Afraid to call in sick. :(

hattoncracker · 26-12-2012 10:14pm

ulyssescohen wrote: »

It would be helpful if the OP came back and provided an update. I'm sure that there are many people in the same boat - and it would be helpful to have some sort of resolution. If not the thread should be closed.

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Stheno · 26-12-2012 10:18pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Are you getting proper treatment for the pneumonia?

And has your doctor advised you to stay out of work?

Wicklowandy · 26-12-2012 10:19pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Hey, you accused ME of racism and you didnt even know what you were talking about, get a bit of sense whoever you are..:rolleyes:

As for the post about Back To Work Interviews, I maintain its just another subtle way to bully the employee and send a strong message, albeit hidden, that you should never go out sick as you have the hassle of, in many companies, filling out the BTWI form, explaining the reason for your absence and going to the company doctor who only wants to hear that you are 100% fit and able for full duties. Its a disgraceful way to treat someone, you can be damn sure that if a pregnant woman was treated like that on her return from maternity leave there would be uproar and new discrimination laws would be enforced but employees are easy prey when they take sick leave, I dont blame people for taking sick leave from stress when they are treated like this on return to work...employers want it all- employees to be there 24/7 and never take a sick day but they dont provide any support when people inevitably do get sick and need leave...:rolleyes:

No, i didnt, and i spelled that out by quoting the post that i was talking about. If you took the wrong impression, i apologise.

Try and read what someone posts, before taking the high horse. The poster i was criticising seems ignorant of his responsibilities to health and safety as an employer.

Wanderer2010 · 26-12-2012 10:22pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Wow thats terrible, telling you to watch the sick days, you cant help being sick for God sake :rolleyes: If this is how they treat you now, can you imagine asking for some holidays (your right) or if you have an accident down the line, they sound a right unreasonable employer in my opinion. I do sympathise OP because you are in a delicate stage of employment and need to pay bills etc but make sure you that if you are not able to go to work then dont do it, your health is your wealth and you dont want to be collapsing mid job, I wish you the best.

hattoncracker · 26-12-2012 10:24pm

Stheno wrote: »

Are you getting proper treatment for the pneumonia?

And has your doctor advised you to stay out of work?

I'm on really strong antibiotics, I've only had to work 2 days since I got diagnosed last Thursday so I've been resting a lot, apart from the travelling. She wasn't too happy about me working, but I would feel worse at home sick with worry, than I was in work not having to worry about jeopardizing my job.
Slowly gettin better... I've had it before, and this isn't as bad as last time so thank goodness for small miracles.

Mrs OBumble · 26-12-2012 11:45pm

ulyssescohen wrote: »

I've said it before - and I'll say it again - this thread has gone way off topic.

ModNote:

The thread has certainly spawned a lot of discussion.

But the OP is still being considered, and has replied. And I think that the other discussion is useful in terms of helping people understand the other side's perspective of related issues.

I've been watching as well as participating, and I think that at least one of the other mods has been too.

There are a couple of comments (from both sides) that are close to the line in terms of uncivilized - but the person they were directed at doesn't seem to have taken offence so I haven't seen a need to take any actions.

I don't see any problems at the moment - but as always if anyone thinks that particular comments are problem, please use the Report Post button.

Mrs OBumble · 26-12-2012 11:58pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Unions should be in every work-place, government funded and joined by all. However, and I come from a family heavily involved in the UK printing unions, the best unions work with management to ensure procedure are in-place that best solve problems not taking an adverserial approach. A good union would insist on a properly conducted BTWI.

Ahh, government funded? Isn't the whole point of unionism to be collective voice for the workforce, funded and organised by them? If the government funds it, then surely it cannot be a genuine worker collective???

Also, you do realise that unions can often be bigger bullies than employers? I don't have links at hand, but there are some dramatic stories of unions being blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic etc. And they often have a strong preference for full-time jobs - even if that's not what would suit the employers or some members of the workforce.

That said, I do believe in the principles of union membership. Did three years as a local delegate, and continued to belong even long after the union was likely to be able to do anything for me, due to the role I was in. But they're no panacea for all the wrongs of workplaces.

gozunda · 27-12-2012 3:07am

hattoncracker wrote: »

I went back on the Wednesday, had my interview and was told that I need to watch the sick days and do everything I can to prevent being sick again.
I have pneumonia now and I haven't called in sick since and I'm back tomorrow after Christmas.

As for probation, I won't know for a few months but I'm not as optimistic as I was.

Sorry I missed your post HC. Pneumonia is no joke - mind yourself . Not too sure how anyone 'prevent' themselves getting sick tbh when individuals do and can get sick - some employers need to get over themselves and realise that employees are not machines and do get sick from time to time.

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Mind yourself.

Hope you feel better soon.

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 10:23am

OP - I hope you feel better soon. It is an unfortunate situation to find yourself in.

However, I would just like to remind everyone, that OP's original 2 days 'sick' leave, were not actually sick leave at all, but personal leave to attend to his sick mother. Had OP taken the time as per its true purpose and not sick leave, he would most likely not have been subjected to a BTWI, nor would there be 2 instances of sick leave in such quick succession.

OP, can I suggest perhaps, that you discuss this with your supervisor. Ask is it possible to change the 2 days you were off due to your mum's illness to unpaid leave or even if they will permit it as force majeure (although they may not allow FM but some companies are more generous as to what they consider FM than others, so worth a try). If they agree, then at least at the end of the probation, you will only have had one instance of illness and not two.

In the future, if you genuinely are not well enough to go to work, then don't be a martyr - take the time off. I know it is stressful wondering if it will affect your probation, but at the end of the day, your probation decision will be based on other factors, and not sick leave alone. The best you can do is that when you are in work that you perform to your utmost abilities and let your work speak for you. Hopefully it will speak louder than the sick leave. Also, pneumonia is not a mild illness so you should not be suspected of faking it. And I doubt that this will be the case.

As I mentioned before, I would guess that all your sick leave etc is entered into a matrix for assessment purposes. Your direct supervisor is most likely just following procedure. In fact, I would be fairly certain, that your supervisor is also assessed on their performance in regards to monitoring HR issues and following procedures, so it is not personal, they are just doing their job. This is standard practice in call centre environments, where the very nature of the work and the average age of the staff tends to increase the number of duvet days if sickness leave is not monitored and attended to. So as long as you can convince your supervisor that you do have a good work ethic and that you are considerate of the fact that unscheduled leave can place other team members under pressure then you should be ok. Remember, they were reasonable enough to allow you time off to look after your mum, so they might not be as black as some posters paint them to be, just because they conduct BTWI.

Good luck and I hope you feel better soon.

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 12:07pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Ahh, government funded? Isn't the whole point of unionism to be collective voice for the workforce, funded and organised by them? If the government funds it, then surely it cannot be a genuine worker collective???

Also, you do realise that unions can often be bigger bullies than employers? I don't have links at hand, but there are some dramatic stories of unions being blatantly sexist, racist, homophobic etc. And they often have a strong preference for full-time jobs - even if that's not what would suit the employers or some members of the workforce.

That said, I do believe in the principles of union membership. Did three years as a local delegate, and continued to belong even long after the union was likely to be able to do anything for me, due to the role I was in. But they're no panacea for all the wrongs of workplaces.

It is/was. I think the old model on unions needs to be readjusted. You've mentioned just some of the flaws that crept into the current system. They should be an extension of something like NERA in my opinion. They don't need to be fully independant - just independant of the employer. As indicated the adverserial approach some union membes seem to adopt isn't helpful to anyone. Just my 2 cents.

monkeypants · 27-12-2012 12:17pm

gozunda wrote: »

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Depends on perspective I suppose. I may be seen as an employer by those that work for me, but I'd consider myself as another employee, just with different objectives. If I started taking days off sick here and there, I'd expect to be called in for a chat about it.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 12:37pm

gozunda wrote: »

k from time to time.

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

Hope you feel better soon.

I am suprised at that as well, maybe a lot of employers lurk here to see what the current issues are or just out of curiosity to see how workplace issues affect people. Im also interested to see so many employers that have a zero tolerance on sickness and then others who are more understanding towards the human condition! It really does depend on the boss, that makes all the difference.

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 12:58pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I am suprised at that as well, maybe a lot of employers lurk here to see what the current issues are or just out of curiosity to see how workplace issues affect people. Im also interested to see so many employers that have a zero tolerance on sickness and then others who are more understanding towards the human condition! It really does depend on the boss, that makes all the difference.

Many of us at one point or another in our careerers have managed other people and been responible for their sickness. Some people work in retail and call centres and would agree that they aren't the nicest places to work and could do with some rebalancing in terms of employee rights.

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

gozunda · 27-12-2012 1:42pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

I am not being funny but I do not know of individuals being 'allowed' to take a week or so of sickness

Either you are sick or you are not. Employment contracts normally allow for this and insist on medical certification. That's ok but to then make employees fearful if ringing in sick - that in my opinion just one step to far.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 2:00pm

OP,

For the love of god if you've pneumonia stay at home and get better.

Re this thread. It is indeed very interesting.

My own opinion (manager, not an employer (and will do my best to remain so) - but have some of those duties in an agent capacity) - employees work and get paid for time worked. If they are out of work due to illness they can claim social welfare.

To ask for more than that from an employer is indeed asking too much. As it stands the employer will pay 29 days of absence (20 statutory holidays and 9 bank holidays).

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 2:26pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Many of us at one point or another in our careerers have managed other people and been responible for their sickness. Some people work in retail and call centres and would agree that they aren't the nicest places to work and could do with some rebalancing in terms of employee rights.

That said I dispair at the blinkered attitude that people should he allowed to take a week or so sickness per year and it not be addressed.

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 2:44pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

Game, set and match. I'd be surprised if it's not popular.

Yet you blame the system. The same system that tries to discourage such a practice - the interview. This is the equivalent of stealing, and I'd have no sympathy for someone that gets fired for stealing.

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 2:48pm

gozunda wrote: »

I am not being funny but I do not know of individuals being 'allowed' to take a week or so of sickness

Either you are sick or you are not. Employment contracts normally allow for this and insist on medical certification. That's ok but to then make employees fearful if ringing in sick - that in my opinion just one step to far.

If you need a week of sick per year or there abouts you need to address your own ill health and not inflict that on the place you work. There is a difference between somone being bullied anf the being rightly concerned that an employer may call them on not being able to fullfil they're contractual obligations.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Allowed to take a week? I presume by that you mean people who just decide to use a week of sick leave and have a few duvet days instead?

Explained above - people feel that a week, if genuine, is fine. It's not.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Most companies have policies on sick leave-for some, if you are out sick, you need to get paid through the welfare. Others give you 10 paid sick days a year, others 15 etc. People do get sick funnily enough and although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee.

This isn't a great argument. Sick days are there for an emergency not an entitlement to be used. The old blame the system argument is indicative of people who lack personal responibility. If the employee is being worked so hard they are forced to take duvet days they need to address their own perosnl wekaness or the work they are being given.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

As for explaining yourself, a week off sick due to illness or injury is unfortunate but a doctors cert is as far as it should go. Yes, they arent all so thorough in their checks etc but thats not the employees fault is it? Making them go through a frankly demeaning back to work interview is just plain harrasment in my view. When a doctor signs you off you should just need to hand the cert to your boss and leave it at that.

Done to death in previous posts in this thread. There are many reasons why BTWI are a good idea. Anything can be used for the wrong reason most use it for the right ones.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 2:50pm

smcgiff wrote: »

Game, set and match. I'd be surprised if it's not popular.

Yet you blame the system. The same system that tries to discourage such a practice - the interview. This is the equivalent of stealing, and I'd have no sympathy for someone that gets fired for stealing.

No, the interview is there to drop a huge hint not to go out sick again in the future and its designed to humiliate the employee. Companies can hardly have it both ways can they- allow a lot of sick leave but punish people who use it??

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 2:52pm

gozunda wrote: »

Btw It's quite interesting the number of employer directed replies - I always presumed there were more employees than employees out there :-/ ...

smcgiff wrote: »

OP,

My own opinion (manager, not an employer (and will do my best to remain so) - but have some of those duties in an agent capacity) - employees work and get paid for time worked. If they are out of work due to illness they can claim social welfare.

Totally agree with smcgiff here. Gozunda, you seem to read employer when in fact it is often manager giving advice. And just because you are a manager and have policies in place which you must follow, does not mean that you stop being an employee, nor does it stop you from appreciating that some policies need to be changed. And I would say that rather than a lot of employERs being on here, in fact there are a lot of managers who are also employEEs, and who often feel caught between a rock and a hard place.

As a manager I see myself as somewhat of devils advocate on many occasions. Because I am a manager, I have responsibility to enforce policies, and manage staff and make sure that the business runs smoothly. This is part of what my performance is assessed on. On the other hand, I too am an employee, just a number like everyone else, I worry about job security and I want my rights to be protected the same as everyone else, and I have a manager I have to report to (and my manager is the owner, so often has no understanding of the employee perspective). I often find myself in with my manager arguing the pros and cons of a particular procedure for the benefit of my team. Equally, I often have to deal with the fallout if one of the team starts to take the p!ss. Many of the conditions we have in our place whilst great for staff who don't manage anyone else, are a right pain in the arse for those of us who do manage people - they create extra work and in some cases a sense of entitlement which in itself can be one of the hardest things to manage. Equally, there are some aspects of employment law that I have to stick to my guns about to make the boss realise just how important these things are and why there are laws in place to protect them.

So for those who think many posts are biased, I would counter that perhaps your view is more blinkered than you are prepared to accept. Unless you have actually been responsible for managing others, then often it appears that the big bad industrialist work lords are terrorising the poor put upon worker. This is often not the case. I find that much of the advice given here by managers is usually well balanced and informative. It gives a perspective from both sides. There are employees out there who forget that their employment is not all about them - there are so many other factors involved than most employees realise, and unless you have experience of the HR, financial and H&S aspects of an issue, you are very much seeing it from a very unbalanced perspective.

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 2:57pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No, the interview is there to drop a huge hint not to go out sick again in the future and its designed to humiliate the employee. Companies can hardly have it both ways can they- allow a lot of sick leave but punish people who use it??

I take offence at this TBH - I conduct BTWI and I would never ever use it to scare, intimidate or humiliate an employee. It is a useful tool if used correctly. It can even be a really positive thing if done correctly as it can leave the employee who was sick, knowing that they were missed and that their contribution is valued. I know that if I was off sick for a week, and no one asked me upon my return how I was, how I was feeling now, gave me an update of what had been going on when I was off etc - I would be left feeling like no one noticed or cared that I was off.

If you are having BTWI's that humiliate or bully you then your manager is at fault, not the BTWI.

Then again, if I was the sort of person who took sick days without good cause and was pulled up on it, then I might feel a bit defensive about the whole thing. If you are genuinely sick and have a good work ethic at other times then you have nothing to fear in the BTWI.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 2:57pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Explained above - people feel that a week, if genuine, is fine. It's not.

This isn't a great argument. Sick days are there for an emergency not an entitlement to be used. The old blame the system argument is indicative of people who lack personal responibility. If the employee is being worked so hard they are forced to take duvet days they need to address their own perosnl wekaness or the work they are being given.

Wow, your first point, just wow...if you were off sick with a severe flu or kidney infection (for example) I wouldnt dream of expecting you to come in when you are sick and not only be a danger to yourself but possibly spread sickness to other employees, and yet you think its a personal issue to be "addressed", how on earth does it reflect badly on you if you get sick, it happens all the time to practically everyone. Just because you may not have gotten sick for ages it doesnt mean you should expect the same for everyone. Your cavalier attitude towards sickness is shocking.

A duvet day is a treat for workers, calling a spade a spade, its not like many employees are doing this week in week out (well, a few might but thats the minority) but it allows you to recharge the batteries and be better the following week, There arent many people who wouldnt take them if the opportunity was there, despite the false outcry of shock from some posters on this thread...

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 3:00pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

No, the interview is there to drop a huge hint not to go out sick again in the future and its designed to humiliate the employee. Companies can hardly have it both ways can they- allow a lot of sick leave but punish people who use it??

Companies HAVE to allow people sick leave if they produce a doctor's cert. This is for insurance reasons.

They are not designed to humiliate the employee - they are designed for a number of reasons, but this may be above your pay grade to understand (yes I know this is condescending, but some key reasons has been mentioned in this thread already).

The companies that allow a certain number of paid sick days (good companies that you think should be taken advantage of) are the ones likely to have back to work interview's built into their employee contracts. This is to protect against people of the same opinion as you.

You've already mentioned it's okay to abuse the sick pay system companies allow employees to use. They trust it will not be abused. This may be their fault as you suggest, but abusing it is still stealing.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 3:04pm

Little Ted wrote: »

I take offence at this TBH - I conduct BTWI and I would never ever use it to scare, intimidate or humiliate an employee. It is a useful tool if used correctly. It can even be a really positive thing if done correctly as it can leave the employee who was sick, knowing that they were missed and that their contribution is valued. I know that if I was off sick for a week, and no one asked me upon my return how I was, how I was feeling now, gave me an update of what had been going on when I was off etc - I would be left feeling like no one noticed or cared that I was off.

If you are having BTWI's that humiliate or bully you then your manager is at fault, not the BTWI.

I completely disagree with that. What exactly is the point of them, other than to send a message to the employee that yes, you were sick and yes, we have policies that allow you to be paid, but oh look at that 7 days sick thats quite a lot tut tut, please dont do that again. That may not be how you say it to them but it remains a fact that BTWI are nothing more than a HR exercise to put pressure on employees to not go out sick, I know what Im talking about here, its not just me either, several workmates and a few mates of mine in the private sector have had the same heavy handed message delivered to them. To repeat, you may not have used it to intimidate (even if you did you would be up for bullying) but the purpose of the BTWI is very flawed in my opinion and doesnt allow any leeway for genuinely sick people.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 3:09pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

A duvet day is a treat for workers, calling a spade a spade, its not like many employees are doing this week in week out (well, a few might but thats the minority) but it allows you to recharge the batteries and be better the following week, There arent many people who wouldnt take them if the opportunity was there, despite the false outcry of shock from some posters on this thread...

20 days statutory leave and 9 bank holidays. Your employer is giving you a living wage and for that he expects (in general) for you to work 64% of the days in a year. There's 134 days for you to "recharge".

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 3:13pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, your first point, just wow...if you were off sick with a severe flu or kidney infection (for example) I wouldnt dream of expecting you to come in when you are sick and not only be a danger to yourself but possibly spread sickness to other employees, and yet you think its a personal issue to be "addressed", how on earth does it reflect badly on you if you get sick, it happens all the time to practically everyone. Just because you may not have gotten sick for ages it doesnt mean you should expect the same for everyone. Your cavalier attitude towards sickness is shocking.

I dont have a cavalier attitude to sickness you do. If I had an employee out sick I want to find out why - I conduct a BTWI. Are we doing something that is causing the sickness? Is there some change we can make togeather that stops it happening again? You're the one saying it should be a note slapped on a desk and no further discussion.

If you're getting serve flu every year then it's time for a jab. Perhaps you cant afford it - perhaps I pay for it as the employer as its worth more to me that you're there. Kidney infection - perhaps you see the company GP for free and we find that there is an underlying cause we can resolve.

As humans we get sick - fact of the matter and what this comes down to is putting a figure on it. A week a year is taking the mickey if its every year. Six weeks one year due to a bad break is perfectly fine. You don't think a BTWI should be conducted in either scenario? You're simply wrong.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

A duvet day is a treat for workers, calling a spade a spade, its not like many employees are doing this week in week out (well, a few might but thats the minority) but it allows you to recharge the batteries and be better the following week, There arent many people who wouldnt take them if the opportunity was there, despite the false outcry of shock from some posters on this thread...

I;m not going to continue to address this, frankly, daft point.

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 3:13pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Wow, your first point, just wow...if you were off sick with a severe flu or kidney infection (for example) I wouldnt dream of expecting you to come in when you are sick and not only be a danger to yourself but possibly spread sickness to other employees, and yet you think its a personal issue to be "addressed", how on earth does it reflect badly on you if you get sick, it happens all the time to practically everyone. Just because you may not have gotten sick for ages it doesnt mean you should expect the same for everyone. Your cavalier attitude towards sickness is shocking.

A duvet day is a treat for workers, calling a spade a spade, its not like many employees are doing this week in week out (well, a few might but thats the minority) but it allows you to recharge the batteries and be better the following week, There arent many people who wouldnt take them if the opportunity was there, despite the false outcry of shock from some posters on this thread...

I think you miss the point procrastastudy makes - occasional sickness is expected. However, taking a week off regularly is not as it indicates that you may not be fit to carry out the duties for which you were employed. Procrastastudy (if I understand correctly) is merely pointing out that whilst of course people genuinely get sick and need time off, there is nothing in law which means you are entitled to take time off for illness. And often, staff are too blase about taking time off under the false impression that you can't get sacked for being sick. You can.

Ok, so if you are a decent employer, and have a good staff member who makes a worthwhile contribution you are not going to sack them for taking a week off sick. And you are not likely to question this person's sincerity. But if you have someone who once a month takes a duvet day, or once a quarter is off for 3-5 days then of course you are going to ask questions. If that person is brilliant when they are in work, you might have a chat with them and find out that they are just unfortunate and have a weak immune system. So eventhough it is a pain that they get sick a lot, you might make allowances given their work when they are there.

But even that can cause problems - if Mary is off sick regularly, and see it that nothing is done about it, then other team members might see that as permission for them to pull sickies, sure Mary gets away with it. As a manager, you need to try to be as fair as possible for everyone, so sometimes whilst you might like to turn a blind eye, for the sake of fairness and equity you can't.

And as already explained, if someone is so overworked and undermotivated that they need the 'treat' of a duvet day every few months, then there is somethng wrong with their work environment and management needs to be aware of this and step in. Either the work load needs to be distributed differently, or training given, or more staff taken on or whatever.

Let me ask you, if you were so worn out at work that sometimes you needed a breather, so took a duvet day, would you prefer that management address the problem and illiminate it? or would you prefer to play the martyr, work yourself to exhaustion and then treat yourself with a duvet day?

BTW - annual leave is for rest and recuperation, so if you need a break and are not sick then take AL.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 3:19pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I completely disagree with that. What exactly is the point of them, other than to send a message to the employee that yes, you were sick and yes, we have policies that allow you to be paid, but oh look at that 7 days sick thats quite a lot tut tut, please dont do that again. That may not be how you say it to them but it remains a fact that BTWI are nothing more than a HR exercise to put pressure on employees to not go out sick, I know what Im talking about here, its not just me either, several workmates and a few mates of mine in the private sector have had the same heavy handed message delivered to them. To repeat, you may not have used it to intimidate (even if you did you would be up for bullying) but the purpose of the BTWI is very flawed in my opinion and doesnt allow any leeway for genuinely sick people.

You've already admitted it's okay to abuse the system so you can come down off your high horse for starters.

I'll give you an example, I'm sure others can supply more scenarios if required.

A food company employs Johnnie, who's out sick with an infectious disease.

Johnnie gets a doctor's cert from his local GP (you know, the one that's wiped his nose since he was knee high) to say he's okay to come back to work in a week's time. Johnnie does, and goes back to work in, let's say, infant formula. Johnnie is still infectious and contaminates the baby food.

Babies get sick and their parents sue Johnnie's company.

Do you think the owners of Johnnie's company are going to say, ah shucks, sure he had a doctor's cert, you can't win them all.

I mention the above scenario as this is the type of company that needs to do BTWI most of all, but there are other reasons (such as the bully scenario, which if not dealt with a company could be sued for as well).

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 3:30pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I completely disagree with that. What exactly is the point of them, other than to send a message to the employee that yes, you were sick and yes, we have policies that allow you to be paid, but oh look at that 7 days sick thats quite a lot tut tut, please dont do that again. That may not be how you say it to them but it remains a fact that BTWI are nothing more than a HR exercise to put pressure on employees to not go out sick, I know what Im talking about here, its not just me either, several workmates and a few mates of mine in the private sector have had the same heavy handed message delivered to them. To repeat, you may not have used it to intimidate (even if you did you would be up for bullying) but the purpose of the BTWI is very flawed in my opinion and doesnt allow any leeway for genuinely sick people.

With all due respect you are talking out your bum. You say you know what you are talking about, but I have seen no evidence that this is the case from your posts.

Furthermore, you do not know how I conduct my BTWI, so you have no right to say that it is a tactic to humiliate and intimidate. I don't need to use a BTWI to intimidate or scare my staff - I would like to think that I am a good manager and as such management of staff is an ongoing thing. I don't wait til someone is so overworked that they get sick and then pull the rug from under them by intimating that they are faking it. I have good relationships with my staff and so I know them pretty well and their work ethic and attitude to work. If I had someone who I felt was like you and thought the odd sickie was ok, I would be dealing with that LONG before they ever got to take advantage of it.

If you and your workmates are getting a heavy handed message perhaps it is warranted? if you take duvet days then I would say you deserve the heavy handed approach. Not straight off the bat the first or second time you are out sick, but if a pattern is occurring then by all means. I also find it hard to believe that your view that pulling a sickie is a 'treat' is one that you hide when in work. So given your comments on here, your employer/manager probably knows full well your opinions regarding sick leave and this is probably why you get a 'heavy handed' BTWI.

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 3:36pm

I think it's also being missed that the outcome of a BTWI may be to send someone home because it's clear they shouldn't be back yet. Sometimes over the objection of that employee. People always harp on about colds effecting the whole work place. Well firstly we all get colds, get over it. You're more likely to get one on the bus than from work but however, where it does appear to be particually bad is where you send someone home. Not conducting a BTWI interview results in that employee making other people sick.

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 3:44pm

+1

I have had a staff member return to work on the Wednesday and their cert covered them til the Friday. I conducted a BTWI and discovered that they really weren't feeling better yet, but were worried that their workload was increasing so would rather be in work sick than home worrying -also they were only on a 1 yr contract and were worried that their contract would not be renewed if they were out sick for too long. So by having a BTWI it gave me the opporunity to get these worries out in the open, we discussed how the work load would be managed while he was off, what the plan would be when he got back so he could catch up. It gave me a chance to reassure him that this bout of sickness would not be held against him and to stop worrying. He then went off home and returned the following monday, right as rain and ready to go. TBH he wasn't much use to me on the Wednesday cos he was so sick. Presentee-ism is just as much an issue as absenteeism, and the BTWI is a good forum to address this.

Not all managers are unreasonable SOB's who use the BTWI as an instrument of intimidation. Some of us are even human!

Having said that, my manager never conducts BTWI and wish he would - it would give me a chance to catch up on what went on when I was off, clarify things, etc. Thankfully I have only been out sick very seldom, but I wish he would give me the time and effort of a BTWI that I give my team.

Eoin · 27-12-2012 4:08pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

although this might not be a popular view, I do think employees should take a few duvet days during the year-for the ones that work hard, they are entitled to enjoy a few days off. And if the system allows such a breach, then of course people are going to take advantage of it. I say blame the system not the employee..

And there we have it. All you've done is prove the point of the people disagreeing with you. It's your attitude that means employers need to crack down on sick leave, not the employers'.

Incidentally, you don't have to be an employer to think that abusing sick leave is wrong.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 6:54pm

I find it amazing that its the managers in this thread who are so against the idea of people going out sick, I actually had to read a few comments several times to make sure I was reading right. People often get flu so get a flu jab? Kidney infection? Go to the company doctor? Sickness is not that black and white! Someone could get injured playing soccer and need a few weeks off- should that person just never play soccer in case his dictator boss might hold it against him? Honestly, I hope none of the people here who view sickness as a weakness never gets something like a twisted knee, pneumonia (like the OP), injury etc. It would cost a company MORE if a sick employee was working and caused damage because their bully boss insisted they work even when sick..

The BTWI is a HR exercise, its implied with the process that you have cause hassle and they dont actually care what happened to you, they just want you to sign a form that effectively says "I wont do it again", bang out of order. And to the poster who says they would be surprised if they came back after a week sick to find nobody giving him updates etc, its a workplace not a creche! People dont really care about that kind of stuff, you get your appreciation in your wage. Certainly I have returned from sick leave and nothing has been said or updated, I just get back into it, the world doesnt stop when you go out and if you are that dependent on one person then thats a reflection of poor management..

Eoin · 27-12-2012 7:13pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I find it amazing that its the managers in this thread who are so against the idea of people going out sick, I actually had to read a few comments several times to make sure I was reading right. People often get flu so get a flu jab? Kidney infection? Go to the company doctor? Sickness is not that black and white! Someone could get injured playing soccer and need a few weeks off- should that person just never play soccer in case his dictator boss might hold it against him? Honestly, I hope none of the people here who view sickness as a weakness never gets something like a twisted knee, pneumonia (like the OP), injury etc. It would cost a company MORE if a sick employee was working and caused damage because their bully boss insisted they work even when sick..

Are you going to just gloss over where you said you don't see a problem with taking duvet days as sick days? I quoted it a few posts ago in case you're forgotten.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The BTWI is a HR exercise, its implied with the process that you have cause hassle and they dont actually care what happened to you, they just want you to sign a form that effectively says "I wont do it again", bang out of order. And to the poster who says they would be surprised if they came back after a week sick to find nobody giving him updates etc, its a workplace not a creche! People dont really care about that kind of stuff, you get your appreciation in your wage. Certainly I have returned from sick leave and nothing has been said or updated, I just get back into it, the world doesnt stop when you go out and if you are that dependent on one person then thats a reflection of poor management..

I think you should stop digging. You're really just showing your ignorance on what goes on in jobs other than your own. Stuff can change in a week, and some people need to know (or even just want to know - imagine that!) what's gone on while they were away. It can be a casual 5 minute conversation over coffee. Just because it has an official sounding title doesn't mean that it has to be as formal process as you seem to think it is in every single company.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 7:22pm

Well as i said if the system allows it then thats not really the fault of the employee. If you saw 500quid in the ditch would you take it or hand it in to the cops, very few people would do the latter. Also, the fake outrage here really is very surprising- most people would choose to have a duvet day if the chance was there and the people who splutter at me and say otherwise are either in a very strict and unfair employment or else just pride themselves on never being sick. Ok fair enonugh the BTWI can include an update its just personally, anytime i returned from sickness I never got the whole nine yards and just waited until I was informed, different workplaces have different practices. I still think BTWI is a subtle form of bullying though for reasons well explained

Eoin · 27-12-2012 7:41pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Well as i said if the system allows it then thats not really the fault of the employee.

Yet you think that trying to get the system to not allow it is bullying. If people didn't do it, then there'd be no need to clamp down on bogus sick leave. Your attitude creates that environment, not "the man".

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

most people would choose to have a duvet day if the chance was there and the people who splutter at me and say otherwise are either in a very strict and unfair employment or else just pride themselves on never being sick.

Of course they would, and some companies allow the occasional duvet day - but out of the employee's leave. Because the employee is not sick. I'd also choose to work 10 hours a week and get the same salary if I could, but that's just not part of the agreement.

For what it's worth, my company is not a strict work place and gives lots of perks (VHI, pension, extra annual leave etc), but because both parties act like adults for the most part, we don't have an absenteeism problem.

At least now you've admitted that you think there's nothing wrong with faking sick leave, so we know where you really stand. I'm not "outraged", I just think you're dead wrong. Acting professionally is a two way thing.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 7:44pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I find it amazing that its the managers in this thread who are so against the idea of people going out sick, I actually had to read a few comments several times to make sure I was reading right. People often get flu so get a flu jab? Kidney infection? Go to the company doctor? Sickness is not that black and white! Someone could get injured playing soccer and need a few weeks off- should that person just never play soccer in case his dictator boss might hold it against him? Honestly, I hope none of the people here who view sickness as a weakness never gets something like a twisted knee, pneumonia (like the OP), injury etc. It would cost a company MORE if a sick employee was working and caused damage because their bully boss insisted they work even when sick..

The BTWI is a HR exercise, its implied with the process that you have cause hassle and they dont actually care what happened to you, they just want you to sign a form that effectively says "I wont do it again", bang out of order. And to the poster who says they would be surprised if they came back after a week sick to find nobody giving him updates etc, its a workplace not a creche! People dont really care about that kind of stuff, you get your appreciation in your wage. Certainly I have returned from sick leave and nothing has been said or updated, I just get back into it, the world doesnt stop when you go out and if you are that dependent on one person then thats a reflection of poor management..

I think you'll have to read the posts a few more times yet, where has anyone said genuinely sick people should be in work? You seemed to have settled on your opinion and are ignoring all the posts contrary to your opinion.

I imagine there are a lot of employees reading that are cringing at your comments.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 8:11pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

- people feel that a week, if genuine, is fine. It's not.

Thats a pretty outrageous quote right there, people having the nerve to stay off a week from genuine sickness, and that quote from a manager, see the pattern?

Anyway, the OP even supports this point as even they have been told to "watch the sick days" as if its something they can control. Pneumonia is a very serious thing and should be treated as such. Its just a shame so many managers see sickness as a thing to be wiped out and people named and shamed. As i said before, God help you if ye get a long term injury that requires you a few weeks off, it could happen to anyone.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 8:34pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Thats a pretty outrageous quote right there, people having the nerve to stay off a week from genuine sickness, and that quote from a manager, see the pattern?

Anyway, the OP even supports this point as even they have been told to "watch the sick days" as if its something they can control. Pneumonia is a very serious thing and should be treated as such. Its just a shame so many managers see sickness as a thing to be wiped out and people named and shamed. As i said before, God help you if ye get a long term injury that requires you a few weeks off, it could happen to anyone.

I could be wrong, but i thought he meant that if it were a regular occurence. Of course anyone one could be off for a week. If it were a regular occurrence it would be a different matter. The business has a duty to a lot of stakeholders including the other employees. If someone is continuously ill it may not be sustainable.

Re the op, he is a particular position - he's on probation. He was given good advice considering he foolishly already took two days off (even though he wasn't sick).

hattoncracker · 27-12-2012 8:45pm

smcgiff wrote: »

I could be wrong, but i thought he meant that if it were a regular occurence. Of course anyone one could be off for a week. If it were a regular occurrence it would be a different matter. The business has a duty to a lot of stakeholders including the other employees. If someone is continuously ill it may not be sustainable.

Re the op, he is a particular position - he's on probation. He was given good advice considering he foolishly already took two days off (even though he wasn't sick).

My mother has been very ill the last three months and almost died. I live on the other side of the country. I had to go.

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 8:56pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

My mother has been very ill the last three months and almost died. I live on the other side of the country. I had to go.

Was there nobody in your extended family, not on probation, that could have looked after your mum.

Hope she's feeling better.

hattoncracker · 27-12-2012 9:06pm

smcgiff wrote: »

Was there nobody in your extended family, not on probation, that could have looked after your mum.

Hope she's feeling better.

I wasn't there to look after her, but I had to be there as she was on the critical list and those 48 hours were crucial

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 9:08pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

I wasn't there to look after her, but I had to be there as she was on the critical list and those 48 hours were crucial

Very understandable.

However, what employer would not understand that you'd need time off for that? Surely you didn't have to claim to be sick?

hattoncracker · 27-12-2012 9:14pm

smcgiff wrote: »

Very understandable.

However, what employer would not understand that you'd need time off for that? Surely you didn't have to claim to be sick?

I told them the truth about that, but at the same time I'm really conscious of it. it's unauthorized absence on my sheet.

worded · 27-12-2012 9:23pm

Pneumonia - I had it once and it can be life threatening.
If you are not on inhalers (blue and brown) pls consider going to your doctor to get some, I found them helpful to shift it.

More info ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia

smcgiff · 27-12-2012 9:36pm

hattoncracker wrote: »

I told them the truth about that, but at the same time I'm really conscious of it. it's unauthorized absence on my sheet.

How long are you there? What kind of feedback are you getting from your Direct line manager. Are you getting good feedback?

Taking two days off to attend a potentially dying mother and time off for pneumonia is something that should not go against a good employee on probation.

I would be proactive with your line manager to explain exactly what's going on. It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see a person with pneumonia is sick.

Tell them you are worried that it will affect your probation - ask them for feedback on this. The fact your first two days are down as unauthorised is probably just a technicality.

You really shouldn't be at work with pneumonia, and the company should be the one insisting you don't turn up.

It's unfortunate that it's a time when chancers (they do exist) will want to take this time off - it is party season after all. That's why you'll need to be proactive.

Best of luck

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 9:59pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Thats a pretty outrageous quote right there, people having the nerve to stay off a week from genuine sickness, and that quote from a manager, see the pattern?

Outrageous in the sense you've taken it out of context, you didn't even remove the hyphen. It's pretty clear you are not going to be swayed by logic. You, if indeed you are a member of any union, are the worst type of person to be on one. I find a great number of people who work in unions champion employee rights and a generally reaosnable people with informed opinions. There is the odd contrary idiot (they're in management as well to be fair) who just rejects things becuase the otherside is saying it.

When a union goes out on strike becuase of a genuine reason, or sits there in a disciplinary meeting making sure an employee is properly represented and supported - ensuring that rights are not idgnored they are making a tangible difference and making the work place better. When people like you stand there trying to defend people taking duvet days you make everyone whos supports employee rights job more difficult.

You have no idea the amount of times I've sat in mettings and told more senior managers to get knotted over various issues they wanted to bring in that was unfair to my guys. You've no idea how many times I told area managers I was making a decision in a disciplinary meeting and no I wasn't going to fire X. You've no idea how many times I told people what their rights where going into D.Ms.

In all the crap I've seen pulled by front line staff and managers alike have I every seen a BTWI used for anything other than making sure the person was fit for work and whether there was something that needed to be done for them. If a manger is warning someone on probation they are at risk re sick days in a BTWI they are simply doing their job - in fact in could be argued they are under a legal obligation to do so under the rules of fair procedures.

Why would any company waste its time haveing a meeting with someone to bully them when they could just fire them at anytime within the first 12 months with no comeback? It's not as if the training spend for call centre employees is huge - or not ongoing anyway.

TL;DR - Please don't make out you're championing employee rights. With friends like you we don't need enemies.

Wanderer2010 · 27-12-2012 10:17pm

Procrastastudy wrote: »

If you need a week of sick per year or there abouts you need to address your own ill health and not inflict that on the place you work. There is a difference between somone being bullied anf the being rightly concerned that an employer may call them on not being able to fullfil they're contractual obligations.

Explained above - people feel that a week, if genuine, is fine. It's not.

The above is exactly what you quoted. "If you need a week of sick per year you need to address your own ill health". Ok, so maybe you are super healthy and have never needed to take sick leave but your point is very unreasonable when it comes to the average employee. Just look at the OP, they got pneumoia at a really sensitive stage in employment, the same thing could happen to you or I at any stage and I for one would hate to work for someone who thinks that more than a week sick in 365 days of life is unreasonable, honestly I dont know where you are coming from with such an old fashioned approach to illness.

As for the union, yes I am in one and Im proud to be in one, no they are not perfect but it has been proven time and time again that managers take advantage of and bully employees when they know they havent got back up, happens all the time, at least the unions can act as a buffer in disciplinary matters. And please dont quote HR as a reply, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that HR are on the side of management, every single time, its one of the unwritten rules of life.

Its great that you get on with all your workers and see yourself as a great manager (a lot of bad managers "see themselves" as good managers) but you are describing your own situation, every workplace is different, you have to appreciate that.

tatli_lokma · 27-12-2012 10:29pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

you are describing your own situation, every workplace is different, you have to appreciate that.

You might want to take your own advice! Can you not see that you are doing exactly what you accuse others of? Just because you feel that your company use BTWI's as an intimidation tactic and way to warn off staff does not mean all managers use it in that way, nor does it mean all abuse the process.

Can I ask how many companies you have experience working for? And on average how many times a year you would take sick leave and as a follow on from that how many BTWI's you have each year?

Procrastastudy · 27-12-2012 10:42pm

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The above is exactly what you quoted. "If you need a week of sick per year you need to address your own ill health". Ok, so maybe you are super healthy and have never needed to take sick leave but your point is very unreasonable when it comes to the average employee.

During my probation period my boss didn't bother with a BTWI interview and I ended up coming back early - getting a really bad chest infection and having to take two weeks off. He later told me he got into some serous hot water with HR for not adering to HR policies in place to ensure people didn't do stupid things.

A week every year is what's unreasonable - you are still quoting me out of context - you are missing the part where I said six weeks in a single year would br reasonable.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Just look at the OP, they got pneumoia at a really sensitive stage in employment, the same thing could happen to you or I at any stage...

Yes what a shame not all sickness can be taken as genuine as people take duvet days.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

...and I for one would hate to work for someone who thinks that more than a week sick in 365 days of life is unreasonable, honestly I dont know where you are coming from with such an old fashioned approach to illness.

Over the last 100 years or so public health has got better not worse. A week in a year on a repeated basis is whats unreasonable. A sniffle is not the flu. Indigestion is not food poisoning.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

As for the union, yes I am in one and Im proud to be in one, no they are not perfect but it has been proven time and time again that managers take advantage of and bully employees when they know they havent got back up, happens all the time, at least the unions can act as a buffer in disciplinary matters. And please dont quote HR as a reply, everyone with an ounce of common sense knows that HR are on the side of management, every single time, its one of the unwritten rules of life.

I've absolutely no love for HR. I've less love for employees who take the mickey and abuse the sytem making it more difficult for good managers to fight their corner. This black and white them and us attitude is what causes both managers and unions to feel they need to engage in an adversarial process.

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Its great that you get on with all your workers and see yourself as a great manager (a lot of bad managers "see themselves" as good managers) but you are describing your own situation, every workplace is different, you have to appreciate that.

I do - and every person is also different. Hence its a good idea to meet with them when they come back to make sure that they are doing okay and what caused them to go out sick.

Afraid to call in sick. :(

Comments