Written warning - sick note

[foggypane]

It's going a bit off the topic of this particular thread - but it's a fact that some racial minorities have a lower life expectancy/infant mortality rate. Gypsies are a case in point. Iirc 10% lower life expectancy linking to being turned away from what we would consider basic rights such as signing on with a GP. There's more about it on the Commission For Racial Equality's website if you have a search around. Bit of a tenuous argument here though, imo. Yes, age discrimination comes into effect October this year. *stops own going off at tangent*


edit: I posted some information on age discrimination etc here if you want to know more about it.

Apologies agan for slight derail (or is it just a branch-line? )

This whole sick-note monitoring thing (AKA HR hatchet-man tries to justify existance) came up in my workplace a few years ago and was seen off by a very robust Unison rep arguing that, as the workforce was 45% or so either Asian or over 45 or both, their medical situation (and he had very detailed stats, eg diabetes being far more prevalent in Indian/Pakistani immigrants and their descendants in UK) would likely be 'worse' than the levels set for 'acceptable' in the proposed system.

It was implemented, officially, but line managers to their credit, point blank refused to work it and it withered away.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I wonder if there is more to this than we are seeing. There is no doubt that someone should not get a written warning simply for a few days off work on official sick leave....

 

[Derian]

Apologies agan for slight derail (or is it just a branch-line? )

This whole sick-note monitoring thing (AKA HR hatchet-man tries to justify existance) came up in my workplace a few years ago and was seen off by a very robust Unison rep arguing that, as the workforce was 45% or so either Asian or over 45 or both, their medical situation (and he had very detailed stats, eg diabetes being far more prevalent in Indian/Pakistani immigrants and their descendants in UK) would likely be 'worse' than the levels set for 'acceptable' in the proposed system.

It was implemented, officially, but line managers to their credit, point blank refused to work it and it withered away.

That's a great example of a union rep doing some research and supporting the argument with stats. If the workplace really had levels of sickness that were a major problem, they should have come up with a system that took all of that into account. It's not that hard to monitor against acceptable averages that may differ according to ethnic group - whether or not you believe that it should even be done in the first place. I tend to be with you on the big corporates who can afford to factor in sickness levels. Not the same with small businesses that can go to the wall (affecting the job security of all the employees of course) if they have high levels of sickness.

It's an interesting point *notes self heading down branchline*

 

[Derian]

I wonder if there is more to this than we are seeing. There is no doubt that someone should not get a written warning simply for a few days off work on official sick leave....

I wondered that too, perhaps the chronology will clarify ...

 

[jeff_leigh]

I wonder if there is more to this than we are seeing. There is no doubt that someone should not get a written warning simply for a few days off work on official sick leave....

just found this on the PCS webpage http://www.pcs.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=900621

 

[Guineveretoo]

Yeah, I know that there is a move across the civil service to reduce sickness levels, including dismissing people, but that doesn't alter the interpretation of what has happened here.

If DWP are automatically issuing warnings after a few days, even if the sickness is certificated, then, as the PCS site suggests, these must be challenged!

 

[disc0tech]

I remember looking into this a few years ago when I was a union rep. An employer can let you go for illness but they should deal with it through the normal disciplinary process.

IMHO, I don't think a business or organisation should have to spend their cash on paying sick pay to people that are frequently ill - I expect that to be the duty of the welfare state.

In reality, I think managers tend to use it as a tool when the real reason they want to discipline someone is difficult within the law / good practice.

 

[jeff_leigh]

I remember looking into this a few years ago when I was a union rep.

IMHO, I don't think a business or organisation should have to spend their cash on paying sick pay to people that are frequently ill - I expect that to be the duty of the welfare state.

in your opinion would you say you were a very good union rep?

 

[equationgirl]

As a person with a chronic illness that can result in periods off from work, may I thank you disc0tech for those words of encouragement and support.

I am currently in my second week of being signed off from work. I am fortunate in having an understanding employer who appreciates that I have a chronic illness and may need more time off than other people. At the moment I am having a relapse every 3 months or so, despite being under the care of a specialist.

Count yourself lucky you don't have a condition that means frequent sign-offs. I hope you never do.

 

[disc0tech]

I knew that was coming. Yes I think I was a good union rep, I stopped doing it because of a job change, and because I seemed to spend a lot of time helping people that I felt were trying to take advantage of the system.

I didn't mean that employers should not be flexible, but I don't think it should be their financial responsibility. I.e. I think that the cost of sick pay should be borne by the taxpayers, not by the organisation.

By making employers take the burden, they are less likely to provide support and paid work for people with high absenteeism. This is bad for everybody in the long run.

 

[mhendo]

I knew that was coming. Yes I think I was a good union rep, I stopped doing it because of a job change, and because I seemed to spend a lot of time helping people that I felt were trying to take advantage of the system.

I didn't mean that employers should not be flexible, but I don't think it should be their financial responsibility. I.e. I think that the cost of sick pay should be borne by the taxpayers, not by the organisation.

By making employers take the burden, they are less likely to provide support and paid work for people with high absenteeism. This is bad for everybody in the long run.

Correct me if i'm wrong: Doesn't the OP work in a jobcentre? Perhaps things have changed since i lived in England, but i thought that such places were government agencies. In which case the taxpayers would in fact be paying for the sick leave of anyone working there.

Of course, it's possible that i'm out of touch with British agencies, and that the jobcentre is a private company that does contract work for the government.

But that brings me to my next point. You argue that the state, and not private employers, should pay for long-term sickness, etc. But what about the notion that there should be some level of responsibiity on the part of the employer to his or her employees? I mean, employers constantly crap on about "loyalty to the company," and use all sorts of similar emotional blackmail tactics to get extra work out of their employees; why should we just let them skate when the shoe is on the other foot?

But there's another issue that is, i think, even more important. It's all well and good to argue that the welfare state should provide for people with long-term health problems. I tend to agree with you. But, as the economists say, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and if we're going to provide for these people then the money has to come from somewhere.

And, all to often, the very same employers who don't want to bear the burden of their sick employees are the same people who bitch and complain when society asks them to pay some taxes so that the welfare state can take care of these people. These folks want everything—they want to avoid any responsibilty of their own, and they also don't want to contribute to society's institutions and safety net through taxation.

 

[disc0tech]

Correct me if i'm wrong: Doesn't the OP work in a jobcentre? Perhaps things have changed since i lived in England, but i thought that such places were government agencies. In which case the taxpayers would in fact be paying for the sick leave of anyone working there.

I was talking more generically than that. Nevertheless, public sector or private, all organisations have operating budgets. The constraints are on the organisation, rather than the government.

Not to say that this is as simple as sick pay, the Disability Discrimination Act demonstrates that.

But that brings me to my next point. You argue that the state, and not private employers, should pay for long-term sickness, etc. But what about the notion that there should be some level of responsibiity on the part of the employer to his or her employees? I mean, employers constantly crap on about "loyalty to the company," and use all sorts of similar emotional blackmail tactics to get extra work out of their employees; why should we just let them skate when the shoe is on the other foot?

I'm a little confused about how that is relevant. I think that is more about individual companies and their relationship with their employees than the general principle. There are plenty of examples of companies that expect more work from their employees, or work at odd hours etc, but then repay the employee with time off when *they* need it. I know what you are talking about though as I have worked for companies that only do the first bit

But there's another issue that is, i think, even more important. It's all well and good to argue that the welfare state should provide for people with long-term health problems. I tend to agree with you. But, as the economists say, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and if we're going to provide for these people then the money has to come from somewhere.

I am fully in favour of higher taxes for higher earners. It pisses me off when people expect things from the state but get upset about tax hikes to pay for them.

 

[Derian]

Spot on mhendo.

edit: (2nd try, board wobble?) Anyway, good point from disc0tech about the DDA, applies to equationgirl's situation - I guess - for example. Should also give equationgirl some additional comfort even though her employers are behaving decently.