Employer broke my confidence

Strumms

If an employee chooses to impart information about a medical situation that they are enduring or enables their employer to do so with colleagues... no problem...

If the employer chooses to tell their staff regardless, big problem...unsat... if I was the victim of that breach I’d be speaking with a solicitor....no way said employer would get out of that without a lighter wallet...

qwerty13

I think Mrs O’B is getting overly harsh responses. Look, we all like to think we’d be lovely and altruistic towards our team mates - but if I was constantly swamped, and a team mate wanted changes to the usual procedures, or I had to pick up the slack on a reasonably regular basis, then I’m afraid I would get a bit peed off. If I had a teeny bit of background on it (not their full - private - medical details by any means), then I’m on board for changing things or increasing my work load to help them. I wouldn’t have thought that I was so unusual in that?!?

I also think that the boss in question was ridiculously stupid and unprofessional in repeating the OP’s private details, but I believe that a chat with the OP should have been had to make a plan as to how best to deal with time off / changes to existing work practices etc. Even if it came down to agreeing that the OP and boss would both convey the same message along the lines of ‘x has a few things going on, so we’re going to change around y for a while to facilitate them’. Because it’s not like people won’t notice absences etc. Agreeing a joint message between the boss and the OP heads off at the pass stupid or intrusive questions, and a bit of low-level resentment.

Now that the deed has been done, and the boss has gone full steam ahead revealing info that they shouldn’t have, I’m not sure where I’d take that. I think I’d probably let it go if I felt that I had the full support of my boss/the company behind me with regard to paid time off as needed, and flexibility. If not, then I might be inclined to take it further. On a practical basis though OP, if you ‘go legal’ you need to consider how this may impact your position with future employment - especially if you’re in a vulnerable position due to being ill.

I hope things work out for you, and that you’re happy with the medical help that you’re getting. Wishing you all the best.

qwerty13

qwerty13 wrote: »

I think Mrs O’B is getting overly harsh responses.

So Mrs OBumble has basically said that unless provided with an explanation as to why someone was missing or taking time off work, or needed accomodations for a time at work, they would presume they were being "a lazy bint" who was being manipulative, and they would look badly on them and would outright refuse to take up any of the slack until given such explanation, despite their colleague's right to privacy.

And you thnk the responses are harsh? Gimme a break.

qwerty13

@Loueze. I don’t think what I said in the body of my post is too different from what Mrs O’B was saying. Just expressed differently. I wouldn’t have put it the way MO’B did, but that’s me.

Anyway! I didn’t really mean to make it totally about what another poster said. The body of my post says how I would feel. I guess at this stage, the ‘what should have been done’ part is somewhat irrelevant. If I were the OP, I’d concentrate for now on dealing with my medical issue, and availing of every support that the boss/company will give. I wouldn’t be considering any action beyond that for now.

Idleater

randomname2005 wrote: »

Daily stand up.

No mention on scrum.org and the Wikipedia article qualifies "a daily scrum (sometimes conducted standing up)"

...Ghost...

qwerty13 wrote: »

I think Mrs O’B is getting overly harsh responses. Look, we all like to think we’d be lovely.

If a person is incapable of trusting that management are accommodating another employee for good reason and instead assume the accommodated employee is just being lazy and manipulative, then the issue is not with the accommodated employee.

Sure, we might all want to know the reasons for the accommodations being made, but nobody has any right to know. The employer also can’t expect you to do extra, but that’s a separate issue between you and management.

Strumms

All the boss needs to say...”for personal reasons that we are respecting John Doyle is and will be out of the business for the foreseeable future... they are ‘unable’ to be at work at this time..When that changes we will let everybody know”

If after a while a colleague or two is asking and demanding information...

“ look, any conversation or situation between an employee and the company as relates to their attendance, wellbeing or otherwise is a private matter. It WILL remain that way. That courtesy would be extended to each of you so it’s appreciated and expected that each of you focus on your job as opposed to what others are doing away from it, thank you,.... if there comes a times we can say more we will, for now and possibly the duration that’s it, end of”...

If an employee kept pushing id advise that if they kept it up, I’d see it as them not following direction and policy and an investigation regarding their behaviors may follow and the subsequent disciplinary..

Strumms

qwerty13 wrote: »

I think Mrs O’B is getting overly harsh responses. Look, we all like to think we’d be lovely and altruistic towards our team mates - but if I was constantly swamped, and a team mate wanted changes to the usual procedures, or I had to pick up the slack on a reasonably regular basis, then I’m afraid I would get a bit peed off. If I had a teeny bit of background on it (not their full - private - medical details by any means), then I’m on board for changing things or increasing my work load to help them. I wouldn’t have thought that I was so unusual in that?!?

I also think that the boss in question was ridiculously stupid and unprofessional in repeating the OP’s private details.

If you are constantly swamped, ‘knowing’ the reason for X employees absence will not stop you from being swamped... what use is that ?

If I’m constantly swamped I’m looking for temps, etc...not personal details regarding X employees absence.

mrslancaster

I remember in previous jobs being told by a manager that X colleague is 'on leave of absence' or 'reduced hours' and that was the end of it. There was no staff meeting to make a big announcement & absolutely no discussion about the reason. No excuse for any business owner or any manager to act like the town gossip.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Exactly my point.

My colleagues facilitated me by changing the format we had previously agreed. They did not have to do that. But they did so because I gave them a little actual information. If I'd just said "can we sit for the daily catchup please" without giving a good reason, they'd likely have said "no".

You don't need permission or agreement from others to sit. Just sit. It's your choice.

qwerty13 wrote: »

I think Mrs O’B is getting overly harsh responses. Look, we all like to think we’d be lovely and altruistic towards our team mates - but if I was constantly swamped, and a team mate wanted changes to the usual procedures, or I had to pick up the slack on a reasonably regular basis, then I’m afraid I would get a bit peed off. If I had a teeny bit of background on it (not their full - private - medical details by any means), then I’m on board for changing things or increasing my work load to help them. I wouldn’t have thought that I was so unusual in that?!?

Now that you've written it down, look back on it, read it over, and see which of the two options is the best solution;
1) Employer reveals some degree of confidential information to you (and even noting the existing of a medical issue is confidential, even without naming the nature of the issue), or
2) Employees keep their noses out of other people's business.

Which is a better way to run a business, assuming that one day, you're going have your own medical issue to deal with?

Mrs OBumble

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

...and even noting the existing of a medical issue is confidential, even without naming the nature of the issue),

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

wench

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

Why is it nuts? If you're offered a position for a fixed duration, does the reason matter?

Strumms

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

Why is it ? If they have an xx month contract... why they have it and why it’s that duration is not their business...

They can ask, when not told they can choose if they wish to sign the contract...

It’s likely they however would be told, as a pregnancy is not a medical illness...

mrslancaster

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

Absolutely no reason to specify a temporary post is due to maternity leave. That is also personal information that a manager shouldn't share with an employment agency or a prospective candidate or include in an advert. It's enough to give the duration of the contract & job details as other posters said.

AndrewJRenko

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

Why would they need to know why it is temporary? They know it is temporary and they know the expected duration. Why would they need to know anything more?

martingriff

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Taken to it's logical conclusion, that argument means that someone who is covering maternity leave cannot be told that is why they are only temporary! That's nuts.

When they apply for the a temporary job it will say it is a temporary job for a time period. Why the hell do they need to know anything else. Now they may get to know as it is probably not a secret that the employee out due to have a baby.

But in no circumstances to you need to tell someone why it is for x amount of months. IF they were to complain I would go you applied for the position knowing it was temporary.

You are trying very hard to justify why a manager has a right to tell people private information

witchgirl26

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Another reading comprehension issue. I'll try again.

If a colleague was away with no explanation, came back refused to do any of the lifting which is part of the job, asked to sit during stand-up meetings, and would not give any reason even broad terms - then yes, I would look at them badly, and I would refuse to cover parts of their tasks.

Whereas a simple "I've had surgery, and been told not to lift anything heavier than a 2L bottle of milk for six weeks)" - and I'll fall over myself to make thing easier for them.

Really? That seems a little harsh. I would't have any issue with someone asking to sit during a stand-up meeting. Sometimes people find it hard to stand for periods of time. None of my business why. It's not like they're refusing to do part of the job - I would assume that the manager would be saying that "xx will not be doing any of the lifting for the next number of weeks so we'll be redistributing that element of their work". No explanation as to why required for me. I'd happily step in and help and just assume that there's a valid reason that management know as to why they can't.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

As stated a number of times, the OP's manager was very wrong.

But equally, colleagues do deserve a general explanation. Lightening the workload of some, at the expense of others for no good reason is bullying. They don't need the diagnosis / details, but they do deserve the courtesy of some explanation.

And if you think a temp is going to be bought in to cover the workload of a weekly or monthly hospital visit - you're dreaming.

Ok that is not bullying in any sense of the word. The only case that it could be considered is if the manager put an unnecessary amount of extra work on one individual. However if management are able to show that they spread a workload amongst other employees due to a specific employees medical need, then any bullying case would fall flat straight away.

I never expect any explanation as to why a colleague isn't in for a particular timeframe during the week or if some element of their work needs to be reallocated. If someone previously was able to do manual lifting as part of their job and suddenly management are removing that from the persons job and reallocating it out, I'm going to put 2 and 2 together and guess that the person can't do it for some reason which is completely their own business and help out.