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?