Afraid to call in sick. :(

monkeypants

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

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.

We run a set of meetings where employees get to give feedback. I'm not in the room and neither is the HR manager. All feedback is anonymised before I get it. Haven't received anything bad about myself yet, but I know that some managers have.

If anyone can suggest a better way of receiving such feedback, please do.

Procrastastudy

monkeypants wrote: »

We run a set of meetings where employees get to give feedback. I'm not in the room and neither is the HR manager. All feedback is anonymised before I get it. Haven't received anything bad about myself yet, but I know that some managers have.

If anyone can suggest a better way of receiving such feedback, please do.

To be fair we used to do surveys - they are inherently bias. Managemnt used to hold up this 80% approval on this 90% on that. The way the reporting was done was simply put bollocks.

The only alternative is to make it written and completely anonymous - that works the oppisite way. People start talking rubbish and exagerting their positions e.g. it's all managers rather than just 1 or 2.

Not that I'm saying its not worth doing - just any system is usually flawed.

monkeypants

Procrastastudy wrote: »

To be fair we used to do surveys - they are inherently bias. Managemnt used to hold up this 80% approval on this 90% on that. The way the reporting was done was simply put bollocks.

The only alternative is to make it written and completely anonymous - that works the oppisite way. People start talking rubbish and exagerting their positions e.g. it's all managers rather than just 1 or 2.

Not that I'm saying its not worth doing - just any system is usually flawed.

I'm only interested in feedback from my own team and yes, not all of it is valid. Sometimes you get feedback on something that there was no alternative to at the time or that you didn't have a choice over. Some of the feedback might be from months previously and is no longer valid. But sometimes you do get something that you can change right away.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

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.

Ok get what you are saying - but would the majority of these not be normal management responsibilities that an employees manager should undertake as part of their regular responsibilities ?

I am interested that BTWI have suddenly and relatively recently been adopted.

I am not aware of any specific provision in law or even case law that has brought this about - have you come across anything in this field?

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Ok get what you are saying - but would the majority of these not be normal management responsibilities that an employees manager should undertake as part of their regular responsibilities ?

I am interested that BTWI have suddenly and relatively recently been adopted.

I am not aware of any specific provision in law or even case law that has brought this about - have you come across anything in this field?

Yes BTWI in reality have always been conducted by mangers with a clue, albeit informally and possibly without either party knowing thats what they were doing.

As for where they come from - they came out of the need for better reporting. That's a double edged sword in that on the one hand it protects employees on the other it makes it much easier to spot absence patterns and take apropriate action. That would be anything from an informal chat to a full blown disciplinary procedure.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Yes BTWI in reality have always been conducted by mangers with a clue, albeit informally and possibly without either party knowing thats what they were doing.

As for where they come from - they came out of the need for better reporting. That's a double edged sword in that on the one hand it protects employees on the other it makes it much easier to spot absence patterns and take apropriate action. That would be anything from an informal chat to a full blown disciplinary procedure.

Yes I understand but BTWI appear to have metamorphosed into much more than just an informal talk with your manager on your return to work (which no employee would see as an issue imo). That is the main issue. It appears to be often a (a very large) hammer to break a (very small) walnut used without discretion

Of interest - I don't necessarily accept that BTWI always protects the employee. I have seen some arguments to that effect here but they have been less than convincing tbh.

Procrastastudy

I don't really get where you feel a BTWI is cracking anyones nuts. The procedure to be followed would be;

Several BTWI - establishing a pattern. At each stage the employees input is recorded.

An investigation where further information was gathered. All information passed to another party for a disciplinary hearing.

Employee and represenative are heard, employer side heard (or taken from notes)... one of two things then happen

a) Employee finally lets management know thier kid is on drugs and the game and they've been trying to dort things out / cat has died and management take no further action.

b) No reasoning is given - employee gets a verbal warning and the process starts all over again.

I really dont see how this process is in anyway unfair to the employee. They are being given ample oppitunity to change/explain.

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them. What is so sinister about a BTWI - what do you think they are trying to achieve?

Sorry to address your first point; yes they have morphed from an informal chat to a formal one - this is just a trend in the work place for various reasons from bothsides of the employee/employer divide.

Wanderer2010

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them.

Eh, such as? Employees have more rights to stand up to bullying tactics from managers than managers do to bully them, Im curious as to what you mean by the highlighted. You say you were a manager in retail for 10yrs and you are 32 now, I think 22 or 23 is far too young to be a manager, you simply havent the experience or maturity to manage at that age. This may cloud your reasoning when it comes to judging other people on their sick leave as you presume everyone is taking the mickey when thats not the case..

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I don't really get where you feel a BTWI is cracking anyones nuts. The procedure to be followed would be;

Several BTWI - establishing a pattern. At each stage the employees input is recorded.

An investigation where further information was gathered. All information passed to another party for a disciplinary hearing.

Employee and represenative are heard, employer side heard (or taken from notes)... one of two things then happen

a) Employee finally lets management know thier kid is on drugs and the game and they've been trying to dort things out / cat has died and management take no further action.

b) No reasoning is given - employee gets a verbal warning and the process starts all over again.

I really dont see how this process is in anyway unfair to the employee. They are being given ample oppitunity to change/explain.

Lets assume I want rid of X who has a bit od sickness here and there; there are about a gazzilion more efficent ways to sack them. What is so sinister about a BTWI - what do you think they are trying to achieve?

Sorry to address your first point; yes they have morphed from an informal chat to a formal one - this is just a trend in the work place for various reasons from bothsides of the employee/employer divide.

Ok I get your reasoning however for small periods of sickness this procedure is way OTT in my opinion

I would suggest that such a procedure would be only recommended by a manager when there is regular and unusual absences

Otherwise normal management structures would apply

This should not be a procedure for 'interviewing' the conscientious employee that has to take some genuine sick time

Where it is used indiscriminately there will be employees who will genuinely be afraid (often without cause) and management who will use it so

Hence sledgehammer and walnuts analogy

To bring in such draconian 'you better be careful to not get sick again' attitude as was indicated by the OP is poor management at best imo

But I can agree to disagree on our opinions here

I still do not see why such a 'trend' has become practice. Unless its the latest trend from that employment paradise - the US

If anything employers are giving employees less benefits especially with referred to sick pay etc. yes I know it may be a cost to the employer but that's one of the joys of actually employing normally functioning humans.

Good management practices and good staff / management relationships are not best served by such trends being adopted without thought as to their real effects on employees. Time will tell.

Wicklowandy

smcgiff wrote: »

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.

I think thats 12 months for permanant rights regardless of contract? Maybe the idea of hiring for 9 months, laying off and rehiring is to circumvent this? And with the jobs market as it is, companies can be reasonably confident of getting quite a few of the trained layed off staff back.

Procrastastudy

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

Eh, such as? Employees have more rights to stand up to bullying tactics from managers than managers do to bully them, Im curious as to what you mean by the highlighted. You say you were a manager in retail for 10yrs and you are 32 now, I think 22 or 23 is far too young to be a manager, you simply havent the experience or maturity to manage at that age. This may cloud your reasoning when it comes to judging other people on their sick leave as you presume everyone is taking the mickey when thats not the case..

You keep refering to bullying. I've not bullied people - I've actively stood up to people that have. That said I'm no mug either. As I've said the people that cry wolf damage employee rights and not only that make it more difficult for people who are genuine victims of bullying rather than legitimate managment efforts to get rid of people who are not performing.

As for not having the maturity and clouded reasoning - how old are you out of interest?

Still waiting for you solutions btw...

Procrastastudy

gozunda wrote: »

Ok I get your reasoning however for small periods of sickness this procedure is way OTT in my opinion

I would suggest that such a procedure would be only recommended by a manager when there is regular and unusual absences

Otherwise normal management structures would apply

This should not be a procedure for 'interviewing' the conscientious employee that has to take some genuine sick time

Where it is used indiscriminately there will be employees who will genuinely be afraid (often without cause) and management who will use it so

Hence sledgehammer and walnuts analogy

To bring in such draconian 'you better be careful to not get sick again' attitude as was indicated by the OP is poor management at best imo

But I can agree to disagree on our opinions here

I still do not see why such a 'trend' has become practice. Unless its the latest trend from that employment paradise - the US

If anything employers are giving employees less benefits especially with referred to sick pay etc. yes I know it may be a cost to the employer but that's one of the joys of actually employing normally functioning humans.

Good management practices and good staff / management relationships are not best served by such trends being adopted without thought as to their real effects on employees. Time will tell.

I'll come back to you but dinner is on

Right - no one is sugesting that a BTWI is a standard format. If its a very concietious employee they are normally the ones most in need of a BTWI as they are the most likeily to come back early. I think the issue we disagree on is that a BTWI is part of normal management structure in most places.

OPs employer is right in wanring them - they are on probation. The benefit of the doubt is not affored probationers generally. Even more reason and more favourbale to the employee to do so.

As for the US - I have no desire to see the model intorduced here but if the system gets aboused by people that thing a week a year is accepetable every year then thats where you end up.

gozunda

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'll come back to you but dinner is on

Nah your grand - I think we've been around the block a few times tbh.

Enjoy the dinner...

Procrastastudy

Too late

Your ultimate point isnt lost on me BTW - they are open to abuse, granted. Just not to the point of the good outweighing the bad imho. That said I do see where you are coming from.