Afraid to call in sick. :(

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

I agree that 6 weeks a year under the right circumstances is ok but disagree that a week a year in not. You are talking about 5 days a year, A YEAR! I have worked in a place where people take weeks off every year and its not pursued, now a few weeks a year is excessive but I havent managed to go a whole year without catching some kind of bug or virus or else had a slight injury thats required me to be out for 5 days or longer and to be honest I dont know many people who have so your view on the amount of sickness baffles me.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

Indeed they do, as you would if you got the opportunity. You think the company gives a damn if you come in every day for 5yrs with no absences? They dont, and you dont get any reward for it. So please, your holier than thou fake outrage stinks.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

As i said, you may love your employees and think your employees love you but the reality may be different. Stress and overwork can lead a lot of people to take duvet days because management and work practices are unreasonable, there are a load of reasons and often management are beyond reason so your logic doesnt always apply.

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

What caused them to go out sick? Its written on the cert.

gozunda

Little Ted wrote: »

Gozunda, you seem to read employer when in fact it is often manager giving advice.

No that is incorrect - By employer directed I meant employer - inclusive of management. As you said yourself management are obliged to carry out employer designated policy & procedures. So therefore I did not differentiate.

I reckon this relatively recent policy of BTWI is more than likely a flash in the pan. Somewhat akin to hot desking in the 1990's.

Where an employee has not had recurrent amounts of such absences and where medical certificates have been provided there is absolutely no need for such sledgehammer tactics imo.

As I stated they are not conducive to a good working environment especially where it results in employees being afraid to call in sick when they actually are sick. I have serious concerns that these 'interviews' (interestingly they are not referred to meetings) are borderline in terms of aggressive employer management practices.

A good manager filling in an employee on work undertaken / required to be completed on return to work is more than adequate to suffice to update an employee without the I additional inquisition.

Stheno

gozunda wrote: »

No that is incorrect - By employer directed I meant employer - inclusive of management. As you said yourself management are obliged to carry out employer designated policy & procedures. So therefore I did not differentiate.

I reckon this relatively recent policy of BTWI is more than likely a flash in the pan. Somewhat akin to hot desking in the 1990's.

Where an employee has not had recurrent amounts of such absences and where medical certificates have been provided there is absolutely no need for such sledgehammer tactics imo.

As I stated they are not conducive to a good working environment especially where it results in employees being afraid to call in sick when they actually are sick. I have serious concerns that these 'interviews' (interestingly they are not referred to meetings) are borderline in terms of aggressive employer management practices.

A good manager filling in an employee on work undertaken / required to be completed on return to work is more than adequate to suffice to update an employee without the I additional inquisition.

I posted that I had them in the nineties and another poster said they knew of them 30 years ago.

I worked in one job where it was identified that a huge percentage of absence was on Monday or Friday.

A practice was introduced that if you were sick on either of those days, you'd to get a cert.

Absenteeism went down on those days by over 70% as a result.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

As I stated they are not conducive to a good working environment especially where it results in employees being afraid to call in sick when they actually are sick. I have serious concerns that these 'interviews' (interestingly they are not referred to meetings) are borderline in terms of aggressive employer management practices.

Thank you for your input, we have considered your opinion and while we appreciate your concern we have decided to continue with best practice. We are disappointed that you do not agree with the company's policy, but wish you the very best in your future career.

Seriously though, are you unable to see any scenario where a BTWI would be of any benefit?

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Thank you for your input, we have considered your opinion and while we appreciate your concern we have decided to continue with best practice. We are disappointed that you do not agree with the company's policy, but wish you the very best in your future career.

Seriously though, are you unable to see any scenario where a BTWI would be of any benefit?

Jeez - thank you! the company really loves its employees!

Seriously This is something All companies should think out the full ramifications before putting in place on a regular basis.Employers are not qualified to give a medical opinion on an employees fitness to work - your insurance company should be able to clarify further.

If there is good management there should be no real need of such tertiary layer micro management - end of story.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Thank you for your input, we have considered your opinion and while we appreciate your concern we have decided to continue with best practice. We are disappointed that you do not agree with the company's policy, but wish you the very best in your future career.

Seriously though, are you unable to see any scenario where a BTWI would be of any benefit?

Jeez - thank you! the company really loves its employees!

I have already said so in long term exceptional absences - see previous

Seriously This is something All companies should think out the full ramifications before putting in place on a regular basis.Employers are not qualified to give a medical opinion on an employees fitness to work - your insurance company should be able to clarify further.

If there is good management there should be no real need of such tertiary layer micro management - end of story.

gozunda

Stheno wrote: »

I posted that I had them in the nineties and another poster said they knew of them 30 years ago.

I worked in one job where it was identified that a huge percentage of absence was on Monday or Friday.

A practice was introduced that if you were sick on either of those days, you'd to get a cert.

Absenteeism went down on those days by over 70% as a result.

Sounds a bit dodgy tbh - was this in Ireland?

I may be wrong but does employment law not state that it is on the third day that a medical certificate must be provided?

gozunda

Little Ted wrote: »

+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.

Employers and management are not qualified to give or advise on medical diagnosis - the best advice would be to refer to the GP if in any doubt.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

If there is good management there should be no real need of such tertiary layer micro management - end of story.

Afraid not, management cannot abdicate responsibilities to an external party.

But one does not need to be a doctor to enquire further. How does a doctor/employee know what activities the employee will undertake so that they can state whether or not the employee's condition is suitable to work.

Another example is where a doctor states at a point in time that an employee can return to work at a certain time in the future. That's only guess work at best and the very least a company can do is offer an employee to give his opinion as to his current state of fitness.

Also, you're really overstating the ability of doctors, especially GPs. To totally rely on them is tantamount to abdicating responsibilities. And, I'm not talking about trying to catch out chancers, that's not the only reason for BTWI.

Re getting advice from insurers. I've no doubt they'd recommend BTWI, any further control will always be welcomed by an insurer. They are simply interested in reducing risk of liability.

I'm under no illusion you're going to admit to changing your mind re BTWI. I'm just interested in seeing how far you'll go to defend your stance in light of recommended modern HR practice.

Wicklowandy

gozunda wrote: »

Sounds a bit dodgy tbh - was this in Ireland?

I may be wrong but does employment law not state that it is on the third day that a medical certificate must be provided?

Dont think its law,but its written on my contract now, and was in my previous job.

Stheno

gozunda wrote: »

Sounds a bit dodgy tbh - was this in Ireland?

I may be wrong but does employment law not state that it is on the third day that a medical certificate must be provided?

Nope it's not law, the only law is that sick pay from the state is not paid for the first three days.

Perfectly legal to require a medical cert for even one day of sickness.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

I may be wrong but does employment law not state that it is on the third day that a medical certificate must be provided?

You are. It can be two or even one day. Depends on the company's policy.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/sick_leave.html

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

I agree that 6 weeks a year under the right circumstances is ok but disagree that a week a year in not. You are talking about 5 days a year, A YEAR! I have worked in a place where people take weeks off every year and its not pursued, now a few weeks a year is excessive but I havent managed to go a whole year without catching some kind of bug or virus or else had a slight injury thats required me to be out for 5 days or longer and to be honest I dont know many people who have so your view on the amount of sickness baffles me.

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

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Indeed they do, as you would if you got the opportunity. You think the company gives a damn if you come in every day for 5yrs with no absences? They dont, and you dont get any reward for it. So please, your holier than thou fake outrage stinks.

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

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

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

As i said, you may love your employees and think your employees love you but the reality may be different. Stress and overwork can lead a lot of people to take duvet days because management and work practices are unreasonable, there are a load of reasons and often management are beyond reason so your logic doesnt always apply.

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

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

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

What caused them to go out sick? Its written on the cert.

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

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

You are. It can be two or even one day. Depends on the company's policy.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/leave_and_holidays/sick_leave.html

This? . "For example, you may have to provide a medical certificate if you are out sick for more than 2 consecutive days. The medical certificate should state the date you are likely to return to work. If you are likely to be out sick for a longer period, your employer may require you provide weekly medical certificates. "

I believe this is standard practice...

smcgiff

There has been some ambiguity as to whether BTWI may be illegal.

Just checked out a pdf from the Health Services authority regarding the importance of Return to Work Interview.

Google "Return to work interview"+"HSA" and the PDF pops up.

This should counter the argument that it should be left a GP alone.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Afraid not, management cannot abdicate responsibilities to an external party.

But one does not need to be a doctor to enquire further. How does a doctor/employee know what activities the employee will undertake so that they can state whether or not the employee's condition is suitable to work.

Another example is where a doctor states at a point in time that an employee can return to work at a certain time in the future. That's only guess work at best and the very least a company can do is offer an employee to give his opinion as to his current state of fitness.

Also, you're really overstating the ability of doctors, especially GPs. To totally rely on them is tantamount to abdicating responsibilities. And, I'm not talking about trying to catch out chancers, that's not the only reason for BTWI.

Re getting advice from insurers. I've no doubt they'd recommend BTWI, any further control will always be welcomed by an insurer. They are simply interested in reducing risk of liability.

I'm under no illusion you're going to admit to changing your mind re BTWI. I'm just interested in seeing how far you'll go to defend your stance in light of recommended modern HR practice.

Neither can they ignore professional medical, opinion that they have asked the employee to provide. At the end of the day employers cannot make medical determinations - if they are in doubt they should seek provide professional advice. "a further control' - very interesting description of a BTWI

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

This? . "For example, you may have to provide a medical certificate if you are out sick for more than 2 consecutive days. The medical certificate should state the date you are likely to return to work. If you are likely to be out sick for a longer period, your employer may require you provide weekly medical certificates. "

I believe this is standard practice...

It depends what's on your contract. One day would be unusual but 2 or 3 (ususally including days off) would not. So if you're normally off the weekend and take the Friday only you may need a cert.

Standard practices are only standard where they are used. Other places use non-standard practice.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Neither can they ignore professional medical, opinion that they have asked the employee to provide. At the end of the day employers cannot make medical determinations - if they are in doubt they should seek provide professional advice

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

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

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

At the end of the day employers cannot make medical determinations - if they are in doubt they should seek provide professional advice

Looks like we posted at the same time.

See the link above regarding the Health Services Authority's advice re BTWI's.

They don't think leaving with the GP is sufficient. Do you?

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

This? . "For example, you may have to provide a medical certificate if you are out sick for more than 2 consecutive days. The medical certificate should state the date you are likely to return to work. If you are likely to be out sick for a longer period, your employer may require you provide weekly medical certificates. "

I believe this is standard practice...

What's your point? You're linking to a seciton that give's an example that disproves your three day suggestion. The example it gives... MAY, in fact in can be 1 day.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

There has been some ambiguity as to whether BTWI may be illegal.

Just checked out a pdf from the Health Services authority regarding the importance of Return to Work Interview.

Google "Return to work interview"+"HSA" and the PDF pops up.

This should counter the argument that it should be left a GP alone.

no I believe there was some opinion on their role regarding employee representation. Don't think that BTWI has anything to do with GP requirement from what has been said here tbh - as you explained it is perhaps more about "further control"?

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

"a further control' - very interesting description of a BTWI

You're grasping at straws.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

It depends what's on your contract. One day would be unusual but 2 or 3 (ususally including days off) would not. So if you're normally off the weekend and take the Friday only you may need a cert.

Standard practices are only standard where they are used. Other places use non-standard practice.

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

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

no I believe there was some opinion on their role regarding employee representation. Don't think that BTWI has anything to do with GP requirement from what has been said here tbh - as you explained it is perhaps more about "further control"?

Are you ignoring reality. The HSA recommend BTWI.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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



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

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



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

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



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

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

Eoin

gozunda wrote: »

This? . "For example, you may have to provide a medical certificate if you are out sick for more than 2 consecutive days. The medical certificate should state the date you are likely to return to work. If you are likely to be out sick for a longer period, your employer may require you provide weekly medical certificates. "

I believe this is standard practice...

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

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

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

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

Wanderer2010 wrote:

you who are in the minority if you think more than five sick days a yr is strange its perfectly normal.

You probably won't be surprised, but I also think that 5 days off a year is on the high side.

Eoin

Less of the personal remarks please people

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

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

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

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

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

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

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

amdublin

Eoin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

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

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

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

amdublin

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

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

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

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

smcgiff

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Eoin

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

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

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

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

Eoin

amdublin wrote: »

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

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

Procrastastudy

Eoin wrote: »

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

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

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

gozunda

amdublin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

smcgiff

double post - ignore

smcgiff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

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

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

amdublin

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

smcgiff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

we're posatively socialist in all honesty.

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

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

gozunda

amdublin wrote: »

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

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

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

Procrastastudy

smcgiff wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

smcgiff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

Erm, was that the give them enough rope strategy ?

Procrastastudy

smcgiff wrote: »

Erm, was that the give them enough rope strategy ?

No comment lest context be lost!

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