexible amount, tend to just take what they need/want.

NegativeCreep

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I worked for a very large multinational company in the past that didn't pay for sick days. Not 1 sick day was paid for. On top of that, 1 or 2 instances of sickness would result in a disciplinary investigation with your line manager and HR.

It wasn't uncommon for people to come into work sick. Not because they are bad people, they just had rent/bills to pay.

Also, lots of people suffer from hayfever and allergies. This causes sneezing, runny nose, runny eyes etc, but its not contagious.

Personally I don't see much changing at all once the threat has died down. Companies that don't pay sick days still won't pay. Companies will still frown upon sick days. This idea that Covid is going to change everything is not going to happen, in my opinion

This is exactly right I’d say. Companies will say all the right things now but when it all gets back to normal they’ll still have the same policies in place.

fits

seamus wrote: »

We know that in some parts of the public sector there are considerably higher levels of sick leave, but this is because they have defined "sick days". Employees consider these to be part of their annual leave entitlement and take these "sick days" if they haven't used them up.

.

Which parts of the public sector is this? I've worked in public sector for years and never seen any evidence of this. Seen plenty of people come to work sick though. Including myself.

KaneToad

seamus wrote: »

We know that in some parts of the public sector there are considerably higher levels of sick leave, but this is because they have defined "sick days". Employees consider these to be part of their annual leave entitlement and take these "sick days" if they haven't used them up.

Really? Where are you getting this information from??

hmmm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Some people get strep throats all the time. Genuinely. Some people get temperatures.

What if you know something is allergies?

Some people get allergies etc ..it looks exactly like cold /flu.

No-one has the answers to all this, the world has changed in the space of a few weeks. Before someone with a cough was a nuisance in a workplace, now they could be transmitting a potentially serious disease to employees and customers.

It may be the case that we get a vaccine in the next 18 months, and everything goes back to "normal". But in the meantime we will have to be more cautious.

If a person has a cough or a fever and can work from home, they should be doing that. If they can't WFH, I'm not sure - but they shouldn't be going to work. There's also people like contractors who only get paid if they turn up for work - they will drag themselves in even if they're sick - that also has to change. And there are the people who take pride in "never having a sick day", and will poison the rest of the workplace to prove how virtuous they are.

It's up to employers to enforce and encourage this in the workplace. Most will be unhappy to have large numbers of their employees forced to go into quarantine (or worse), or to be traced back as a source of infection for customers, if an employee who is sick feels they should be at work.

Hrududu

Where I work we can work from home easily. But we normally don't because its almost frowned upon. I think they reckon people working from home will just take the piss. I hope this attitude changes. If someone has a cold but is able to work, they should just work from home. Its such a pain being in the office when a cold is going around.

blue note

I can be quite bad with hay-fever some years. Very similar to some coronavirus symptoms. I'd say there's a good chance I wouldn't be allowed in the office because people would be uncomfortable with me blowing my nose and sneezing all day beside them.

And if people are sick they shouldn't be going into the office. Coronavirus is actually a great example of this. If I got it it's possible I'd be able to keep working with it. Whereas I could pass it onto someone in he office it could literally be fatal to. A cold is obviously less serious, but I had a girlfriend once upon a time who was a diabetic and an asthmatic and was extremely vulnerable when she was exposed to colds and the like. Someone else might have a runny nose for a couple of days, she could and did a few times end up hospital.

Of course people will take advantage, but there's not much you can do about those people.

Mrsmum

I think employers need to consider having at least one understudy for any vital jobs. Being sick isn't a planned event and if the only person who knows how to actually run the payroll or whatever rings in sick, that's a serious gap to plug. I have been in roles where we all knew bits of each others jobs but not enough to get the job done and for that reason you would drag yourself in on occasion with your leg nearly hanging off and be glad that your colleague did likewise. Also regarding schools, one teacher I know (family member) often spends the whole winter with the sniffles. If teachers can only go in to schools when 100% perfect and now their classes can't be divided up either, that's al whole lot of disruption.

Babooshka

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think employers need to consider having at least one understudy for any vital jobs. Being sick isn't a planned event and if the only person who knows how to actually run the payroll or whatever rings in sick, that's a serious gap to plug. I have been in roles where we all knew bits of each others jobs but not enough to get the job done and for that reason you would drag yourself in on occasion with your leg nearly hanging off and be glad that your colleague did likewise. Also regarding schools, one teacher I know (family member) often spends the whole winter with the sniffles. If teachers can only go in to schools when 100% perfect and now their classes can't be divided up either, that's al whole lot of disruption.

You're absolutely right there. I'm a receptionist and I have to be at work, no one else knows what I know about the most menial things like supplies, facilities etc. things that only I would know - also I am there to let people in etc so for me to be missing impacts everyone. I always feel the pressure, as I have gotten so many huffy sighs in the past if I called sick (not my current employment as I haven't been sick a day yet) Businesses need more continuity and contingency plans for when some of their coal face people are unable to make it to work. Too many places fly by the seat of their pants. I know they can't keep a spare employee in the cupboard but there needs to be less pressure on one person in a company to always show up and be tied to a desk all day. We have moved on from those days, I surely hope.

irishgeo

MerlinSouthDub wrote: »

What you are proposing is very high risk. It seems that the reason children get less severely impacted by covid-19 could be that they have some immunity through the common cold coronavirus.

If we don't let kids go to school when they have mild illness, then they won't catch those mild illnesses from each other and they won't build up immunity from potentially more severe illnesses in the future.

If they are sick, they already have caught whatever virus is going around.

seamus

Babooshka wrote: »

Too many places fly by the seat of their pants. I know they can't keep a spare employee in the cupboard but there needs to be less pressure on one person in a company to always show up and be tied to a desk all day. We have moved on from those days, I surely hope.

Companies, especially small ones, can't afford an understudy for everyone's job.

For a company's main business, the employees carrying out that main business know how to do eachothers' jobs. If you work in a firm of solicitors with ten solicitors, then one solicitor calling in sick is no biggie. You know how to handle their work. If they're going away for a week, then handing over their work for that week to another solicitor is no biggie either.

The issue in companies is around admin & operations. That firm of solicitors will only have need for a single admin person and a single IT person (if even that).

The reality is that these individuals should document their daily/frequent tasks in a way that anyone with a shred of cop on can keep things ticking over for a couple of days. This is harder than it sounds in reality. But it's something that should definitely be done. And companies should practice it constantly. By assigning a specific staff member to be the "backup" for a role, then you're just delaying the issue for the day that both staff members are out.
But if things are documented in a methodical and legible way, then you can draw straws for who gets to sit on reception on any given day that the receptionist is out.

Small companies often see documentation as a waste of time though, don't put much value in it, even though a lack of documentation always becomes the biggest barrier to getting things done when sh1t hits the fan.

Babooshka

seamus wrote: »

Companies, especially small ones, can't afford an understudy for everyone's job.

For a company's main business, the employees carrying out that main business know how to do eachothers' jobs. If you work in a firm of solicitors with ten solicitors, then one solicitor calling in sick is no biggie. You know how to handle their work. If they're going away for a week, then handing over their work for that week to another solicitor is no biggie either.

The issue in companies is around admin & operations. That firm of solicitors will only have need for a single admin person and a single IT person (if even that).

The reality is that these individuals should document their daily/frequent tasks in a way that anyone with a shred of cop on can keep things ticking over for a couple of days. This is harder than it sounds in reality. But it's something that should definitely be done. And companies should practice it constantly. By assigning a specific staff member to be the "backup" for a role, then you're just delaying the issue for the day that both staff members are out.
But if things are documented in a methodical and legible way, then you can draw straws for who gets to sit on reception on any given day that the receptionist is out.

Small companies often see documentation as a waste of time though, don't put much value in it, even though a lack of documentation always becomes the biggest barrier to getting things done when sh1t hits the fan.

Yes you're right and I didn't argue against any of that in my post. The company I work for document everything and I did up the standard operational procedure for them. But when it comes down to it no one wants to sit at reception, why should they (is the general concensus) because it isn't in their job description. That is the attitude in every company I've ever worked in.

froog

this is real difficult one for businesses to manage. you basically have two types of worker;

those who milk every possible opportunity to get off work and don't care how their managers see this.

"martyrs" who come into work even when sick because they think this makes them look good in the eyes of management.

both are bad for business.

titan18

Tbf if you're too sick to come into work, should you be working at all then imo. A headcold is one thing but if you've actually got the flu, you're not going to work through it even staying at home.

suicide_circus

i do be destroyed with hayfever some times. expecting to be condemned as unclean if we ever get back to work!

nelly17

Most places I would think wont take the chance the Government has produced this guide for businesses to follow

rahmalec

You know, not all jobs are in an office that can then be worked from home.

The only thing that would work, in my opinion, is some sort of universal sick leave scheme backed by the government. Something that would apply to all workers, whether they are PAYE, self-employed, zero-contracts, part-time, full-time, contractors with their own companies, or a mix. No matter what industry they're in, with a doctor's cert, they should be able to claim. It should also be based on a worker's current income. That can be self-assessed, based on payslips, a previous year's income or an estimation of current year's income.

nelly17

Would'nt that just be Illness Benifit - which we have

r93kaey5p2izun

This is going to be a big problem for those with hayfever, asthmatic cough etc. In key areas it will mean a shortage of staff. Schools will struggle to stay open for example.

rahmalec

nelly17 wrote: »

Would'nt that just be Illness Benifit - which we have

No because:

- It's a flat rate, not based on the income the person has, so somebody with a high income will still be incentivised to go into work. The purpose is to discourage people going into work.

- It also doesn't apply universally to all workers regardless of how they're employed. This is a problem for all benefits currently. For example, I'm self-employed, am a paye worker in 5 different small jobs, and have my own small company (of which I'm the only employee, so that's paye job number 6!). I rarely qualify for any scheme. I didn't qualify for any covid payment for example, despite losing all work bar 2 hours a week, and because of my industry (events), have cancellations up to November!

storker

rahmalec wrote: »

You know, not all jobs are in an office that can then be worked from home.

The only thing that would work, in my opinion, is some sort of universal sick leave scheme backed by the government. Something that would apply to all workers, whether they are PAYE, self-employed, zero-contracts, part-time, full-time, contractors with their own companies, or a mix. No matter what industry they're in, with a doctor's cert, they should be able to claim. It should also be based on a worker's current income. That can be self-assessed, based on payslips, a previous year's income or an estimation of current year's income.

Given the name and how it's levied, you'd think that's what PRSI would be providing.

Herb Powell

pure.conya wrote: »

Shouldn't somebody sick be avoiding people already, i never understand others insistence on going to work or wanting to call for a visit while sick, no thanks, give me a shout a few days after you're feeling better

pjohnson wrote: »

You would think people would be intelligent enough NOT to go to work sick at the best of times.


If they aren't capable of making that decision all by themseleves then they should be sent home. This is how it always shoulda been.

Not how it works in the real world, lads.

Reality for a lot of people is sick days have to be used carefully because they're either unpaid (on likely an already low-paying job), or severely limited and come with consequences from cunntbag managers even if you do take what you rightfully should. I have been in that situation, it's not nice.

There is actually, as far as I am aware, no legal requirement to provide sick pay in Ireland. So dismissing people who go to work sick as stupid/selfish or "martyrs" ? Cop on to fucck, would ye. As usual, the poorest and most vulnerable getting blamed for society's general lack of giving a shhite.

fly_agaric

Herb Powell wrote: »

Not how it works in the real world, lads.

I expect reality will have changed for a while anyway.
The scum-bag managers will have had a Damascene conversion.
One of their minions starts coughing they'll be running out in a hazmat suit and giving the poor spluttering/hacking worker the bum's rush out of the building!
A collective change of attitude about taking days off sick for colds/flu etc Would be one positive to come out of this mess anyway.

jrosen

For many people who have no sick leave entitlements they will continue to go to work if they need the money.

Rearding schools, yes I think policies have to be changed and enforced. However I have a son with allergies and he regularly sounds like he has a bad dose. Maybe its time we have school nurses.

maxsmum

Herb Powell wrote: »

Not how it works in the real world, lads.

Reality for a lot of people is sick days have to be used carefully because they're either unpaid (on likely an already low-paying job), or severely limited and come with consequences from cunntbag managers even if you do take what you rightfully should. I have been in that situation, it's not nice.

There is actually, as far as I am aware, no legal requirement to provide sick pay in Ireland. So dismissing people who go to work sick as stupid/selfish or "martyrs" ? Cop on to fucck, would ye. As usual, the poorest and most vulnerable getting blamed for society's general lack of giving a shhite.

I might have 10 children booked in a clinic (not a Dr/nurse but still patients who have been waiting months for an assessment) on a given day and I would never cancel it because I have a cold. I don't think it makes me a martyr, but it is worrying how this will progress if I am told I should stay home. Another consequence is if my child is sent home from school with a cold, I now have no grandparents potentially until a vaccine is found to collect him. So both situations will lead to 10 people in one day being rescheduled until god knows when, as we are short staffed as it is in my area.

yerwanthere123

Can't see anything changing in low paying jobs. I work in hospitality, bar having a limb sawn off you're expected to come into work. There's no such thing as sick pay or leave. Last September I'd been vomiting and was assigned to work on a food buffet that 250+ people would be eating from that morning. After much persuasion and arguing with my supervisor she finally relented and agreed that yes, it probably wasn't a good idea to have someone who's clearly sick doing it and put me doing something else. I wasn't sent home. Yes I should probably should have called in sick, but it honestly wouldn't have been worth the hassle/passive aggressive texts/roster meddling that would probably follow. This is the reality for lots of people in their jobs. There'll need to be a big cultural shift in low paying jobs for things to change, but I honestly can't even see a global pandemic changing it.

hmmm

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Can't see anything changing in low paying jobs. I work in hospitality, bar having a limb sawn off you're expected to come into work. There's no such thing as sick pay or leave. Last September I'd been vomiting and was assigned to work on a food buffet that 250+ people would be eating from that morning. After much persuasion and arguing with my supervisor she finally relented and agreed that yes, it probably wasn't a good idea to have someone who's clearly sick doing it and put me doing something else. I wasn't sent home. Yes I should probably should have called in sick, but it honestly wouldn't have been worth the hassle/passive aggressive texts/roster meddling that would probably follow. This is the reality for lots of people in their jobs. There'll need to be a big cultural shift in low paying jobs for things to change, but I honestly can't even see a global pandemic changing it.

When the contact tracers trace the Covid outbreak back to the buffet, and when it hits the paper that 5 of the guests are in ICU, and when the bar is named, and when it emerges the business expects staff to work when sick, it'll be the end of the business. This might need to happen once or twice, but employers will get the message.