# Written warning - sick note



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

I'm livid..I work in a jobcentre,and yeah its meant to be a 'caring' employer...bollocks!! i have had off 6 days sickness during the past year, and then unfortunatley got signed of by the doctor with tonsillitus for 5 days. I've now been told I'm to get a written warning, and I'm fuming!! I didnt think they could do this when I had a sick note, but evidently they're quite within their rights. I want to air my grievance and get it looked at again, although I doubt its going to do much good. I'm now only allowed to take 4 days sick over the next 6 month or they can sack me!! I feel really bad about this, any advice?

Hazyp


----------



## zenie (Feb 9, 2006)

Attendance monitoring - only excusable if you get taken into hospital as if you have x amount of days off you're obviously 'not fit enough to work' right?   

Check your contract out and see if there's an attendance percentage target


----------



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

No, there's only our attendance management which says no more than 9 days off per rolling year. I dont know whether to even bother appealing against it, doubt if I'm going to get it reviewed in my favour, and it could cause me problems with my line manager. But then again, maybe I should make a stand....


----------



## moonsi til (Feb 9, 2006)

make a stand...written warning is harsh. I work in the NHS and after 4 periods of sickness in a 12 month period we have a meeting with human resources, which TBH is good cos a lot of folk take the piss with sick leave.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2006)

Come on! That's ridiculous! I understand that people chance their arm with sick leave and stuff, but if it's a genuine illness with a sicknote signed by your doctor then that's completely out of line and I fail to see how this can justify a written warning from your employer.

Speak to your union rep as soon as you can, or seek clarification from HR.


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Feb 9, 2006)

I've heard some ridiculous shit before, but never anything like this - not somewhere of the ilk of the Jobcentre, anyway. Written fucking warning? Written fucking bullying more like. Kick their asses.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 9, 2006)

What the fuck do they want, your tonsils in a jar?


----------



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

Thanks eveyone, you've all inspired me. I've now written a letter, I have to request a grievance procedure first, so I've put exactly how i feel in the letter. Theyre bothered that it may affect 'future business', but how can i assure them it wont?

i was worried you'd all say i'm being paid sick out of your money, but its great that I've got some support, makes me feel a lot better about it.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Feb 9, 2006)

it's the same shit with me ' I work for the DWP and we're told we can only take 8 days off per rolling year, what unoin are you in PCS? talk to your union rep but he'' probably tell you the same, it's fucking disgusting


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2006)

I think that's a disgusting policy.

What happens if you have a chronic illness (like the one I have - I had three weeks off in November and am on week 2 of my current episode), or a long term illness like cancer? What if you break your arm or leg? What if contract something contagious and get ordered to stay at home by your gp?

And if you work for the job centre how the fuck can it affect future business??? It's not like you're out selling something - people come to the job centre because it's part of the process they have to go through to get JSA etc - it's not exactly optional. 

I think they're just making stuff up as they go along. Good for you for writing the letter, keep us informed.


----------



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

I've only been at Jobcentre for 3 years. When I joined I was told that unions werent thought very highly of at DWP and advised 'of the record' that I shouldnt join one. Of course, being new, I didnt want to rock the boat.So I've no-one to represent me.


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2006)

join now - there's nothing stopping you. Bet your local union will be pleased to help out too.

Union membersrhip is often discouraged when am enmployer knows they're up to no good. If they can prevent disgruntled employees reaching a critical number, it's less likely that something will be done to force them into change.


----------



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

They'd represent me when I've only just become a member? I'll try and find out who I should approach. 

We do have a counselling and Liason service we can use, called Care First, maybe I should contact them?


----------



## equationgirl (Feb 9, 2006)

They should do. Most unions, especially if they're aware of the culture in which their members operate, will help you out. I'm not aware of any unions that have a waiting period, that's not the point of joining one.

Put it this way, what have you got to lose by joining one? And what have you got to lose if you don't?


----------



## foggypane (Feb 9, 2006)

Attendance monitoring is racist and ageist (arguably)

Racist because, for complex reasons, illness is more prevalent amongst minority ethnic groups. 

Ageist for similar reasons.

Does your employer support racism and ageism?


----------



## hazyp (Feb 9, 2006)

Well they 'say' they're not....but I'm white and 44, does that count?


----------



## foggypane (Feb 9, 2006)

I mean the entire concept of sick note monitoring is racist and ageist. Probably sexist too.

Malingering is one thing, but this crappy micro management of employee bowel movements, sneezes and rashes is just one of the recent crazes of the crazed HR industry. It doesn't come into Govt. departments minds spontaneously, it comes from ambitious managers who want to import a new idea as a step on the ladder. It is demonstrably unjust and should be fought by unions.

I don't know the stats. for white men aged 44. Your organisation should be looking at a much longer time frme for analysing illness than a year anyway ffs, even if you accept  the idea. Are they going to lose good workers 'cos they happen to get flu and break a leg within a year? 

Tell them to fuck off.


----------



## Derian (Feb 9, 2006)

I think the threat of a warning is a bit harsh. Glad you're doing something about it via the grievance procedure. I'm surprised they've taken certificated illness into account, especially if it was only one period. I'm also surprised that they follow a disciplinary rather than capability procedure for attendance (i.e. people aren't going to get better because they've been warned, so a different type of procedure is normally used). Best of luck.


----------



## tangerinedream (Feb 9, 2006)

foggypane said:
			
		

> I mean the entire concept of sick note monitoring is racist and ageist. Probably sexist too.
> 
> Malingering is one thing, but this crappy micro management of employee bowel movements, sneezes and rashes is just one of the recent crazes of the crazed HR industry. It doesn't come into Govt. departments minds spontaneously, it comes from ambitious managers who want to import a new idea as a step on the ladder. It is demonstrably unjust and should be fought by unions.
> 
> ...



Extremely good post. 

a) Join a union now. 
b) Remember - you have been signed off in the opinion of a highly trained medical profesional. Perhaps invite the management to put forward their medical opinion of why you should actually be in work. Then produce a copy of a medical dictionary and invite them to answer further questions. Perhaps suggest that the doctor offers them guidance on how to draw up HR policy - when they protest that he/she knows nothing about HR say "EXACTLY YOU JUMPED UP FUCKWITS, NOW HANG YOURSELVES WITH YOUR MAN AT BURTONS TIES FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY"
c) ask for a meeting then sneeze and cough phlegm all over them. Literally all over them. 

This seems to go somewhat against the idea that the Gov't are going to get people of incapacity benefit and into work. Surely, if employers are allowed to sack people for having tonsilitus or two bouts of flu, people previously on incapacity benefit for medical conditions are going to be being sacked all over the place. 

I'm shocked and astonished by the DWP attitude here. I would completely understand them having a chat if you had rung in once every week with unsubstantiated conditions, but to warn you when you have a doctors note and no major history of absences. That's GOT to be wrong. 

  

People need to stop thinking about paedophile asylum seeking terrorists lurking to eat our babies and steal our jobs and start to notice that our world is run by thinly disguised victorian millowners in shirtsleeves with their bizarre own lexicon of middle management speak who are evil to the core. 

 

cunts...


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Feb 9, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> I'm livid..I work in a jobcentre,and yeah its meant to be a 'caring' employer...bollocks!! i have had off 6 days sickness during the past year, and then unfortunatley got signed of by the doctor with tonsillitus for 5 days. I've now been told I'm to get a written warning, and I'm fuming!! I didnt think they could do this when I had a sick note, but evidently they're quite within their rights. I want to air my grievance and get it looked at again, although I doubt its going to do much good. I'm now only allowed to take 4 days sick over the next 6 month or they can sack me!! I feel really bad about this, any advice?
> 
> Hazyp


  One of my mates works in a job center and has had more time off than you.  I'll find out what he did against the BS they gave him (and they gave him plenty!).

The father-in law works in a job center, also.  If I get a chance, I'll ask him.


----------



## foggypane (Feb 9, 2006)

tangerinedream said:
			
		

> Extremely good post.
> 
> a) Join a union now.
> b) Remember - you have been signed off in the opinion of a highly trained medical profesional. Perhaps invite the management to put forward their medical opinion of why you should actually be in work. Then produce a copy of a medical dictionary and invite them to answer further questions. Perhaps suggest that the doctor offers them guidance on how to draw up HR policy - when they protest that he/she knows nothing about HR say "EXACTLY YOU JUMPED UP FUCKWITS, NOW HANG YOURSELVES WITH YOUR MAN AT BURTONS TIES FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY"
> ...




Marry me.


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Feb 9, 2006)

Hi
this is shitty innit.  A fucking disgrace and a sad indictment of the way work, contracts, etc is going in this country.  I am currently trying to compose my own greivance on the same subject [more or less]   Sadly, most of this stuff will be in your contract or a policy referred to in your contract of employment - you'll have signed summat saying you agree to the terms & conditions of such and such and they amend they policy as and when they see fit.  I've had months and months off this year but have not had a written 'warning'.  The word warning itself suggests that there is going to be a price to pay for further illness.  That in itself seems threatening to me.  My employer do have back to work interviews where they verbally remind us of the 'sickness policy'  [so many days off in a 6 month rolling period is allowed, cannae recall the exact figure I'm afraid]

Shite innit.  I think we are both gonna find out we aint got a leg to stand on personally - but, as I don't wanna fucking work there anyway, I might as well waste a few hours and try and get them to see what they are doing is kinda wrong.  I'm in a Union.  The employer doesn't recognise unions 
 as no fucker will join........makes me blood boil.

Good luck with it but to be honest, check your contract carefully first, we never read them properly and the need for an income is a great motivator as regards signing stuff that's thrust under your nose.


----------



## Markyd (Feb 9, 2006)

Throbbing Angel said:
			
		

> Hi
> this is shitty innit.  A fucking disgrace and a sad indictment of the way work, contracts, etc is going in this country.  I am currently trying to compose my own greivance on the same subject [more or less]   Sadly, most of this stuff will be in your contract or a policy referred to in your contract of employment - you'll have signed summat saying you agree to the terms & conditions of such and such and they amend they policy as and when they see fit.  I've had months and months off this year but have not had a written 'warning'.  The word warning itself suggests that there is going to be a price to pay for further illness.  That in itself seems threatening to me.  My employer do have back to work interviews where they verbally remind us of the 'sickness policy'  [so many days off in a 6 month rolling period is allowed, cannae recall the exact figure I'm afraid]
> 
> Shite innit.  I think we are both gonna find out we aint got a leg to stand on personally - but, as I don't wanna fucking work there anyway, I might as well waste a few hours and try and get them to see what they are doing is kinda wrong.  I'm in a Union.  The employer doesn't recognise unions
> ...




All of the above but instead of a contract civil servants usually get terms and ocnditions which refer to HR matters which MUST be available to you.

PM me about the other stuff I asked earlier. Seek the union rep.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 10, 2006)

I've heard its becoming increasingly common to issue warnings over short periods of sickness - and also to do pretty oppressive 'return to work interviews'.  Cunts

Oh, aye, and definitely join the union.  they should be happy to have you and take this up.  Lots of ppl only jon when they encounter a problem - thats what they are there for.


----------



## belboid (Feb 10, 2006)

Unions arent looked fondly upon within the DWP?  It has one of the highest union density's of any workforce in the country!

Join now, or get totally screwed.


----------



## Looby (Feb 10, 2006)

I work for a different dept and we have a similiar procedure.
I've had catarrh since mid december which has caused really bad headaches, earache, sickness and dizzyness. 
As I work on the phone it's impossible to do my job when I am feeling really shit so I have had 7 days off in Dec and Jan.
Last week I got a really nasty cold and the catarrh is back with a vengeance so have had almost a week off again. I have seen the doc 3 times and he can't really do anything else for me.

When I go back monday, my level of sickness will mean that I will be on an 'action plan' and will probably be sent for an assessment with BMI who deal with our health and safety. My attendance has been really good since I have been there and now I will probably be marked down on my next review which will affect my pay award. I was so worried about being off sick I went to work last week and 2 of my colleagues now have my cold.

It makes my fucking blood boil.


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2006)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I'm not aware of any unions that have a waiting period, that's not the point of joining one.



The NUJ has policy not to extend (massive) legal support until people have been members for 6 months. 

So join _now_, all you lurkers! 

It is in a rather special situation - a lot of feckless potential members who are only likely to get round to filling in the form the day _after_ they get that writ that could cost £100k to defend...

At this level, though, your local rep should be prepared to advise as soon as you join.


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

belboid said:
			
		

> Unions arent looked fondly upon within the DWP?  It has one of the highest union density's of any workforce in the country!
> 
> Join now, or get totally screwed.



DWp Management and PCS (union) don't get on. DWP act like wankers PCS make them look like wankers DWp crank up the wankeressness (losing grip of english now)

This is the lot that sacked a bloke for not wearing a tie ffs.

Dopes.

Come the revolution brothers and sisters


----------



## Pingu (Feb 10, 2006)

things have moved on since i was there but...

I used to be a union rep for the then CPSA.

what you are describing sounds very like a case I had towards the end of my time in the civil service where they started sickness monitoring and clamping down on MMI (minor illneses). (Mind you back then they told everyone that sickness would be looked at after 11 days which to me just said woo hoo 10 days short notice holiday)

anyhow

the purpose behind the warning used to be so that if you took more days off they could go down the ineficiency route. It was normally targeted at those who took say lots of fridays or mondays off so I would guess that you have been caught in a trap designed for others.

I would deffo speak to your union rep


----------



## hazyp (Feb 10, 2006)

Thanks for the excellent replies, I am putting in my letter today asking for a reconsideration. I particularly liked the reply about the warning being a threat, and i will let you all know how i get on.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Feb 10, 2006)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> They should do. Most unions, especially if they're aware of the culture in which their members operate, will help you out. I'm not aware of any unions that have a waiting period, that's not the point of joining one.
> 
> Put it this way, what have you got to lose by joining one? And what have you got to lose if you don't?



I am afraid that ALL unions have a policy of not representing people who join them with an existing problem. Otherwise, we would all go bust from lack of funds!

I know there are opportunities for this policy to be overturned, depending on the local Branch etc., but PCS within DWP is very well organised, and I find it extremely surprising that, after 3 years there, you didn't come across them in a positive light, rather than just the lying rubbish that you were told when you joined.

Simplistically, and I know this is repeating some of what has already been said, but please do join a union now, even if they can't/won't represent you immediately.

Also, be assured that, on the facts as presented in the first post, DWP have breached their own procedure, and you will win a grievance.  But do make sure that, in your grievance letter, you are clear as to what it is you are complaining about, and what remedy you are seeking.


----------



## Looby (Feb 10, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> things have moved on since i was there but...
> 
> I used to be a union rep for the then CPSA.
> 
> ...



Do all employers count weekends as sick days?

If I was ill from thursday to tuesday it would be 6 days sickness not 4 even though I don't work sat and sun.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> I've only been at Jobcentre for 3 years. *When I joined I was told that unions werent thought very highly of at DWP and advised 'of the record' that I shouldnt join one.* Of course, being new, I didnt want to rock the boat.So I've no-one to represent me.



hmm. which party is in governement again?


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> I'm livid..I work in a jobcentre,and yeah its meant to be a 'caring' employer...bollocks!! i have had off 6 days sickness during the past year, and then unfortunatley got signed of by the doctor with tonsillitus for 5 days. I've now been told I'm to get a written warning, and I'm fuming!! I didnt think they could do this when I had a sick note, but evidently they're quite within their rights. I want to air my grievance and get it looked at again, although I doubt its going to do much good. I'm now only allowed to take 4 days sick over the next 6 month or they can sack me!! I feel really bad about this, any advice?
> 
> Hazyp



soon, you might find out about life over the other side of your desk....


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 10, 2006)

foggypane said:
			
		

> I mean the entire concept of sick note monitoring is racist and ageist. Probably sexist too.


----------



## Looby (Feb 10, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> hmm. which party is in governement again?



When we were voting for industrial action Nov 2004 our senior manager sent a blanket email to 400 staff telling us how he had no faith in the PCS anymore and although he can't stop us joining the strike we should consider the effect this may have on us as it is a breach of contract.
Cunt.  

He left last week, a card was sent round and 6 advisors signed it and there was 2x 50ps in his collection.


----------



## liberty (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> No, there's only our attendance management which says no more than 9 days off per rolling year. I dont know whether to even bother appealing against it, doubt if I'm going to get it reviewed in my favour, and it could cause me problems with my line manager. But then again, maybe I should make a stand....


That is terrible.. Here I have just paid for someone to be off for 4 months which is also terrible


----------



## Looby (Feb 10, 2006)

liberty said:
			
		

> That is terrible.. Here I have just paid for someone to be off for 4 months which is also terrible



Were they genuinely ill?


----------



## foggypane (Feb 10, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

>




Think about it from a socio-economic/ethnic profile/medical condition and ill health perspective. To punish people for being ill is, demographically and epidemiologically, to punish them for being older and working class/non-white.

Arguable, but a strong position.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 10, 2006)

I may be somewhat out of date, but civil service disciplinary procedure always used to require *TWO* formal verbal warnings (i.e. not just the boss telling you off, but telling you off and informing you that the warning will be noted on your record) before a written warning could be issued.

Check your employment terms and/or the "jobcentre plus" disciplinary procedure.

If your boss has stepped out of line with regards to the correct procedure then file a complaint.

Oh, and the union thing? get in there!


----------



## Pingu (Feb 10, 2006)

actually i wouldnt file a complaint

if they havnt followed their own disciplinary procedures and things get worse you have a nice case.

if you file a complaint now they have a chance to correct the error


depending on the situation though a verbal warning isnt always required.


they used to do "back to work" interviews when you returned from sick. these were actually counted as part of the disciplinry process although it was never clear  that this was the case.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Feb 10, 2006)

sparklefish said:
			
		

> When we were voting for industrial action Nov 2004 our senior manager sent a blanket email to 400 staff telling us how he had no faith in the PCS anymore and although he can't stop us joining the strike we should consider the effect this may have on us as it is a breach of contract.
> Cunt.



Before the last  PCS strike a couple of weeks ago our senior manager sent out a similar email explaining the only people it would hurt would be the general public, he's all heart i tell ya


----------



## hazyp (Feb 10, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> soon, you might find out about life over the other side of your desk....



Guinessdrinker,

i know about life on the other side of the desk...in fact I always make sure if someone is due their money that they get it...on the day its due, and this has also got me into trouble, as i've been told I'm on the side of the Jobseekers and not the department. But I dont care, people are due their money, need their money, and who the hell are the DWP to keep them from getting it, or make to make them wait longer for it...if theyre due the money then bloody well pay them.

I have people who come to me and only want to deal with me because I am fair and I help them....but now I've been told that I'm too soft. Soft...shit I am....I am there to help people and thats what I will keep on doing.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Feb 10, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> This is the lot that sacked a bloke for not wearing a tie ffs.
> 
> Dopes.
> 
> Come the revolution brothers and sisters



different offices have diffent dress policies, but in our office making a bloke wear a tie would be tantamount to sex discimination, i go to the office in polo shirts and no one say anything


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I may be somewhat out of date, but civil service disciplinary procedure always used to require *TWO* formal verbal warnings



All civil service departments have different procedures now. usuallly very similar but different


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> different offices have diffent dress policies, but in our office making a bloke wear a tie would be tantamount to sex discimination, i go to the office in polo shirts and no one say anything




Which is right!

On appeal they were forced to re-instate him.

DWP managed by numpties IME


----------



## hazyp (Feb 10, 2006)

Well, when I got to work today...Lo and behold there was my warning letter awaiting me on my desk. Thing is, I was already prepared, and having been up all night worrying about my problem, my letter was written and in an envelope. I went to my line manager and gave it to her, and just said 'I'm appealing against your letter'. She made no comment and although I saw her photocopying it, she has made no mention of it all day and no acknowledgement that it has been passed to management higher up.


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> Well, when I got to work today...Lo and behold there was my warning letter awaiting me on my desk. Thing is, I was already prepared, and having been up all night worrying about my problem, my letter was written and in an envelope. I went to my line manager and gave it to her, and just said 'I'm appealing against your letter'. She made no comment and although I saw her photocopying it, she has made no mention of it all day and no acknowledgement that it has been passed to management higher up.




Hazy did you seek out the union rep?


----------



## hazyp (Feb 10, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> Hazy did you seek out the union rep?



Hi,

No, i wasnt given any time to do anything, I was kept busy, and nothing was said to me about my letter of appeal. However, I am off work for a weeks leave now, so I shall do it then. Do you have any idea where my local office is?


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> No, i wasnt given any time to do anything, I was kept busy, and nothing was said to me about my letter of appeal. However, I am off work for a weeks leave now, so I shall do it then. Do you have any idea where my local office is?




H

There is a rep in every office or should be.

And you are allowed time to speak to union reps about work (or indeed private issues which affect your workplace)

Pm me the office that you work in and I;ll see if I can find out through my contacts at HQ.

If someone from DWP reads this can you help?


----------



## jeff_leigh (Feb 10, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> H
> 
> There is a rep in every office or should be.
> 
> ...



should find the relevant info here


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> should find the relevant info here




Cheers


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Feb 10, 2006)

foggypane said:
			
		

> Think about it from a socio-economic/ethnic profile/medical condition and ill health perspective. To punish people for being ill is, demographically and epidemiologically, to punish them for being older and working class/non-white.
> 
> Arguable, but a strong position.



older, yes, definitely and I believe it is either now or soon that the law will say that employers cannot dismiss on ground of age. what I cannot get is the issue of ethnic profile. perhaps if you could clarify that, it might help. I just can't see why white people get less sick than other people.


----------



## Derian (Feb 10, 2006)

hazyp said:
			
		

> Well, when I got to work today...Lo and behold there was my warning letter awaiting me on my desk. Thing is, I was already prepared, and having been up all night worrying about my problem, my letter was written and in an envelope. I went to my line manager and gave it to her, and just said 'I'm appealing against your letter'. She made no comment and although I saw her photocopying it, she has made no mention of it all day and no acknowledgement that it has been passed to management higher up.



 Was there no disciplinary hearing?


----------



## Markyd (Feb 10, 2006)

Derian said:
			
		

> Was there no disciplinary hearing?



There should have been a meeting with agreed notes. Deffo.

Hayz see they've fucked up already.


----------



## Derian (Feb 10, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> There should have been a meeting with agreed notes. Deffo.
> 
> Hayz see they've fucked up already.



Yes, there's a set format. 

This is the ACAS code of practice (careful, PDF but worth downloading) 

The ACAS code of practice is a statutory instrument. That means that it is approved by Parliament. Employers don't have to follow it - but as it is written to comply with the relevant legislation & the Employment Tribunals certainly use it as a frame of reference, any employer that doesn't follow it would have a tough time showing that they had followed a fair procedure.

This whole thread is getting very hazy. It's a good idea to tell us what they have actually done (facts) so far chronologically, because I for one am getting unclear as to grievances v appeals etc. 

Have a ganders at the link though


----------



## Derian (Feb 10, 2006)

guinnessdrinker said:
			
		

> older, yes, definitely and I believe it is either now or soon that the law will say that employers cannot dismiss on ground of age. what I cannot get is the issue of ethnic profile. perhaps if you could clarify that, it might help. I just can't see why white people get less sick than other people.



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.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Feb 11, 2006)

Sorry folks, I'm reading this from the perspective of a minimum-wage-slave so forgive me if I ask - is this about limiting the number of days a person can get contractual sick pay? Anyone who is sick for the required nujmber of days gets SSP, so it seems to me this is about getting full pay for sick days. I don't get that. When did it become a right?


----------



## Looby (Feb 11, 2006)

AnnaKarpik said:
			
		

> Sorry folks, I'm reading this from the perspective of a minimum-wage-slave so forgive me if I ask - is this about limiting the number of days a person can get contractual sick pay? Anyone who is sick for the required nujmber of days gets SSP, so it seems to me this is about getting full pay for sick days. I don't get that. When did it become a right?



I think the issue is more the effect on job security, future pay awards etc


----------



## Derian (Feb 11, 2006)

sparklefish said:
			
		

> I think the issue is more the effect on job security, future pay awards etc



That's my take on it too.


----------



## foggypane (Feb 11, 2006)

Derian said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

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 (Feb 11, 2006)

foggypane said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 11, 2006)

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 (Feb 12, 2006)

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 (Feb 12, 2006)

disc0tech said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 12, 2006)

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 (Feb 12, 2006)

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 (Feb 12, 2006)

disc0tech said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 12, 2006)

mhendo said:
			
		

> 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.  




			
				mhendo said:
			
		

> 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   




			
				mhendo said:
			
		

> 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 (Feb 12, 2006)

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.


----------

