Afraid to call in sick. :(

smcgiff wrote: »

What, that there's no employees on Work Problems? Do you think?

There are only two people on here that have a problem with BTWIs. One admits that duvet days are a perk and it's the company's fault for him taking them. Not the best support there tbh.

That leaves you, and you've steadfastly ignored all the examples of where BTWI were suggested as good ideas. Yet, you cannot even accept them.

Now now - I didn't say that but do take a look back through this thread

I think you forgot about the OP...

I have explained 'where' I believed BTWI might be of use. I do not believe the regular use of these is good management practice or that they necessarily foster a good working environment. Remember employees are not going to say this to your face. I have nothing to loose here tbh - you can take my opinion on this or otherwise. But yes I am very curious about the apparent number of employer representatives hanging around this thread in particular.

gozunda wrote: »

That's my point - they are not "bursts" but singular instances there is a difference

I don't agree ....regarding terminating contracts I recommend you read up on the requirement of employers to show that absences are overt or in excess - to avoid potential legal action.

I thought the argument being given here that BTWI were for the 'good' of the employee - the story seems to be changing just a bit much tbh.... I don't agree they will Be 'of benefit' to everyone including the employers lawyers !

Seriously where we have an OP afraid of this process - then this should fly a red flag tbh...

I admire you persistance but you're simply blinkered. Knowing where you stand is of benefit to all. I never asserted the BTWI where for the individual employees benefit alone so I don't know where you're getting the story changing from.

I assume you work for a massive organisation rather than a mom and pop. Even an SME might not survive the insurance hike from a decent claim. How is it better that everyone is out of work becuase managers didn't do their job properly.

How is it better for the employee that got injured?

The only thing people have to fear from BTWIs is hearing that their absence is out of whack with others. They then get an oppitunity to explain. I'm still missing how this is bad.

The only people it's bad for is the ones that take frequent short absences. They are a minority and generally have a higher probability of bring non-genuine. Even if they are genuine they're not fuffilling their contracts and deserve to be fired in favour of someone that will.

gozunda wrote: »

That is what a good manager should be doing imo. Checking in sure. Not a "Back to Work Interview"...

Regarding the number of views on what posters think of BTWI -there appears to be a lot of management / employers on here from there own description of their roles etc. Makes one think tbh...

See it's really weird when discussing with you.

When your think I'm an employer you disagree with me about checking in with someone. But when you find out I'm an employee you are okay with a check in.

There appears to be a massive chip on your shoulder against employers from the description of your opinions.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

....

Those short bursts would actually be worse than one long one. I think the calculation used is called the Bradford factor but I'm open to correction. It's perfectly legitimate to terminate someones employment over absenteeism.

I simply disagree with your last point I'm afraid. BTWI are there for everyone's benefit. There are a myriad of legal reasons why they sould be done.

EDIT: The further control thing is absolutely correct - thats exactly what they are. That's not neccesarily a bad thing.

That's my point - they are not "bursts" but singular instances there is a difference

I don't agree ....regarding terminating contracts I recommend you read up on the requirement of employers to show that absences are overt or in excess - to avoid potential legal action.

I thought the argument being given here that BTWI were for the 'good' of the employee - the story seems to be changing just a bit much tbh.... I don't agree they will Be 'of benefit' to everyone including the employers lawyers !

Seriously where we have an OP afraid of this process - then this should fly a red flag tbh...

smcgiff wrote: »

Erm, was that the give them enough rope strategy ?

No comment lest context be lost!

I've saved more than I've fired so all in all my conscience is clear.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I got HR to increase it to 12 for one year - of course matey took 12 that year.

Erm, was that the give them enough rope strategy ?

gozunda wrote: »

That is what a good manager should be doing imo. Checking in sure. Not a "Back to Work Interview"...

Regarding the number of views on what posters think of BTWI -there appears to be a lot of management / employers on here from there own description of their roles etc. Makes one think tbh...

The vast majority of people manage someone at some point in their career. To be fair that gives you a perspective you perhaps lack. Unfourtunately as it is for people like me that detest paperwork and formal meetings. EAT, HR and various other bodies don't take someones word for it that the employee you've put in a wheelchair for the rest of his life was properly risk assessed by having a wee chat while having a smoke.

Before you tell me I'm exagerating - there are a huge number of claims over injuries based on manual handeling injuries to some degree or another.

gozunda wrote: »

Regarding the number of views on what posters think of BTWI -there appears to be a lot of management / employers on here from there own description of their roles etc. Makes one think tbh...

What, that there's no employees on Work Problems? Do you think?

There are only two people on here that have a problem with BTWIs. One admits that duvet days are a perk and it's the company's fault for him taking them. Not the best support there tbh.

That leaves you, and you've steadfastly ignored all the examples of where BTWI were suggested as good ideas. Yet, you cannot even accept them.

smcgiff wrote: »

Wait until the government brings in legislation that companies have to pay (something) towards sick leave. Probably not full pay, but this will bring absent employees even more under the spotlight.

And if a company simply relies on a Doctor's cert then you'd have to fear for them.

I have to say I think you're misunderstanding the process, with the greatest respect. You never doubt the sickness was genuine (okay yes you do but you keep it to yourself) you just assess whether the person if off more than the average. You try and address that then obviously.

That said the end result will be the same - it will become more tighly controlled. To be honest any company I ever worked for used to pay staff full pay for X number of days*. I know the bastards!!! :pac:

*I know this will make me seem like a heartless bar-steward but I'm going to post it anyway. A lad in one of the stores I had some oversight on used to take ten days sick every year. I got HR to increase it to 12 for one year - of course matey took 12 that year. He wasn't there the next; and I can assure you a BTWI was not part of the process in getting rid of him. That said it was part of the process in informing him that he was at something like 200% the Irish rate. Unfourtunely it didn't make hime even think twice about calling in sick - let alone worried about it.

amdublin wrote: »

There is no presumption this will turn into a long term thing, but personally as an employee I'd like to think that my boss might check in with me without it having to go to "long term"/before it went long term.

That is what a good manager should be doing imo. Checking in sure. Not a "Back to Work Interview"...

Regarding the number of views on what posters think of BTWI -there appears to be a lot of management / employers on here from there own description of their roles etc. Makes one think tbh...

Procrastastudy wrote: »

we're posatively socialist in all honesty.

Wait until the government brings in legislation that companies have to pay (something) towards sick leave. Probably not full pay, but this will bring absent employees even more under the spotlight.

And if a company simply relies on a Doctor's cert then you'd have to fear for them.

gozunda wrote: »

Simply because employees are human. Having BTWI for short absences where an employee has been out sick is completely OTT. More often than otherwise employees may a few days sick. Where is the presumption that this will always develop into long term from?A decent manager should be looking after their reports. Instead we have a Back To Work Interview where in this situation the OP is afraid to call in sick when they are in fact sick.

Look if you want to look at this way. What has been highlighted here by the OP and others should at least give some employers and employer representatives on here some pause for thought. Your own employees are unlikely to be able to tell you what they really think to your face. So maybe take this thread and really see what others are saying about BTWIs.

On paper they may look pretty - in the hands of some employers they may become nothing more than a blunt instrument.

There is no presumption this will turn into a long term thing, but personally as an employee I'd like to think that my boss might check in with me without it having to go to "long term"/before it went long term.

gozunda wrote: »

Simply because employees are human. Having BTWI for short absences where an employee has been out sick is completely OTT. A decent manager should be looking after their reports. Instead we have a Back To Work Interview where in this situation the OP is afraid to call in sick when they are in fact sick.

Look if you want to look at this way. What has been highlighted here by the OP and others should at least give some employers and employer representatives on here some pause for thought. Your own employees are unlikely to be able to tell you what they really think to your face. So maybe take this thread and really see what others are saying about BTWIs.

On paper they may look pretty - in the hands of some employees they may become nothing more than a blunt instrument.

While the minority view isnt always wrong it should give you pause for thought. I only count two people on tis thread with the opinion BTWIs are a bad thing.

Any procedure can, of course, be abused. That's were unions and employee rights come into play. However with rights come duties. Ireland has it pretty spot on IMHO. Look at whats being intorduced into the UK. Look at the US approach - we're posatively socialist in all honesty.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Stress is an excellent example. Generally a GP won't sign someone off with stress intially - it will be exhustion or something else. The BTWI allows you to read between the lines and address an issue if you can.

The bad back mentioned above is a "case in point example" - even doctors find it very hard/impossible to prove sore backs/necks (ask any insurance company!), so you would HAVE to meet with the employee when they return to work to see if they think they are fit to continue as they would be the best person to decide whether they are fit to continue.

double post - ignore

amdublin wrote: »

Okay so you are okay with them when they are related to long term absence. But why wait until it's long term. Why would an employer not try help their employee to prevent it becoming a long term thing. Better for both parties IMO

Simply because employees are human. Having BTWI for short absences where an employee has been out sick is completely OTT. More often than otherwise the majority of employees may a few days sick. Where is the presumption that this will always develop into long term from?A decent manager should be looking after their reports. Instead we have a Back To Work Interview where in this situation the OP is afraid to call in sick when they are in fact sick.

Generally I think it is quite ironic that medical professionals ethics and employee behaviour are being so publicly rubbished here - especially considering some of the highly unethical practices demonstrated by employers through the labour court and EAT on a regular basis

Look if you want to look at this way. What has been highlighted here by the OP and others should at least give some employers and employer representatives on here some pause for thought. Your own employees are unlikely to be able to tell you what they really think to your face. So maybe take this thread and really see what others are saying about BTWIs.

On paper they may look pretty - in the hands of some employers they may become nothing more than a blunt instrument.

Eoin wrote: »

I've posted a simple example a few posts above; you can start there.

Another example could be mental health issues. A lot of sick certs are very vague, and might say something like "stress". Stress is generally a symptom of something, not an illness. Did an issue at work trigger something? Is it likely to happen again? Is there anything the manager can do to help the employee? and so on.

Stress is an excellent example. Generally a GP won't sign someone off with stress intially - it will be exhustion or something else. The BTWI allows you to read between the lines and address an issue if you can.

amdublin wrote: »

Here's another example.
Joe Bloggs has been off sick for a week. He's currently on probation Reason on the cert is "stress". On his return to work Joe's manager checks in with him how he is. Joe tells his manager that to be honest he's been finding it hard starting a new job and is finding things stressful - particularly in relation to x task and dealing with y. Joe's manager says she was not aware of this and promises to get him more training on those tasks. She also suggests a buddy/mentor support for Joe.

Good example - I just posted something similar before I read that, but yours is a much neater example.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What issues? Sickness is sickness full stop and you don't have to explain yourself if you already have a cert.

I've posted a simple example a few posts above; you can start there.

Another example could be mental health issues. A lot of sick certs are very vague, and might say something like "stress". Stress is generally a symptom of something, not an illness. Did an issue at work trigger something? Is it likely to happen again? Is there anything the manager can do to help the employee? and so on.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

you don't have to explain yourself if you already have a cert.

Says who? If your employer has it in your contract and you sign it then you have to.

And as has been discussed you don't need to be sick to get a doctor to give you a sick cert.

It's as if you're saying you have a right to abuse your employer and crying if they don't agree you have that right.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What issues? Sickness is sickness full stop and you don't have to explain yourself if you already have a cert. Issues are things like work being delayed or dangerous equipment etc not the normal human condition of getting sick have you never been sick in your life? I certainly would hate to have you as a boss if those are the hoops you make people jump through when they are sick

You're going over the same ground not suggesting what you think is reasonable.

gozunda wrote: »

We are talking about short amounts of non continuous absences. Not terminating contracts. I don't agree about the risk assessment tbh - the description appears to have changes from interview to friendly meeting (!) to risk assessment to "further control"

Tbh I believe employers are taking the proverbial on this where they are used for anything other than exceptional long term absences

Those short bursts would actually be worse than one long one. I think the calculation used is called the Bradford factor but I'm open to correction. It's perfectly legitimate to terminate someones employment over absenteeism.

I simply disagree with your last point I'm afraid. BTWI are there for everyone's benefit. There are a myriad of legal reasons why they sould be done.

EDIT: The further control thing is absolutely correct - thats exactly what they are. That's not neccesarily a bad thing.

gozunda wrote: »

We are talking about short amounts of non continuous absences. Not terminating contracts. I don't agree about the risk assessment tbh - the description appears to have changes from interview to friendly meeting (!) to risk assessment to "further control"

Tbh I believe employers are taking the proverbial on this where they are used for anything other than exceptional long term absences

Okay so you are okay with them when they are related to long term absence. But why wait until it's long term. Why would an employer not try help their employee to prevent it becoming a long term thing. Better for both parties IMO

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow you like to insult people who don't agree with you eh calling me a moron and stating I'm talking out of my backside its your workers I feel sorry for having you for a boss. Oh hang on they love you isn't that right? I don't think there should be an alternative to back to work interview its a heavy handed way to suggest never getting sick a doctor has already signed you off and that's more than enough and for the record its you who are in the minority if you think more than five sick days a yr is strange its perfectly normal.

I said you'd be a moron of you thought that I didn't call you a moron. I thought we were putting the false outrage aside here.

How do you risk assess an employee with 'back injury' without interviewing them? I'm, genuinely, interested in your input.

Eoin wrote: »

That's probably the norm, and I think there might be a specific number of days to apply for social welfare while out sick. But that doesn't preclude an employer for requesting a sick cert for a shorter absence (especially for someone who takes short sick leaves on a regular basis).

RE: the back to work interviews. Here's a really simple example.

Joe Bloggs has been off sick for a week because of a bad back. Joe has to occasionally move boxes as part of his job. When Joe returns to work, his manager should use the interview to check things like if Joe is able to lift heavy items now he's back in work or needs to wait a while / if Joe has had the necessary training or guidance in handling heavy items at work / if Joe originally hurt his back during work / if Joe needs any assistance or equipment at work etc.

None of that has to be confrontational or accusatory. Rename "back to work interview" with "meeting to catch up" and that gives a better idea of what they're normally about.

Here's another example.
Joe Bloggs has been off sick for a week. He's currently on probation Reason on the cert is "stress". On his return to work Joe's manager checks in with him how he is. Joe tells his manager that to be honest he's been finding it hard starting a new job and is finding things stressful - particularly in relation to x task and dealing with y. Joe's manager says she was not aware of this and promises to get him more training on those tasks. She also suggests a buddy/mentor support for Joe.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

No employer would. However what they are entitled to do is look at how X employee is absent vs others and terminate a contract on the basis that X is out a lot more than everyone else. The BTWI process is part of ensuring that X is given every oppitunity and warning to get themselfs sorted - or at the very least explain the issues.

Also what an employer MUST do - legally- is based on the medical cert or professional advice is risk assess. One of the mst effective ways of doing that is to interview.

We are talking about short amounts of non continuous absences. Not terminating contracts. I don't agree about the risk assessment tbh - the description appears to have changes from interview to friendly meeting (!) to risk assessment to "further control"

Tbh I believe employers are taking the proverbial on this where they are used for anything other than exceptional long term absences

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

No employer would. However what they are entitled to do is look at how X employee is absent vs others and terminate a contract on the basis that X is out a lot more than everyone else. The BTWI process is part of ensuring that X is given every oppitunity and warning to get themselfs sorted - or at the very least explain the issues.

Also what an employer MUST do - legally- is based on the medical cert or professional advice is risk assess. One of the mst effective ways of doing that is to interview.

What issues? Sickness is sickness full stop and you don't have to explain yourself if you already have a cert. Issues are things like work being delayed or dangerous equipment etc not the normal human condition of getting sick have you never been sick in your life? I certainly would hate to have you as a boss if those are the hoops you make people jump through when they are sick

gozunda wrote: »

Wow where do you work - I have never seen days not worked eg (sat & sun) being counted for the purpose of sick days. Every company I have worked for required a cert from the third day. I believe that is standard practice - hence the word "standard" and not "universal" etc

I don't work anywhere anymore. I was a retail manager for ten years. I saw more and more draconian sickness policies brought in due to higher and higher costs in regard to sick pay. That meant that either a) people were getting less healthy b) people's attitude to sickness was changing. I think most employes went with b).

I will say I did notice it moving from Scotland to here. People are much more likely to phone in sick in Ireland (anecdotaly) to a certain extent it's just a cultral thing. Oddly enough the Irish workforce also had a reputaion for working harder when they did show up however.

Most retailers would ask for 3 days certified absence where those days included days off. Why? becuase most people taking the mickey with sick days would do it before or after their regular days off.

Less of the personal remarks please people

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

For goodness sake man - the reason so many people have the same attitude to me is its the norm. You've the one with an out of whack sense of whats right.

You're right on one thing lets cut the crap, both of us. You think one thing I think another. To be fair if you look over the posts it's quite clear who started the faux outrage.

I feel sorry for you I really do. If you've managers who don't recognice people for five years without an absence you've some pretty poor managers. That said thats five years doing what they're paid to do and adhering to their contract.

Okay now you really are talking non-sense; the above is the perfect reason for a BTWI. Thats a pretty poor union you belong to if they aren't addressing workplace stress before it gets to the point of someone being signed off sick. Is it perhaps that the union hold a similar opinion to you are when faced with the relaities of what is reasonable sickness and practices surround same simply dig their heels in and refuse to see sense.

Even if we disagree on length of time that is reasonable in a year for sickness you've still not addressed how you'd replace a BTWI.

I'm sorry but you're just a moron if you think "Back injury" doesn't require someone to look further into the issue if a company gives two hoots about it's employees.

Wow you like to insult people who don't agree with you eh calling me a moron and stating I'm talking out of my backside its your workers I feel sorry for having you for a boss. Oh hang on they love you isn't that right? I don't think there should be an alternative to back to work interview its a heavy handed way to suggest never getting sick a doctor has already signed you off and that's more than enough and for the record its you who are in the minority if you think more than five sick days a yr is strange its perfectly normal.