RMCtv : Simon 'Sick pay policy to be looked at'

[rambo1]

Homer in, Pullinger out!

[rogersh]

Simon 'I've got a bit of a sniffle ' Thompson

I have asked for the policy to be looked at - it is not fair that 95,000 of the team take <2 days a year off sick - and the other 35,000 take off weeks - we need everyone to take an equal workload - that said - we will always support the c800 who have had the misfortune to be on long term sick….

Introducing the new Attendance Agreement
National Attendance Agreement between Royal Mail Group and CWU

"All sickness absences are assumed to be genuine and should be discussed between the employee and their manager on return to work".
It is apparent from agreement that "assumed genuine" is already agreed, I assume this would still be adhered to accordingly.

[Woody Guthrie]

Assuming that an absence is genuine has nothing to do with the attendance agreement.

It's all treated the same so there's nothing to adhere to.

[norris9]

He can go on about fairness all he wants....

It's not fair that Royal Mail give us 2 days mail regularly because they fail at recruiting staff, even purposefully freezing recruitment when staff are needed.

[rogersh]

Simon 'I've got a bit of a sniffle ' Thompson

I have asked for the policy to be looked at - it is not fair that 95,000 of the team take <2 days a year off sick - and the other 35,000 take off weeks - we need everyone to take an equal workload - that said - we will always support the c800 who have had the misfortune to be on long term sick….

Introducing the new Attendance Agreement
National Attendance Agreement between Royal Mail Group and CWU

"All sickness absences are assumed to be genuine and should be discussed between the employee and their manager on return to work".
It is apparent from agreement that "assumed genuine" is already agreed, I assume this would still be adhered to accordingly.

For clarification 3 General Points;
https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 36&t=70737

Also topic post TBT;
https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... e&start=15

[Woody Guthrie]

As I think I've pointed out before there are two documents in play when you are absent.

One is the Attendance Agreement in which how genuine an absence is remains irrelevant because reviews are triggered regardless of whether the absence is genuine or not. The statement that they are regarded as genuine is in fact simply a statement that all absence is treated the same. This deals with absence management.

The other is the sick pay policy which is different in that Royal Mail reserves the right to withhold sick pay if they have reasonable grounds to believe the absence is not genuine. In reality I've seen this happen when someone was spotted at a festival and in a couple of cases where members were found to be working elsewhere while sick from Royal Mail. This deals with sick pay.

As you can see in both cases the statement that all absence is treated as genuine really means nothing at all and quoting agreements doesn't change that.

[Cucumber]

I just don't buy that 73% of employees take less than 2 sick days off per year.
Is there a breakdown for various departments within RM, Mail Centre, Admin, Delivery, and so on, as I'm pretty sure that will tell it's own story.

[rogersh]

As I think I've pointed out before there are two documents in play when you are absent.

One is the Attendance Agreement in which how genuine an absence is remains irrelevant because reviews are triggered regardless of whether the absence is genuine or not. The statement that they are regarded as genuine is in fact simply a statement that all absence is treated the same. This deals with absence management.

The other is the sick pay policy which is different in that Royal Mail reserves the right to withhold sick pay if they have reasonable grounds to believe the absence is not genuine. In reality I've seen this happen when someone was spotted at a festival and in a couple of cases where members were found to be working elsewhere while sick from Royal Mail. This deals with sick pay.

As you can see in both cases the statement that all absence is treated as genuine really means nothing at all and quoting agreements doesn't change that.

Indeed, a similar case occurred when a manager checked on a former colleague, who was on sick leave, & found him to be working on another job. The outcome was, i assume, a cessation & possible recovery of sick pay. An example of sickness assumed genuine (As Attendance Agreement) but found to be otherwise.

Simon Thompson has stated “…and the other 35,000 take off weeks…..” The implication being that some of this time is excessive.

As you said woody;
“He doesn't make it clear whether he has a beef with the Attendance Agreement or the Sick Pay policy or both but cutting sick pay for the first three days would be my best guess.”

[Schiff]

As I think I've pointed out before there are two documents in play when you are absent.

One is the Attendance Agreement in which how genuine an absence is remains irrelevant because reviews are triggered regardless of whether the absence is genuine or not. The statement that they are regarded as genuine is in fact simply a statement that all absence is treated the same. This deals with absence management.

The other is the sick pay policy which is different in that Royal Mail reserves the right to withhold sick pay if they have reasonable grounds to believe the absence is not genuine. In reality I've seen this happen when someone was spotted at a festival and in a couple of cases where members were found to be working elsewhere while sick from Royal Mail. This deals with sick pay.

As you can see in both cases the statement that all absence is treated as genuine really means nothing at all and quoting agreements doesn't change that.

Indeed, a similar case occurred when a manager checked on a former colleague, who was on sick leave, & found him to be working on another job. The outcome was, i assume, a cessation & possible recovery of sick pay. An example of sickness assumed genuine (As Attendance Agreement) but found to be otherwise.

Simon Thompson has stated “…and the other 35,000 take off weeks…..” The implication being that some of this time is excessive.

As you said woody;
“He doesn't make it clear whether he has a beef with the Attendance Agreement or the Sick Pay policy or both but cutting sick pay for the first three days would be my best guess.”

If that was done then he would effectively be penalising the 75% who take no more than a couple of days sickness absence per year and who would receive no sick pay at all. Those who are off for weeks at a time, with whom he seems most concerned, would continue to get the vast bulk of their sick pay.

[Sir Henry]

A) Shows their reasoning is unsound
or
B) Shows them up as the utter self serving underhand back stabbing lying contslups they are.

A little from column A, a lot from column B.

FTM whores.
Come the revolution.

[norris9]

How about allowing Posties to purchase a much higher annual leave than just topping up to 6 weeks. The job is exhausting, causes injuries, so allow workers to purchase more time off. Walking the distances we do I think we actually deserve more paid annual leave to rest and recover, but they will obviously never do this, so they should instead allow us to purchase more weeks off.

[Homer]

Typical RM, rather than deal with the people who abuse the sick, lets punish everybody, his comment about 95000 and 35000 is just a divide and conquer tactic, there are some of the 35000 who are genuinely really sick and need help, if he gets his way and changes it, it will be bad for all of us, what if god forbid one of the 95000 becomes seriously ill and really needs help and because of the 35000 can not get it, whatever he comes up with its not going to be fair, we all know in every office there are people who abuse the system on sick, so deal with them and not the genuine people who may really need help.

[SpacePhoenix]

How about allowing Posties to purchase a much higher annual leave than just topping up to 6 weeks. The job is exhausting, causes injuries, so allow workers to purchase more time off. Walking the distances we do I think we actually deserve more paid annual leave to rest and recover, but they will obviously never do this, so they should instead allow us to purchase more weeks off.

Would any extra over 6 weeks actually be usable, when many offices already have staff carrying over AL into the following leave year

[POSTMAN]

I was going to post this in the 'random thread' over in the 'canteen' part of the forum, but, you know...

Back in the day when I would fill out my sick form thingy on arrival back to work I would put upset stomach or the runs as my reason.
The reason being, I could not put 'The sh***s' and I could not spell diarear, and the internet was not invented yet.
I always imagined someone from HR when updating my sick record ( I am aware of this happening due to the stage 1's 2's and 3's I have had over the years) having a pamphlet or similar to hand with various diseases or ailments on for spelling reasons.

Post internet invention (God bless Sir Tim) I would still put upset stomach or the runs as my reason, knowing that the HR peeps would not have a pamphlet or similar to hand as they would now be easily able to search for said ailment online.

[Woody Guthrie]

My old boss had a piece of paper in his drawer with the correct spelling of diarrhea (that was autocorrect).

I liked him.