Is a period reason to take sick leave?

hightower1 · 15-02-2012 4:48pm

28064212 wrote: »

Have you actually looked into the statistics of male/female sick-leave? Simple example: many more men play sports than women. I know within my own group of friends who play football together, we've had to take a combined total of a month (approx.) off work due to football-related injuries in the last 18 months. That's sick-leave that, statistically, men are more likely to end up taking

Have you factored that into your decision? Or are you just going with a gut feeling that women are more likely to take sick-leave?

If you read my post again you will see that the two applicants in question are identical in every way except their sex so any football injuries one may be likely to have the other will be likely to have also (should you like to bring pysical activity as a factor) BUT the main diffence being here that the female applicant will be given more biological hurdles to overcome in order to make it into work on an ongoing basis not including the likelyhood of pregnancy leave. As i said.... if both applicants are identical in EVERY way including their past time activities, the only dividing factor is their biology... I'd be less likely to choose the female based on that.

Again, Im not trolling, just giving an honest opinion with no attitude intended. I know how these subjects tend to get jumeped on by the more "sensitive" members here.

tiny_penguin · 15-02-2012 4:53pm

hightower1 wrote: »

If you read my post again you will see that the two applicants in question are identical in every way except their sex so any football injuries one may be likely to have the other will be likely to have also (should you like to bring pysical activity as a factor) BUT the main diffence being here that the female applicant will be given more biological hurdles to overcome in order to make it into work on an ongoing basis not including the likelyhood of pregnancy leave. As i said.... if both applicants are identical in EVERY way including their past time activities, the only dividing factor is their biology... I'd be less likely to choose the female based on that.

Again, m not trolling, ust giving an honest opinion with no attitude intended. I know how these subjects tend to get jumeped on by the more "sensitive" members here.

What is the likelihood of this situation happening? How will you ever find out if their pastime activities are identical? You will never know enough about a persons private life to really know anyway - so you are basically saying you would choose a man over a woman for a job. You are putting conditions on this that are impossible to know for sure in an interview situation. In the office i work on, the men tend to take far more sick leave than the women. Not saying its like that everywhere - but you just dont know with individual candidates.

Ophiopogon · 15-02-2012 4:56pm

hightower1 wrote: »

If you read my post again you will see that the two applicants in question are identical in every way except their sex so any football injuries one may be likely to have the other will be likely to have also (should you like to bring pysical activity as a factor) BUT the main diffence being here that the female applicant will be given more biological hurdles to overcome in order to make it into work on an ongoing basis not including the likelyhood of pregnancy leave. As i said.... if both applicants are identical in EVERY way including their past time activities, the only dividing factor is their biology... I'd be less likely to choose the female based on that.

Again, Im not trolling, just giving an honest opinion with no attitude intended. I know how these subjects tend to get jumeped on by the more "sensitive" members here.

The prob (apart from everything else) with that though is not every woman has a bad period and most may only have one or two a year and even then may not take a sick day so you may be choosing a man over a woman because she may take two sick days off a year.

Also unless someone has a current cordition at the time of interview there is no way to know how many sick days they will take.

15-02-2012 4:57pm

hightower1 wrote: »

If you read my post again you will see that the two applicants in question are identical in every way except their sex so any football injuries one may be likely to have the other will be likely to have also (should you like to bring pysical activity as a factor) BUT the main diffence being here that the female applicant will be given more biological hurdles to overcome in order to make it into work on an ongoing basis not including the likelyhood of pregnancy leave. As i said.... if both applicants are identical in EVERY way including their past time activities, the only dividing factor is their biology... I'd be less likely to choose the female based on that.

Making the big assumption that you know everything about their life. I assumed you were talking about a likely scenario, where you have a limited amount of information available.

Even so, men are more likely to suffer from a range of afflictions, such as heart disease. So have you actually done any study in this area to find out whether women-dominated afflictions cause more sick days than male-dominated ones?

Thoie · 15-02-2012 5:01pm

hightower1 wrote: »

If im being totally honest if I were interviewing and reviewing 2 applicants for a postion, both with identical experience and could bring the same things to the table that I would look for..... I'd be more inclined to choose the male as he would have a lower likelyhood for taking time off sick every month and no chance of him needing maternitly leave for months.

Not trying to change your mind, but you do understand the reason it's being discussed is because it's rare that someone misses work monthly because of periods? When interviewing, I'd try to put sex out of my mind, as you have no idea whether a woman wants/can have children. Men are also eligible for parental leave these days, so unbeknownst to you, you could reject the woman who doesn't have periods and can't have children in favour of the man with 7 kids under the age of 8, who will take 14 weeks parental leave every year for 7 years.

Mr. Presentable · 15-02-2012 5:16pm

28064212 wrote: »

Making the big assumption that you know everything about their life. I assumed you were talking about a likely scenario, where you have a limited amount of information available.

Even so, men are more likely to suffer from a range of afflictions, such as heart disease. So have you actually done any study in this area to find out whether women-dominated afflictions cause more sick days than male-dominated ones?

There are plenty of studies which show women take up to 50% more sick days on average. Here's one:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4241746&page=1

Ickle Magoo · 15-02-2012 5:21pm

Presumably that's not due to women getting more illnesses but being more likely to sick-days? That said, I'm not convinced that not taking time off due to sickness is a good thing.

Perhaps being more likely to take time off to visit a doctor and recuperate goes part of the way to explaining why women live longer?

On-topic...

Yes, I think a period is reason to take sick leave, if it's severe enough that the women is unable to work properly then I don't see why it should be a case of puting up and shutting up - but I'd expect a doctors line and hope some efforts are made to rectify the situation as I would with any other chronic illness.

hightower1 · 15-02-2012 5:52pm

Thoie wrote: »

Not trying to change your mind, but you do understand the reason it's being discussed is because it's rare that someone misses work monthly because of periods? When interviewing, I'd try to put sex out of my mind, as you have no idea whether a woman wants/can have children. Men are also eligible for parental leave these days, so unbeknownst to you, you could reject the woman who doesn't have periods and can't have children in favour of the man with 7 kids under the age of 8, who will take 14 weeks parental leave every year for 7 years.

In my example I states that the applicants are identical in every way i.e. they have the same amount of kids at the same ages so its an equal playing field.... except for their sex. The point I would think of in my own mind is in escapible... that women do suffer from a few days every month that they are more likely than their male counterparts to take off sick. Its just a fact of life... women get periods and men do not, periods make you more likely to take those said days off. Pregnancy also is a factor where women are more likely to take months off where men would only take days (from an employers POV).

Im not commenting on a females work ethic or ability just contrasting the male and female biology in a lab example where two subjects are equal in every single way execpt for their sex so as to isolate sex as the only determining factor. Once you isolate that as the only determining factor and the pros and cons of the biology of the aplicants in regards to their sex the pros favour the men while cons weigh heavily on the females.

It may sound very clinical but I want to make it clear that this is not a flame or troll post, I am clarifiying the obvious is all.

The amount of people here jumping on my post clearly comes accross as a very militant attitude here and doesnt bode the best for the forum tbh. I see my own missus take days off work every month for her TOM and its hard not to feel sorry for her, it looks agonising. On the other hand I can see it from her employers POV as a man wouldnt be calling in sick for his TOM and they would be out less money. At the very least they would have more rights for action against an male employee taking such an amount of sick days off as he wouldnt be calling with his TOM reason - of which they can take no action. I personally think anyone that feels the need to take time off sick for their TOM shuold do so but use that time to visit a GP, get certs and make it clear on any job application under "is there any ongoing medical issues that may cause loss of service" - yes, and explain the situation as a verified medically proven issue as per their GP.

Eviledna · 15-02-2012 5:56pm

hightower1 wrote: »

If im being totally honest if I were interviewing and reviewing 2 applicants for a postion, both with identical experience and could bring the same things to the table that I would look for..... I'd be more inclined to choose the male as he would have a lower likelyhood for taking time off sick every month and no chance of him needing maternitly leave for months.

Thats all based on both applicants being identical in every way aside from their sex. Its harsh but its just a fact of life tbh. Not trolling just giving an honest opinion on an interesting topic.

If you are ever in that position, please be aware that to do what you described is called gender-based discrimination and you would be leaving yourself wide open to legal action, if discovered.

I know it's common and is sadly very hard to prove though. But to openly state that you would discriminate against a person for a position that is "identical in every way aside from their sex" you should be aware that is against the law. Check out www.equality.ie for more information.

Ophiopogon · 15-02-2012 6:05pm

hightower1 wrote: »

In my example I states that the applicants are identical in every way i.e. they have the same amount of kids at the same ages so its an equal playing field.... except for their sex. The point I would think of in my own mind is in escapible... that women do suffer from a few days every month that they are more likely than their male counterparts to take off sick. Its just a fact of life... women get periods and men do not, periods make you more likely to take those said days off. Pregnancy also is a factor where women are more likely to take months off where men would only take days (from an employers POV).

Im not commenting on a females work ethic or ability just contrasting the male and female biology in a lab example where two subjects are equal in every single way execpt for their sex so as to isolate sex as the only determining factor. Once you isolate that as the only determining factor and the pros and cons of the biology of the aplicants in regards to their sex the pros favour the men while cons weigh heavily on the females.

It may sound very clinical but I want to make it clear that this is not a flame or troll post, I am clarifiying the obvious is all.

The amount of people here jumping on my post clearly comes accross as a very militant attitude here and doesnt bode the best for the forum tbh. I see my own missus take days off work every month for her TOM and its hard not to feel sorry for her, it looks agonising. On the other hand I can see it from her employers POV as a man wouldnt be calling in sick for his TOM and they would be out less money. At the very least they would have more rights for action against an male employee taking such an amount of sick days off as he wouldnt be calling with his TOM reason - of which they can take no action. I personally think anyone that feels the need to take time off sick for their TOM shuold do so but use that time to visit a GP, get certs and make it clear on any job application under "is there any ongoing medical issues that may cause loss of service" - yes, and explain the situation as a verified medically proven issue as per their GP.

I'm not jumping on this post btw, just responding hope it doesn't freak you out

If you ever end up in position where everything about two applicants are exactly the same except for sex than you have your answer...but in the real world this never happens, one applicant may have more quaifications, less personable etc.

Do you acknowledge though the point that keeps coming up that not all women take sick days for periods and very rarely every month

drkpower · 15-02-2012 6:12pm

hightower1 wrote: »

It may sound very clinical but I want to make it clear that this is not a flame or troll post, I am clarifiying the obvious is all.

I dont think you are trolling.

I just think that your point, such as you have one, offers nothing.

First, you are simply making up a never-will-exist hypothetical and giving your view on something that will never ever happen. So its useless for reason A.

Secondly, even if your hypothetical ever did happen, it is entirely flawed. You are stating that, all things being equal, you would not employ the woman because of a single negative related to her being a woman. But you dont for a moment consider any potential positives of her being a woman, and what that might bring to the job. As an employer, that would be an utterly foolish stance to take. So its useless for reason B.

Just in case you dont get why your stance is essentially useless, take a quick analogy: faced with an avid footballer and a non-footballer applying for the same job; they are equal in all other respects - would you decide not to employ the footballer as he is more likely to suffer from sports-related injuries? Or would you consider any other factors that the footballer might bring to the job (over and above the non-footballer)?

Honey-ec · 15-02-2012 6:13pm

I've never taken a sick day for my period in my life and I'm not planning to have kids. Best hope I never end up interviewing in front of hightower1, though.

Malari · 15-02-2012 6:18pm

Honey-ec wrote: »

I've never taken a sick day for my period in my life and I'm not planning to have kids. Best hope I never end up interviewing in front of hightower1, though.

Me either. If I'm ever in a position where I'm interviewed I could of course state my good attendance record, but I doubt claiming to be terminally child-free would be much use considering the incredulous reaction I get when I mention it in social circles.

Is a period reason to take sick leave?

Comments