The Work Thread

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?

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.

Gotten to.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote: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.

I really don't understand why you are so defensive of the Bradford Factor. It genuinely is a gooseberry fool system, I'd love to see your evidence of businesses around the world using it based on years of analysis.

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.

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.

6 single day absences would result in somebody being well over the standard Bradford Factor (my company actually sets the bar more leniently than most), the suggestion of getting rid of people was yours, not mine.

So yeah let's not make up things or exaggerate things people didn't say eh? Things like killing them (quote above) or that people are planning sickness months in advance (quote below).

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?

What the hell is going on in here now

I think I'm with MOggy on this, I don't know much about the system but from the sounds of it, it is a way of almost automating the sick leave process making it hugely impersonal and generic.
Normally I'm all for automation etc. but in this case, it seems to be a way of stopping the manager needing to actually manage and know their staff and remove the need for them to be able to "read people" to know if they are lying and trying the play the system.
It seems to me that it is punishing everyone because some people are tossers and the companies managers are not able to do their job well enough to find out that people are taking the piss and taking appropriate action.

Errkal wrote:I think I'm with MOggy on this, I don't know much about the system but from the sounds of it, it is a way of almost automating the sick leave process making it hugely impersonal and generic.
Normally I'm all for automation etc. but in this case, it seems to be a way of stopping the manager needing to actually manage and know their staff and remove the need for them to be able to "read people" to know if they are lying and trying the play the system.
It seems to me that it is punishing everyone because some people are tossers and the companies managers are not able to do their job well enough to find out that people are taking the piss and taking appropriate action.

In any sort of business that is very dangerous. What if you "read people" differently from a different manager? (either in the group, or an employees previous manager?)

Keeping it clinical, impersonal and objective is not necessarily best for individuals - but it's normally the clearest and safest way for multiple reporting lines to operate - and for if/when you have to start displincary due to levels/frequency of sickness etc (Which I've had to do).

You need a clear cut and "not open to interpretation" policy - otherwise it devolves into he said/he said or "whataboutery". They have "taken the appropriate action".

Is Suckboy Qikz back at work?

The Bradford Factor Thread

I'm keeping an eye on sick days atm (I'll need them soon). I asked HR for a print out of my sick days in last 12 months (we get 20 before SSP) to plan income hit. Much lower than expected = they missed off an occasion when I got the plops from a restaurant.

I'm not telling them though!

Hexx wrote:
Is Suckboy Qikz back at work?

I think his new name is actually StayHead.

I am back at work.

All the protein fixed you right up then. Good.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here in that you (Moggy and Errkal) believe the formula is adhered to as some sort of robotic arbiter rather than used as a foundation to inform human decision-making.

I genuinely thought you were just being a bellend suggesting that I think people with 6 days of absence should be got rid of. I didn't think for a second that was your actual understanding of what I said, because to me it was so obviously not.

I've just re-read what I said and I did mention economic viability. If you still read into this that I meant 6 days across an entire year then I have to say that's your fault for seriously poor judgment and not mine for lack of clarity.

But still, if you weren't just being an arse then I apologise for interpreting it as that.

So either I'm stupid or an arsehole? Great argument mate.

I have no idea why you love the Bradford Factor so much, but you're obviously never going to listen to any reasons why people might think it's crap. Fair enough, you can think it's great, I can think it's gooseberry fool and we can stop boring everyone else about it.

I've had six (exactly six) days off sick in the last 12 months. If OB was my manager he'd probably have marched me up to HR long ago for a dressing down.

If you honestly think I meant that six days off over an entire year means an employee is economically unviable then yes, you're stupid. That's not my fault.

We don't even use the thing at my place.

"No idea why you love it so much."

Yeah okay, I guess I should just marry it, right?

Drumstick wrote:I've had six (exactly six) days off sick in the last 12 months. If OB was my manager he'd probably have martched me up to HR long ago for a dressing down.

I'd have had you down at occupational health after three of those days. You'd have at least seven prescriptions, a flexible working arrangement and mandatory health screening every month by now .

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:If you honestly think I meant that six days off over an entire year means an employee is economically unviable then yes, you're stupid. That's not my fault.

We don't even use the thing at my place.

"No idea why you love it so much."

Yeah okay, I guess I should just marry it, right?

I had a moan about a gooseberry fool system and you've spent the last day defending it. If you don't love it, then your definitely have a crush on it.

The 6 days was an example of an employee breaking the maximum score. Your argument was that the score was there so employers could get rid of the economically unviable employees that break the score. Did I think you literally meant 6 days? No. Was it an example of how your idea could be taken to the extremes? Yes. Is this boring? Oh strawberry float me yes.

Brb just posting in other threads to say I'm bored of them

Oblomov Boblomov wrote::dread:

Brb just posting in other threads to say I'm bored of them