The Work Thread

Fed up talking videogames? Why?
User avatar
That's not a growth
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by That's not a growth » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:15 am

You see what you did SD, GG wrote all that at 3am. Next time just don't go to bloody work, this is bigger than you.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:11 am

We get sick pay but they have recently brought in the “Bradford Factor” to try and cut it down on it. http://www.bradfordfactorcalculator.com/

It’s a ridiculous system that actually encourages you to have more days off than you need as it punishes for number of number of occurrences during a year rather than number of days you have off. So that makes it utterly pointless to only have one day off sick, you have to have 3 or 4 days off in one go to make it worth it. ;)

We get a bollocking if our score is over 200 but below that is absolutely fine and so it is easy to work out how much of a score you have left to go and see if you can have a few days off. :lol:
User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Errkal » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:24 am

We just get paid like normal.

We only have 10 people in the company and pay is a standing order on the company bank account the boss can't be arsed to change it if you have a sick day so just pays us.

He hates the accountant and would have to speak to them to rejig tax and stuff so he says the cost of paying the odd day is better than speaking to the account banana split double.

Everyone's a winner :D
User avatar
Green Gecko
Director
Joined in 2008
Location: Sussex
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Green Gecko » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:28 pm

Lol that's great, maybe he should run his own payroll on Xero or something. ;)

I once got paid late because director switched banks and didn't want to pay a fast transfer fee. I couldn't pay my rent. Wasn't happy about that.
Support GRcade | t: @GRcade | FB: GRcadeUK | YT: GRcadeVideo | Twitch: GRcadeUK
User avatar
Qikz
Member ♥
Joined in 2011

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Qikz » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:03 pm

I'm sorry Gecko!

Luckily as it turns out today I feel much better (took the day off again and just actually relaxed this time) knowing that they won't strawberry float around with my pay due to the fact I've been off sick and I'll be fine to go back tomorrow. ^^
Image
The Watching Artist wrote:I feel so inept next to Stay Dead...
User avatar
Green Gecko
Director
Joined in 2008
Location: Sussex
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Green Gecko » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:20 pm

good things

dw I only gave you a gg lecture cos I was the same and I didn't really understand how to reconcile the emotions, I read all about SSP in the same scenario and just relayed what I understood.
Support GRcade | t: @GRcade | FB: GRcadeUK | YT: GRcadeVideo | Twitch: GRcadeUK
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Karl » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:32 pm

Moggy wrote:We get sick pay but they have recently brought in the “Bradford Factor” to try and cut it down on it. http://www.bradfordfactorcalculator.com/

It’s a ridiculous system that actually encourages you to have more days off than you need as it punishes for number of number of occurrences during a year rather than number of days you have off. So that makes it utterly pointless to only have one day off sick, you have to have 3 or 4 days off in one go to make it worth it. ;)

We get a bollocking if our score is over 200 but below that is absolutely fine and so it is easy to work out how much of a score you have left to go and see if you can have a few days off. :lol:


It says the Bradford factor is "S squared times D", where "S" is the separate occasions you've been absent and D is the total days absent. It says a score of 100 is cause for concern.

So 10^2 * 1 = 100 would be 10 separate 1 day sicknesses. But 1 * 100 = 100 would be 1 occasion on which you had 100 days off. They are exactly the same in the Bradford factor system.

Sounds like a load of total BS. :lol:

EDIT: I messed it up a bit, you couldn't be absent for 10 occasions for 1 total day. But I think 5^2 * 5 = 125 would exceed the threshold. So that's 5 separate 1-day absences counted the same as a single three-month absence. What am I missing here? That sounds even more insane.
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:19 pm

I guess each company sets their own limit on what is a cause for concern. Ours is 150 being a "concern", whereas 200 means you get a slapped arse (and not in a good way).

I can't be arsed doing the calcs, but you are right, it would punish you more for having lots of absences than the total number of days.

That's why it's stupid and insane. If you have a migraine it's genuinely in your interest to lie and say it's something more long lasting as you get punished more for 1 day off than 3 or 4. :lol:
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Oblomov Boblomov » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:37 pm

That's not true though. You still get a higher score if you take longer off on one occasion, it just doesn't go up as much as if you have two separate sicknesses.

It makes perfect sense. A high number of separate incidents more strongly suggests a sickness absence issue than a couple of longer periods.
Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:43 pm

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:That's not true though. You still get a higher score if you take longer off on one occasion, it just doesn't go up as much as if you have two separate sicknesses.

It makes perfect sense. A high number of separate incidents more strongly suggests a sickness absence issue than a couple of longer periods.


Somebody works in HR. ;)

If over a 12 month period I had 10 days sick over 5 periods, I'd have a score of 250.

If over the same period I had 10 days over 3 periods, I'd have a score of 90.

If I had 10 days in one period, I'd have a score of 10.

That's why I say it encourages people to have longer off than they actually need. If you're adding an occurrence, then you might as well make it worth your while.
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Oblomov Boblomov » Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:57 pm

Moggy wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:That's not true though. You still get a higher score if you take longer off on one occasion, it just doesn't go up as much as if you have two separate sicknesses.

It makes perfect sense. A high number of separate incidents more strongly suggests a sickness absence issue than a couple of longer periods.


Somebody works in HR. ;)

If over a 12 month period I had 10 days sick over 5 periods, I'd have a score of 250.

If over the same period I had 10 days over 3 periods, I'd have a score of 90.

If I had 10 days in one period, I'd have a score of 10.

That's why I say it encourages people to have longer off than they actually need. If you're adding an occurrence, then you might as well make it worth your while.

It's to protect people who suffer an injury, go into surgery, come down with something really nasty etc. Policies should be developed with that sort of compassion in mind and it's unfortunate that dishonest people abuse something created in their interest.

Also, I don't work in HR!
Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:07 pm

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:
Moggy wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:That's not true though. You still get a higher score if you take longer off on one occasion, it just doesn't go up as much as if you have two separate sicknesses.

It makes perfect sense. A high number of separate incidents more strongly suggests a sickness absence issue than a couple of longer periods.


Somebody works in HR. ;)

If over a 12 month period I had 10 days sick over 5 periods, I'd have a score of 250.

If over the same period I had 10 days over 3 periods, I'd have a score of 90.

If I had 10 days in one period, I'd have a score of 10.

That's why I say it encourages people to have longer off than they actually need. If you're adding an occurrence, then you might as well make it worth your while.

It's to protect people who suffer an injury, go into surgery, come down with something really nasty etc. Policies should be developed with that sort of compassion in mind and it's unfortunate that dishonest people abuse something created in their interest.

Also, I don't work in HR!


Nobody was ever penalised at my work before this silly system for having injuries or surgery.

The system is to stop people taking the piss by having too many Mondays off with hangovers, but the actual effect is to make people stay off work longer if they do ever have a sick day.

A better system would be to trust your staff and just punish those that abuse it.

FYI, my current score is 20 so I'm not taking the piss too badly, but I can 100% see why people do.
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Oblomov Boblomov » Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:40 pm

Moggy wrote:A better system would be to trust your staff and just punish those that abuse it.


Step 1. Staff member is abusing the sickness absence policy
Step 2. Question staff member about it
Step 3. Staff member tells you they were sick
Step 4. Trust staff member

Great system :lol:
Image
User avatar
Karl
Consider The Following
Consider The Following
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Karl » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:02 pm

I think it depends on the kind of workplace. If you're stacking shelves then I think it's understandable that your sick leave is monitored and micromanaged. OTOH I work in academia and I absolutely expect trust & flexibility from my supervisor when it comes to things like being off sick or needing to work from home.
Wrathy
Member
Joined in 2015
Location: Location: Location: Location:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Wrathy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:25 am

Grad scheme officially in its twilight hours. Got my four weeks notice letter today. :dread:

Also got an interview tomorrow. This one is internal, which is good, but I had an external interview for a similar role yesterday which I got rejected from this afternoon. Exactly the sort of confidence boost you need. :fp:
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:18 am

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:
Moggy wrote:A better system would be to trust your staff and just punish those that abuse it.


Step 1. Staff member is abusing the sickness absence policy
Step 2. Question staff member about it
Step 3. Staff member tells you they were sick
Step 4. Trust staff member

Great system :lol:


That's the system that worked for decades. If somebody had lots of sick time then they could and would take action.

Now they are encouraging people to take longer off sick than they need. Great system. :lol:

Plus the Bradford Factor harshly penalises people with genuine health problems. A health condition that flares up every so often can lead to multiple absences.
User avatar
Errkal
Social Sec.
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Errkal » Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:43 am

You know a big chunk of why people hate their jobs etc probably comes from this lack of workplaces trusting their damn staff.

Instead of just monitoring it and dealing with that take the piss everyone gets strawberry floated, when someone acts like a banana split instead of that person getting a bollocking everyone does.

It doesn't prevent the arsehole being an arsehole it just means those who go "above and beyond" gradually get work down u til they think strawberry float it what's the point.

Obviously it isn't the same everywhere and isn't so much where I am now, but was in my last place.
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Oblomov Boblomov » Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:34 am

Moggy wrote:
Oblomov Boblomov wrote:
Moggy wrote:A better system would be to trust your staff and just punish those that abuse it.


Step 1. Staff member is abusing the sickness absence policy
Step 2. Question staff member about it
Step 3. Staff member tells you they were sick
Step 4. Trust staff member

Great system :lol:


That's the system that worked for decades. If somebody had lots of sick time then they could and would take action.

Now they are encouraging people to take longer off sick than they need. Great system. :lol:

Plus the Bradford Factor harshly penalises people with genuine health problems. A health condition that flares up every so often can lead to multiple absences.

I gave you a very simple four point step that proves it doesn't work. How do you think eventually taking action against sometime plays out in tribunals if you can't present evidence of the implementation of a sickness absence policy that is consistently applied to all employees?

It's also bizarre logic that it encourages someone to take longer off. That suggests further down the year you're planning to become sick but then go into work anyway, because hey at least you had two extra days of fake sickness absence a few months ago. Huh?

Your final point — why would a company want to pay for someone who is sick regularly? This policy isn't just to flush out skivers, it's also to provide support to or ultimately get rid of people who genuinely are too sick to be economically viable to the organisation. Not a nice idea, obviously, but a realistic one.
Image
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Moggy » Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:08 am

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:I gave you a very simple four point step that proves it doesn't work.


It was simple alright...

The previous system did work. The current system encourages people to take more time off sick than they actually need.

How do you think eventually taking action against sometime plays out in tribunals if you can't present evidence of the implementation of a sickness absence policy that is consistently applied to all employees?


We have never had anybody take the piss enough to end up being sacked and taking the company to a tribunal. That's why people are so pissed off about the Bradford Factor, they are bringing in a harsh system that bizarrely also leads to more sickness.

The previous system we had would monitor sickness and anybody that was sick (for however long) had to attend a back to work interview where a manager would go through if the sickness was work related, would discuss ways of improving health and would set targets if a person had been off too many times. That let the pisstakers know that they were being monitored, without a blanket system in place that tells everybody that they are not trusted.

It's also bizarre logic that it encourages someone to take longer off. That suggests further down the year you're planning to become sick but then go into work anyway, because hey at least you had two extra days of fake sickness absence a few months ago. Huh?


It's not bizarre logic, it's literally what we have been told. If you have one sick day, you might as well have three as the number of days does not punish you as much as multiple occurrences. Take Staydead this week getting sent home (despite feeling fine at home in the morning), that would count as two occurrences and would punish him far more harshly than if he had just had the extra time off.

Nobody mentioned planning to become sick later on in the year, obviously nobody thinks "I'll have some sick time in June and then just go into work on 15 November when I have that cold I know is coming".

You are right that people will come into work sick and spread the germs around under the Bradford Factor, if you have been off (genuinely) sick a couple of times, then later in the year you will be forced in to give it to everybody else as you will be worried about your score.

Your final point — why would a company want to pay for someone who is sick regularly? This policy isn't just to flush out skivers, it's also to provide support to or ultimately get rid of people who genuinely are too sick to be economically viable to the organisation. Not a nice idea, obviously, but a realistic one.


People with IBS, bad backs, migraine sufferers, disabilities etc should all be gotten rid of if they take more than 6 sick days a year? You mentioned tribunals earlier, do you think it would go down well if a company was taken to a tribunal for sacking somebody that took 6 days off in a year?
User avatar
Oblomov Boblomov
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Mind Crime, SSBM_God

PostRe: The Work Thread
by Oblomov Boblomov » Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:33 pm

Yeah, but maybe not just get rid of them, kill them instead, save everyone else some time.

You should put your ideas forward as clearly businesses around the world implementing this strategy based on years of analysis are missing something. Let me know how it goes.

Sorry but I'm not wasting my time on this. I can't argue with you when you turn my points into exaggerated bullshit like getting rid of people with recurring illnesses after six days of sickness.
Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bunni, Denster, Finiarél, Google [Bot], Grumpy David, Oblomov Boblomov, Return_of_the_STAR, Samuel_1, Tineash, Zellery and 51 guests