Is a period reason to take sick leave?

Bubblefett

When I worked as a manager I had a girl working for me who suffered from awful period pains. My heart went out to her because I used to suffer from crippling back pains before I went on the pill.

I asked her to get me a doctors note to confirm that it's a problem for her to pass onto our HR dept (so they wouldn't have a problem with the amount of absences on her record). When I'd do her roster I'd always try and work around her cycle as best I could and I was always understanding when she called in sick. Becuase I did the best I could for her she never took advantage of my kindess and always made a huge effort to help out with cover whenever possible.

Neyite

Storminateacup wrote: »

I don't understand why going to the doctor would be an issue though, like in Neyites case. She does sound like a complete chancer, just quitting??

I did think she was a chancer, but initially everybody was very compassionate and willing to make allowances, but when she threw her strop and quit, it kind of did make her look really bad.

Worse still, its nearly all male bosses, so it left a bad impression, and probably made them more suspicious of sick days as a result of "wimmins troubles", which is unfortunate for other women in the office who might need to take a day here and there but too afraid to be seen as chancing.

LittleBook wrote: »

Period pain seems to be something that we expect we have to put up with, and I freely admit that when I was younger I had the same attitude ... it was painful but I assumed I was the same as everyone else so I just got on with it, I just thought it was normal.

Until one day I was unable to stand up straight with the pain, I saw my grey face in the mirror and finally clicked that this wasn't "normal", went to the doctor and was diagnosed with polycystic ovaries and never looked back.

Y'see, I do think we put up with it for a while, but then you realise you just cant go on that way and begin to look into it, or maybe as a woman approaches her thirties she may be more aware of the health of her reproductive organs. - in my co-workers case she was 35, having had periods for over 20 years, and (to me anyway) surely she would have at some stage felt the way you did and get a diagnosis if it was genuine.

Storminateacup

To be honest though and Im sorry if it's a little off topic... I suffer with really bad anemia (I get iron transfusions) and each time at the pleb clinic I attend they always ask me if I have heavy periods, which before I started the pill, I did. But it would only be really heavy the first two days and not the entire time.

I mentioned to my GP (male) on 3 different occasions how I was actually fainting and vomitting while on my period and he told me to take motilium and solphadine, to which didn't help me at all.

Before I got pregnant, I started on the pill which has definitely helped me with sickness, I mean it's still bad for cramps but I find even the worst cramps - I can work through.

But tbh - it doesn't really seem to be an issue that (my) doctor seemed all that bothered by. I was never checked for PCOS or anything like that, just told to take painkillers and motilium.

Acoshla

I worked with a girl once who would regularly be found cowering behind display units on her knees with the pain of her cramps, she'd be faint and nauseous, but the manager basically didn't care, he would act like it was a cut on your finger, whilst annoying and a bit sore you should be able to work through it. The rest of us girls used to basically help her hide through her shifts and pick up the work she couldn't do.

Mr. Presentable

OP, if you are too sick for work then you are too sick for work. Bring a doctor's cert and, depending on company policy, be prepared to apply for Welfare for a couple of days every month.

gcgirl

lazygal wrote: »

I didn't have hypermesis-that's the morning sickness that would land you in hospital, I just had some vomiting and a lot of nausea which comes and goes. I guess I've always been a 'just get on with it' person, unless I had a temperature or communicable illness I would always have been sent to school and I am the same with my working life, I've only taken time off for a back injury. I had very painful periods myself and was on the pill for them, but I still went to work. I know some women can't though, physically its not possible, so it is an illness. I just thought it was an interesting debate for the Ladies' Lounge more than anything else!

I used to work in a call centre and had morning sickness(all say sickness really) and I had to leg it from my desk to the toilet only to land 5 feet from the toilet door like the child out of the exercist And puke, ground opening up came to mind they sent me home after that

hightower1

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.

Im not saying men wont get sick im just basing this on the statistical likely hood of biology. If an employer made such a decision they can very easily find the smallest of excuses not to choose the woman , hell they could even say it was so close it was just a blind decision.

28064212

hightower1 wrote: »

Im not saying men wont get sick im just basing this on the statistical likely hood of biology.

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?

LegacyUser

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.

Im not saying men wont get sick im just basing this on the statistical likely hood of biology. If an employer made such a decision they can very easily find the smallest of excuses not to choose the woman , hell they could even say it was so close it was just a blind decision.

The number of women who actually need to take time off due to really bad period pain is actually very very low. I've worked 10+ years in a number of different companies with very balanced mixes of genders and honestly the sick days taken are usually pretty balanced all round. You'll always get the assortment of piss takers always calling in sick friday cus they're hung over etc etc but if I was asked to pick between two people to hire I'd more inclined to not hire someone with young kids as in my department right now there's 7 people - 5 have kids and all 5 have taken a high number of half days or full days off to pick up sick kids from nursery or bring older kids to the doctor etc [all 5 are male BTW] Just today one of the lads didn't show up until after 2 as his son was up all night teething.

If you've two people with the same CVs and backgrounds then that means they've both had the same attendance record for their pervious jobs so if you've a reference saying Mrs. X has exemplary attendance record you can't go assuming "well she's a women therefore will take time off once a month" without opening yourself up to all sorts of discrimination acquisitions.

LittleBook

hightower1 wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to choose the male as ... no chance of him needing maternitly leave for months.

And this is why equal rights regarding paternity leave is just as important for women as it is for men.

hightower1

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

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

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.

28064212

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.