how does a stage 2 work now exactly?

[paulthepostie]

Good morning
A guy i work with has just received a stage two warning and is unsure how the new system works.

If he doesn't have any time off in the next six months do all his stage warnings clear,so he is not on any?.Or does he go down to a stage one?.As i am aware that it is now six months and not a year as previously.

Thanks you for your time and help!.

[Himaggen]

Tell your 'guy' to not attend only when absolutely necessary!

Nobody should be making attendance decisions based upon anything other than their ability to attend, it doesn't matter what the triggers are.

[postmanplod]

If he only has one absence of 4 days or less in the following 6 months he comes off the procedure
if he has one absence between 5 and 9 days in the following 6 months he goes back to stage 1
if he has more than 1 absence or 10 days or more in the following 6 months then it is consideration for dismissal

[paulthepostie]

@ himagen this 'guy' is not me if that's what you're implying.I haven't been on a first stage for 5 years.Although re-reading my post it does sound like I'm enquiring on my behalf.
@postmanplod thank you very much kind sir!.

[aiden01]

@ himagen this 'guy' is not me if that's what you're implying.I haven't been on a first stage for 5 years.Although re-reading my post it does sound like I'm enquiring on my behalf.
@postmanplod thank you very much kind sir!.

your post was very clear that you were enquiring on someone else,e behalf

[Himaggen]

@ himagen this 'guy' is not me if that's what you're implying.I haven't been on a first stage for 5 years.Although re-reading my post it does sound like I'm enquiring on my behalf.
@postmanplod thank you very much kind sir!.

It was quite clear that your post was on behalf of another party.
I used the single quotes only to identify that word as yours; it is an awful word which is mostly used incorrectly.

[NumptyBumpty]

@ himagen this 'guy' is not me if that's what you're implying.I haven't been on a first stage for 5 years.Although re-reading my post it does sound like I'm enquiring on my behalf.
@postmanplod thank you very much kind sir!.

It was quite clear that your post was on behalf of another party.
I used the single quotes only to identify that word as yours; it is an awful word which is mostly used incorrectly.

Sorry to hijack the thread but what's wrong with the word 'guy', it's just like using lad, bloke etc. How do people use it incorrectly?

[Himaggen]

Sorry to hijack the thread but what's wrong with the word 'guy', it's just like using lad, bloke etc. How do people use it incorrectly?

Just as you now have!

[paulthepostie]

It was quite clear that your post was on behalf of another party.
I used the single quotes only to identify that word as yours; it is an awful word which is mostly used incorrectly.

I'm so sorry for a moment i thought i was posting a question on a forum with regards to Royal Mail policy on attendance,and asking for advice.It seems i was wrong and have been given a lecture in English literacy!.

[rehabron]

Good morning
A guy i work with has just received a stage two warning and is unsure how the new system works.

If he doesn't have any time off in the next six months do all his stage warnings clear,so he is not on any?.Or does he go down to a stage one?.As i am aware that it is now six months and not a year as previously.

Thanks you for your time and help!.

The attendance procedure unlike the previous procedure introduced informal interviews where a meeting can be arranged if the employee's sick absence is giving cause for concern before it becomes necessary to make it a formal attendance review. Interviewing manager should take into consideration if an informal interview was ever instigated. The attendance stages are similar to the previous but is in 6 month periods instead of 12 months.
Attendance Review 1: 4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period
Attendance Review 2: 2 absences or 10 days in the next 6 months following an attendance review 1 formal notification.
Attendance Review3: 2 absences or 10 days in the next 6 months following an attendance review 2 formal notification and consideration of dismissal.
If on a formal attendance review 2 formal notification and no other absences for 6 months from the date of the return to work discussion not the date of the attendance review 2 meeting then you will return to a stage 1.
After a further 6 months free from absence your record will be cleared.
PS. There seems to be a time lapse between the back to work discussion and the triggering of a formal attendance review and you should ensure that the 6 month period starts from the date of the BTW discussion and not the attendance review as management are in effect stealing time periods.

[paulthepostie]

Even more confused now .So is what postmanplod said about the review 2 clearing completely after one absence or less than 4 days not correct then?.As you mention the fact that it takes another six months to then clear?.
We have no union rep in our office,hence why i am here.So your advice is appreciated.

[brazil1212]

What postmanplod said is correct look below this is from the attendance agreement (in red) so if you follow the standard required you will be off the formal attendance process in 6 months
Attendance standards
The formal process consists of two reviews and consideration of dismissal. The table below sets out the attendance standards required.
All employees (except triallists)
Attendance Review 1 prompt
4 absences or 14 days in a 12 month period
Attendance Review 2 prompt
2 absences or 10 days in the next 6 months following an Attendance Review 1 formal notification
Consideration of dismissal prompt
2 absences or 10 days in the next 6 months following an Attendance Review 2 formal notification
Employees on 2nd review who do better than the standard required with no more than one absence of four days or less will come off the formal attendance process.
Employees on 2nd review with one absence of more than four days but less than ten will revert to 1st review and will remain on Review 1 for six months.
Employees who are on Attendance Review 2 and do not meet the attendance standards may be considered for dismissal. If they are not dismissed they may be issued with a new Attendance Review 2.

[NumptyBumpty]

Sorry to hijack the thread but what's wrong with the word 'guy', it's just like using lad, bloke etc. How do people use it incorrectly?

Just as you now have!

guy
noun
1. Informal. a man or boy; fellow: He's a nice guy.
2. Usually, guys. Informal. persons of either sex; people: Could one of you guys help me with this?

bloke
noun Chiefly British Informal.
man; fellow; guy.

I'm intrigued, please explain how I used it incorrectly.

[Himaggen]

I'm intrigued, please explain how I used it incorrectly.

guy, n.

1. A grotesque effigy
2. A person of queer looks or dress
3. A man or young man; a fellow
   fellow, n.
   1. A companion; a comrade; an associate; a partner; a sharer.
   2. A man without good breeding or worth; an ignoble or mean man.
   3. An equal in power, rank, character, etc.
   4. One of a pair, or of two things used together or suited to each other
   5. A person; an individual.
   6. In the English universities, a scholar who is appointed to a foundation called a fellowship
   7. In an American college or university, a member of the corporation which manages its business interests; also, a graduate appointed to a fellowship
   8. A member of a literary or scientific society
4. A member of a group of either sex, usually a friend or comrade

Like I said it's an awful word, mostly used incorrectly. In my opinion, and that's what your questioning here, it's roots as a gender specific word are dubious and 1. 2. and 3.2. rule it out as a direct comparison to lad or bloke.

My hope and the reason I originally quoted the word was that it was being used as stated in 4.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I've booked a room for you http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/g ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;