Afraid to call in sick. :(

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

....


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

amdublin

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

See it's really weird when discussing with you.

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

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

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is it better for the employee that got injured?

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

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

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

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

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

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

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

I think you forgot about the OP...

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

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

I think you forgot about the OP...

Pretty sure I was the last person to have contact with the OP. I do believe he has enough good advice to tackle his particular problem.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

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

I think you forgot about the OP...

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

Hang on if you're refering this back to the OP you have to ear in mind the probationary period and they're under no obligation to carry out these meetings. If they wanted rid they could just let her go. Kinda proved the point that BTWI aren't as sinister as you make out.

Please drop the crud that we're all Mr Burns - I've already told you I'm unemployed. I'm about to enter an industry where I'll be expected to work 16 hour days six days a week for ZERO pay for two years. The lowest of the low so stop making out we're all 'da management' and you're the oppressed proliteriat.

amdublin

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Hang on if you're refering this back to the OP you have to ear in mind the probationary period and they're under no obligation to carry out these meetings. If they wanted rid they could just let her go. Kinda proved the point that BTWI aren't as sinister as you make out.

Please drop the crud that we're all Mr Burns - I've already told you I'm unemployed. I'm about to enter an industry where I'll be expected to work 16 hour days six days a week for ZERO pay for two years. The lowest of the low so stop making out we're all 'da management' and you're the oppressed proliteriat.

I hope a (paying) job comes your way soon dude.

Procrastastudy

amdublin wrote: »

I hope a (paying) job comes your way soon dude.

Thanks

My choice though. After having an awful time with an employer I decided to chase the dream, and dress up in a cape and try and make my fortune at the bar. That said anyone who thinks entry to their profession is old fashioned wants to see what wannabe barristers go through.

This is all assuming I pass the entry exams and have 13K to pay them for the course after my degree

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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

I was referring to the thread tbh

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

Never make assumptions. Managers should be doing their job that's my point not some BTWI balloney tbh

How is it better for the employee that got injured?

Never said it did

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

Again I thought this was to make sure the employees wellbeing was being somehow looked after. Not an interrogation. No I still believe these are a blunt instrument tbh

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

"Even if they are genuine"? Ouch that really does not say much about a good working relationship. Individuals do get sick. It does happen. Those that never haveca sick day are very laudable but tbh they are the oddities.

smcgiff

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Thanks

My choice though. After having an awful time with an employer I decided to chase the dream, and dress up in a cape and try and make my fortune at the bar. That said anyone who thinks entry to their profession is old fashioned wants to see what wannabe barristers go through.

This is all assuming I pass the entry exams and have 13K to pay them for the course after my degree

My brother in law recently qualified. Best of luck, it's a tough business. They don't call it deviling for nothing

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Pretty sure I was the last person to have contact with the OP. I do believe he has enough good advice to tackle his particular problem.

I meant about opinions / feelings about BTWIs. There is advice and their is advice tbh....

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

I

"Even if they are genuine"? Ouch that really does not say much about a good working relationship. Individuals do get sick. It does happen. Those that never haveca sick day are very laudable but tbh they are the oddities.

Lets not confuse a 'good working relationship' and being a mug - we're both more inteligent than that.

I've yet to meet anyone, including myself that hasn't pulled a sickie. The difference seems to be that I know I'm being bold and others (perhaps not you) feel entitled to them.

Also no one is suggesting that people dont have the odd sick day. It's where patters emerge that the issues arise. And yes 5 days thoughout the year, every year is a pattern.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

I meant about opinions / feelings about BTWIs. There is advice and their is advice tbh....

As has been mentioned (very recently even) the OP is on probation. A BTWI can ONLY be of benefit to the OP as it gives him a chance to explain his absence. It's even more important for him to discuss his situation, as otherwise he'll be more likely not to be offered a permanent contract.

And seeing as it's been a borderline pejorative term during this thread I may as well own it. As advice goes I'm probably in the better position to advise as to how management think.

Procrastastudy

Can I just point out I'm a fat (18st 6) 32 year old lazy so and so that considers darts to be an energetic sport and I've litterally had one day this year I couldn't have gone somewhere if I really needed to. If you include hang-overs that increases to 8 weeks but I for one dont include those.

Honesty and without being insulting to anyone am I obese superman?

Also my dear ol' dad - also Mr fat - I can't remember him having a sickday in 20 years. This would have been 50s - 70s. I take it apart from looking like martin clunes and the fat bald gene I've alot to thank him for ref immune system?

gozunda

amdublin wrote: »

See it's really weird when discussing with you.

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

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

I never made any assumptions about you directly - so I will ask that no assumptions be made about me or my position.

I do suggest however that employer interests here take at least some note the Discussed negative opinions of BTWIs.

Ignore if you wish.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

I never made any assumptions about you directly - so I will ask that no assumptions be made about me or my position.

I do suggest however that employer interests here take at least some note the Discussed negative opinions of BTWIs.

Ignore if you wish.

I can assure you I for one know that BTWI can be abused, others have said the same. We don't ban cars however becuase some people get run over. They do much more good than harm.

I'd have zero issue with a union rep sitting in on them. In fact I'd have welcomed it.

amdublin

gozunda wrote: »

I never made any assumptions about you directly - so I will ask that no assumptions be made about me or my position.

I do suggest however that employer interests here take at least some note the Discussed negative opinions of BTWIs.

Ignore if you wish.

You did make assumptions:

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 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.

Procrastastudy

I'm going to bed. Good luck all and a happy new year.

The employment world isn't perfect - managers are good - unions are good. It's amazing when they work togeather; that doesn't mean neccisarily agreeing - but the odd compromise here and there is nice.

amdublin

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm going to bed. Good luck all and a happy new year.

The employment world isn't perfect - managers are good - unions are good. It's amazing when they work togeather; that doesn't mean neccisarily agreeing - but the odd compromise here and there is nice.

I agree. A bit of common sense on all sides (employee, employer, union) goes a long way.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

As has been mentioned (very recently even) the OP is on probation. A BTWI can ONLY be of benefit to the OP as it gives him a chance to explain his absence. It's even more important for him to discuss his situation, as otherwise he'll be more likely not to be offered a permanent contract.

And seeing as it's been a borderline pejorative term during this thread I may as well own it. As advice goes I'm probably in the better position to advise as to how management think.

I am fully aware of the OPs scenario & that the employer has all the cards

The OP can box this clever if they choose but it is perhaps incorrect to say that the BTWI is 'benefit' to them...looks like from the description of this company and the number of staff they go through that they are using them to implement aggressive employment practices.

I think as I said elsewhere it can be sometimes unhelpful to make assumptions concerning others.

But at the end of the day - this is a discussion from which the OP can take what they choose

For the OP I hope you are feeling better - I ended up in hospital with pneumonia at one stage - its not pleasant. Do what you can but don't let the situation get you down - it is never worth it.

gozunda

amdublin wrote: »

You did make assumptions:

That was not directed at you btw - it is a general recommendation- see context. The clue was the word "generally" in the paragraph above.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

I am fully aware of the OPs scenario & that the employer has all the cards

The OP can box this clever if they choose but it is perhaps incorrect to say that the BTWI is 'benefit' to them...looks like from the description of this company and the number of staff they go through that they are using them to implement aggressive employment practices.

I think as I said elsewhere it can be sometimes unhelpful to make assumptions concerning others.

But at the end of the day - this is a discussion from which the OP can take what they choose

For the OP I hope you are feeling better - I ended up in hospital with pneumonia at one stage - its not pleasant. Do what you can but don't let the situation get you down - it is never worth it.

I can agree with almost everything you said above with the exception of the bold...

That 90% didn't pass probation bit from the OP didn't make sense. No company would invest time and resources to train up staff and let 90% go (you cannot keep them on probation indefinitely).

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I can assure you I for one know that BTWI can be abused, others have said the same. We don't ban cars however becuase some people get run over. They do much more good than harm.

I'd have zero issue with a union rep sitting in on them. In fact I'd have welcomed it.

Ah yes but cars are regulated and safety tested. BTWIs are not....;)

amdublin

gozunda wrote: »

That was not directed at you btw - it is a general recommendation- see context. The clue was the word "generally" in the paragraph above.

:rolleyes:

Dude that is not apparent at all.

"Generally" when you quote someone and then start a sentence with "your" it is directed at them.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

Ah yes but cars are regulated and safety tested. BTWIs are not....

Are you joking... the employer/employee relationship is very much regulated. For example a BTWI could not be used as a disciplinary procedure. That's a WHOLE different procedure requiring a set of rules that need to be followed.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Hang on if you're refering this back to the OP you have to ear in mind the probationary period and they're under no obligation to carry out these meetings. If they wanted rid they could just let her go. Kinda proved the point that BTWI aren't as sinister as you make out.

Please drop the crud that we're all Mr Burns - I've already told you I'm unemployed. I'm about to enter an industry where I'll be expected to work 16 hour days six days a week for ZERO pay for two years. The lowest of the low so stop making out we're all 'da management' and you're the oppressed proliteriat.

Sorry I missed this one. No there is that assumption again - I made no claim that all were Mr Burns just that a review of the thread makes an interesting study. Btw I was not aware of your present employment, status tbh - but haven read back Can I take it from previous post that you did have a management role ?

Regarding the OP this was in reference to the detail they provided. The fact is that they are doing BTWI in the first six months so that is what they are dealing with

Neither have I indicated that I am the oppressed proletariat - sometimes it is best to think with another hat than otherwise.

Good luck with the legal studies....

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Are you joking... the employer/employee relationship is very much regulated. For example a BTWI could not be used as a disciplinary procedure. That's a WHOLE different procedure requiring a set of rules that need to be followed.

No not joking - I can find no employment law concerning BTWI hence I must take it they are unregulated. Also from the description of BTWIs here it does sound like they could be used to solve all of humanities ills.... unfortunately I am somewhat sceptical on this tbh.

gozunda

amdublin wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Dude that is not apparent at all.

"Generally" when you quote someone and then start a sentence with "your" it is directed at them.

The first section was a reply to your post - then I included some additional gerneral comments not directed at anyone in particular

Re the "your" - did you read the preceding sentence that gave the group that the 'your' referred to? - ie I refer to all employer representatives

Ok for your benefit...

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.

I specifically prefaced the section 'Generally" and then particularly indicated that this should "should at least give some employers etc on here some pause for thought"
Do


I do of course apologise if you took me up wrong but there you are it is in black and white

Wicklowandy

smcgiff wrote: »

I can agree with almost everything you said above with the exception of the bold...

That 90% didn't pass probation bit from the OP didn't make sense. No company would invest time and resources to train up staff and let 90% go (you cannot keep them on probation indefinitely).

To be fair, i know of two companies that made high profile job announcements in the last year. A good friend of mine was offered a contract by one and was inducted with 70 others in february. At the end of november, all except 6 were let go, including my friend. He was a little bit surprised, but after talking to his line manager was told (quietly) to expect a call in january for another contract.

I think companies are terrified to hand out permanant contracts. Or maybe its because they know for any job they advertise they are going to get a massive amount of applications from some really good candidates.

smcgiff

gozunda wrote: »

No not joking - I can find no employment law concerning BTWI hence I must take it they are unregulated. Also from the description of BTWIs here it does sound like they could be used to solve all of humanities ills.... unfortunately I am somewhat sceptical on this tbh.

You're being serious? That's unfortunate. BTWI is just the name for a particular meeting, it's slang - it's for ease of use.

You're borderline trolling now.

smcgiff

Wicklowandy wrote: »

To be fair, i know of two companies that made high profile job announcements in the last year. A good friend of mine was offered a contract by one and was inducted with 70 others in february. At the end of november, all except 6 were let go, including my friend. He was a little bit surprised, but after talking to his line manager was told (quietly) to expect a call in january for another contract.

I think companies are terrified to hand out permanant contracts. Or maybe its because they know for any job they advertise they are going to get a massive amount of applications from some really good candidates.

That is surprising - not that companies are afraid to give people permanent contracts (what with people thinking you don't need to work to get paid) - but that companies will train people and let them go. It would make sense for seasonal work perhaps.

The other thing is that after a certain period of time contract workers become permanent anyway.

Wanderer2010

smcgiff wrote: »

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.

You sign a lot of things in your contract when you start, from joining a union to internet usage etc etc. You are hardly likely to object about a possible BTWI at that stage are you? They would just ditch you and get someone else. So the argument that "its in your contract" holds no weight, its like a boss demanding you do overtime at short notice and saying "Well its in your contract", there has to be leeway.

There has been a lot of debate about the BTWI and i say that perception is reality unless proved otherwise. I certainly felt it was an interrogation the last few times I did one, there was none of this softly softly oh heres what happened, you were missed etc (does that even happen??), it was more a very formal interview and a gentle but obvious reminder that you caused hassle dont do it again, worse still they cart you to the Occupational doctor who definitely wont be impartial so as I said perception is reality. If it feels like bullying, set up like bullying then it IS bullying.

monkeypants

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.

Was starting a new role earlier this year. The wife's uncle died and I had to take a couple of days to attend the funeral with her, support her and her mother, etc. Was very conscious that I was going to be absent for the first couple of days in the new role, the same days that I'd penciled in with my then manager for handovers, introduction and all of that other stuff that comes with a new role. Left voicemails for a couple of people explaining the situation and that was that. When I returned to work on Wednesday, I had a couple of people express condolences and that was that. Nothing more was ever said about it.

You can't go far wrong with the truth, OP.

Wanderer2010

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...

Yeah I agree, and furthermore managers think they have great relationships with their employees, what gives them that idea?? As said before, employees arent likely to just say outright what they think of them, managers dont want to know and the employee could get sacked so managers, a lot of them are living in fantasy land.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

You never doubt the sickness was genuine (okay yes you do but you keep it to yourself)

Ha, there you go people. Is there any wonder employees feel the BTWI is bullying, here we have a manager who says he doubts it from the start. Such perceptions can be picked up on by employees and as I said perception is reality. Theres one concrete reason right there that the format of the BTWI is set up to demean the employee.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

You're being serious? That's unfortunate. BTWI is just the name for a particular meeting, it's slang - it's for ease of use.
You're borderline trolling now.

I am being deadly serious - I am not trolling in any way.

BTWI are a very specific and relatively recent construct. The title Back to Work Interview appears to be in standard usage

They are being used for a very specific purpose. My comment was in response to Procrastinstudues analogy of a car and BTWI. IMO one obviuosly had stict regulations - Outside general employment law I cannot see any regulation of BTWI tbh.

gozunda

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Ha, there you go people. Is there any wonder employees feel the BTWI is bullying, here we have a manager who says he doubts it from the start. Such perceptions can be picked up on by employees and as I said perception is reality. Theres one concrete reason right there that the format of the BTWI is set up to demean the employee.

Wanderer - PS is not a manager at present - I think I had this discussion previously. He is currently studying law but think he may have previously held a management type role.

I do believe this discussion has been very enlightening tbh

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Ha, there you go people. Is there any wonder employees feel the BTWI is bullying, here we have a manager who says he doubts it from the start. Such perceptions can be picked up on by employees and as I said perception is reality. Theres one concrete reason right there that the format of the BTWI is set up to demean the employee.

Ha QED sherlock...

Seriously you're not very good at this. You continually quote out of context. You continously undermine your own points. Rather than relaise that one the one side people have a relatively balanced approach and will talk about weaknesses in the system you take any opening and try an turn it in to a reason the system has failed.

Employees don't feel BTWIs have failed - you and one other person on this thread does. The vast majority understand the purpose. You yourself have admitted the sickness policy is abused but duvet days. HA concrete reason why, after conducting a BTWI I might conclude that someone is telling porkies. However as I've said thats kept to yourself and the sickness is treated as genuine.

Do you actually read the entire post or just the bit you think strengthens your case? If I strings random sentances of yours togetaher I'm sure I can get you to admit you've Shergar in your basement.

You've still not suggested what the alternative is.

smcgiff

Gozunda,

I was waiting to see if you would thank Wander's post where he dismisses his employment contract as "useless" - it's hard to see where you are coming from if you dismiss the rule of law.

I am now 100% convinced you are trolling, and are merely continuing the argument for argument sake. Therefore your comments can be ignored.

I'll be giving Wander the benefit of the doubt for now, but I've my suspicions here as well.

smcgiff

Nah - lost all respect for wanderer after his 10.03 post. He's trolling. I'm out.

gozunda

smcgiff wrote: »

Gozunda,

I was waiting to see if you would thank Wander's post where he dismisses his employment contract as "useless" - it's hard to see where you are coming from if you dismiss the rule of law.

I am now 100% convinced you are trolling, and are merely continuing the argument for argument sake. Therefore your comments can be ignored.

I'll be giving Wander the benefit of the doubt for now, but I've my suspicions here as well.

I am glad I met your expectations. But I happen to agree with some of the points made. I did not know this is not permitted. Btw I have thanked other posters including Proceastinstudies . Is that truely relevant?

But no in this your are incorrect. I am giving my honest opinion however distasteful that may be. I am not dismissing any rule of law that I am aware of. I am questioning the application of BTWIs. I have already stated they may be of some use in cases of long term absences.

May I suggest that we have all have coffee and resume the previous good natured discussion?

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Ha QED sherlock...

Employees don't feel BTWIs have failed - you and one other person on this thread does. The vast majority understand the purpose. You yourself have admitted the sickness policy is abused but duvet days. HA concrete reason why, after conducting a BTWI I might conclude that someone is telling porkies. However as I've said thats kept to yourself and the sickness is treated as genuine.

Do you actually read the entire post or just the bit you think strengthens your case? If I strings random sentances of yours togetaher I'm sure I can get you to admit you've Shergar in your basement.

You've still not suggested what the alternative is.

Two people dont agree with it on this thread, there could be thousands more for all you know. I know its only a few more but a few people I work with dont agree with them either as the set up is too stiff and informal, you are explaining yourself after a doctor signed you off, which is very unprofessional. Oh I understand its not always easy with insurance claims etc and they need something on paper but why not just call it what it is, a means to see if you are telling the truth or not. This cosy little "Oh we are concerned about your wellbeing, what work practices caused this" etc etc is just rubbish. HR just want a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. And if you think your boss doubts you from the off of course thats going to change your perception of it.

Alternative? Take the word of a doctor and any issues in future bring it back to them.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Wanderer - PS is not a manager at present - I think I had this discussion previously. He is currently studying law but think he may have previously held a management type role.

I do believe this discussion has been very enlightening tbh

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Two people dont agree with it on this thread, there could be thousands more for all you know. I know its only a few more but a few people I work with dont agree with them either as the set up is too stiff and informal, you are explaining yourself after a doctor signed you off, which is very unprofessional. Oh I understand its not always easy with insurance claims etc and they need something on paper but why not just call it what it is, a means to see if you are telling the truth or not. This cosy little "Oh we are concerned about your wellbeing, what work practices caused this" etc etc is just rubbish. HR just want a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. And if you think your boss doubts you from the off of course thats going to change your perception of it.

Alternative? Take the word of a doctor and any issues in future bring it back to them.

Where did I say if someone had a doctors not I'd not treat it as genuine.

About 50 posts back we explained why te model suggested wont work. Next suggestion?

As for a piece of paper saying you wont do it again. They already have that it's called a contract. I notice further up your treatment of them seems very sloppy at best. 'There has to be leeway' I believe was you comment - well thats not how contracts work. If you dont like the contract (subject to it being legal) then don't work there or engag the union to renegotiate.

Simply put signing something to say you'll do one thing and then do another is simply dishonest.

EDIT: there could be millions more that agree with yhe majority position... we simply don't know. We can only go on whats infront of us, unless you want to go an dig out some stats. I think you'll find a week per year would be on the high side given I've seen stats for the various compnaies I''ve worked for and have seen the number of sickdays taken by people in my own family.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

Thanks for that but i don't believe we have met? I do not have a cause btw.
Yes humans are human and there at times that I'm sure sickness may be stretched etc
But at the end if the day there are many employment practices out there - not all in any way set up in the interest of employees - some are at best borderline in terms of their application by some employers.

I remain unconvinced that BTWIs are the panacea to employees that they are being made out to be.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

My backgorund is that I grew up with two very unionised parents in fairly manual roles. (My father was a printer for 50 years). I remeber visiting my Dad on pickets - we had many, many discussions on unions, the good and the bad.

I worked in retail for 15 years ten as a manager - seen a fair few of both sides taking the mickey. Sickness in retail is abused but then the workforce is genrally quite young. While wanderer seems to think managers should take everyones sickness at face value while admitting himself that people abuse the system - lets not be silly.

People do abuse sickness; its pretty obvious when you can't give a young lad the oxygen weekend off and his mum calls in for him that weekend - you ask to speak to the actual employee and he can't be got to the phone, at any point over the weekend.

Lad no offence but I know exactly who you are. You don't help your own causes to be honest.

You have no idea who I am and actually after reading your above post I can see why you might think everyone abuses the system- you are judging ALL employees based on the few that took the mickey when they wanted to go to Oxygen. Just because a few employees splutter their way through one of your BTWI foesnt give you the right to judge all other people on that yardstick.

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

I remain unconvinced that BTWIs are the panacea to employees that they are being made out to be.

Anyone who hangs in a thread this long has a cause or is trolling.

While you may not that's atleast a bit of healthy sceptism rather than just out and out bloodymindedness. The fact is they have to be done for legal and practical reasons. Whle I may not be able to convince you otherwise, at least bear that in mind.

If you think they being abused then get a union rep into the meetings. I don't knw any employer that would have an issue with that.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

You have no idea who I am and actually after reading your above post I can see why you might think everyone abuses the system- you are judging ALL employees based on the few that took the mickey when they wanted to go to Oxygen. Just because a few employees splutter their way through one of your BTWI foesnt give you the right to judge all other people on that yardstick.

Where have I said everyone abuses the system? Where have I said I judge everyone the same?

You're the one suggesting everyone be treated the same - that noone ever abuses the system. Thats just daft. In this thread alone both of us have admitted that people take duvet days - myself included. Why are you taking constantly taking the contrary position no matter how non-sensical?

Still waiting for your alternative to BTWIs

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Anyone who hangs in a thread this long has a cause or is trolling.

While you may not that's atleast a bit of healthy sceptism rather than just out and out bloodymindedness. The fact is they have to be done for legal and practical reasons. Whle I may not be able to convince you otherwise, at least bear that in mind.

If you think they being abused then get a union rep into the meetings. I don't knw any employer that would have an issue with that.

By that logic you yourself would be guilty of this on the thread ???

Do you yourself have a cause or are trolling? I would be very interested what the legal and other reasons that BTWI have came into being - what about companies that don't use this practice. Is there specific case law that is relevant and has caused employers to suddenly start being so apparently conscientious?

As I said previously I can see [some] merit but not as an universial panacea

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

By that logic you yourself would be guilty of this on the thread ???

Do you have a cause or are trolling? I would be very interested what the legal and other reasons that BTWI have came into being - what about companies that don't use this practice. Is there specific case law that is relevant and caused employers to suddenly start being so apparently conscientious?

As I said previously I can see [some] merit but not as an universial panacea

I most certianly do - retail employee rights. I think people in the retail sectors are treated appalingly myself included at the end with one particualr company.

Legal reasons are;

Health and Safety
Ensuring absence is recored properly (yes in case they terminate someone but also for other reporting reaons)
Putting people on notice if their absence is starting to creep up
Making sure various obligtions under legislation are adhered to such as ensuring people aren't under stress.

There would be other indistry specific ones - they all braodly fall under H&S. For example you cant have an upset stomach working in food retail/prep.