New sick policy

[Mungeys]

Have they got it the wrong way around? After two unpaid days off sick most people will think they might aswell take the paid days that follow, so that's less people in work.

If they did it the other way and had it so the first 2 days of sick were paid before it goes unpaid would that not solve their problem without punishing those that are genuinely ill and just need a few days to get better?

[postieblueshirt]

no and dont give them anymore ideas lol

[Foxel]

That would be awful for people with work related injuries that take a while to heal and anyone with serious health issues.

[rubberbond]

That would be awful for people with work related injuries that take a while to heal and anyone with serious health issues.

I quite agree but if it’s a work related injury you should receive full pay, if there was any justice

[mmalecki88]

New sick policy and stages are only made to kick people from company.
As persone who never abused sick policy, it's completely not acceptable.
OK, they make tougher stage terms, but why did they cut sick pay?
If you unlucky and have to go on second or third sick automatically loosing money

Company was making a profit all that years on current sick policy and what now? There is no reason to make changes, but of course rm want to save more money on us.

[wolfman]

Is it the 12th day or the 3rd absence that triggers a stage now? So we are allowed 11 days & 2 absences a year to not trigger a stage?

[Marshamp11]

That would be awful for people with work related injuries that take a while to heal and anyone with serious health issues.

I quite agree but if it’s a work related injury you should receive full pay, if there was any justice

If there was any justice then some work related injuries like bad knees, feet, ankles etc, which have got worse over many years pounding the streets, should be deemed industrial injuries and have varying levels of compensation attached to them instead of being treated with "It comes with the job" type attitude.

[cornstar18]

You're still allowed two periods of absence in 12 months which is plenty. If you have 3 in 12 month. Go on a stage, and manage to have another 3 in the next window I'd probably say that's fair grounds for any employer to ask you to defend it.
I'm sure union reps protect people that have a genuine recurring need for time off but there are plenty that abuse it

[sindba]

You're still allowed two periods of absence in 12 months which is plenty. If you have 3 in 12 month. Go on a stage, and manage to have another 3 in the next window I'd probably say that's fair grounds for any employer to ask you to defend it.
I'm sure union reps protect people that have a genuine recurring need for time off but there are plenty that abuse it

In this job 2 periods in 12 months is not "plenty", it is brutal and unecessary.

There's no evidence that "plenty" abuse it apart from workplace rumours and heresay, and management imaginations.

Even if some "abuse" it, that's not a reason to punish and harass the majority who do not.

It's possiblyb the worst part of this disgusting "deal".

[mmalecki88]

You're still allowed two periods of absence in 12 months which is plenty. If you have 3 in 12 month. Go on a stage, and manage to have another 3 in the next window I'd probably say that's fair grounds for any employer to ask you to defend it.
I'm sure union reps protect people that have a genuine recurring need for time off but there are plenty that abuse it

I don't mind tougher stage policy my bigger problem is unpaid sick.
For example if you go on one week sick you getting normal full pay that completely fine but imagine that something happened and you have to take another one for example 3 day straight away you are loosing pay for 2 days and any one of next absences are not paid for first 4 days.

[cornstar18]

3 periods of absence is enough to trigger an attendance review in any large business.
And no I'm sorry... people do take the piss

[thefox]

Is it the 12th day or the 3rd absence that triggers a stage now? So we are allowed 11 days & 2 absences a year to not trigger a stage?

Yeah but 2nd abscence you don't get paid for first 2 days

[chickenwittle]

You're still allowed two periods of absence in 12 months which is plenty. If you have 3 in 12 month. Go on a stage, and manage to have another 3 in the next window I'd probably say that's fair grounds for any employer to ask you to defend it.
I'm sure union reps protect people that have a genuine recurring need for time off but there are plenty that abuse it

It would have been enough to change the stage reviews , no problems with that but ssp for 2nd absence is a step to far for me.

[Acca Dacca]

Its a stupid system we have in place where 1 day absence counts the same as 1 week absence

If this agreement comes in, Postman A could be off for 1 day and then 11 months later is sick for 2 days and these are unpaid whilst Postman B is off for 7 days and then later in the year off another 5 days - 2 of which are unpaid

Postman A is off for 3 days total and this counts as 2absences and he is paid only 1 of these days and loses 2 days pay
Postman B is off for 12 days total and this counts as 2 absences and he is paid 10 of these days and loses 2 days pay

It is absolutely ridiculous that this agreement stipulates that the first few days of the second absence is unpaid no matter how long or short the first absence was

[cornstar18]

The ssp thing is admittedly a bit harsh. Ssp for first two days is effectively 0 isn't it due to stat rules. But at least they've targeted the people that go off with a runny nose or headache rather than people that actually need the help