RMCtv : Grant 'I've got a sniffle' McPherson : Chief Operating Officer : Sick pay costing 250 Million pounds per year

[jessicarabbit]

The elephant in the room is the IHR payment. If you'd been off for 34 weeks before they pay you off you will literally get nothing. The whole reason people get paid off is because they have been absent for a long time with a serious illness and likely won't be able to return to working for RM. Scary times ahead

[norris9]

'Sick absence is a serious problem for Royal Mail. It is three times higher the national
average (ONS, 2022).'

Do the people who write this even know what we do? I am surprised it's only 3 times higher than the national average. We probably have the most physical job in the country, if it's not no.1 then I don't know what is. I doubt the army even has to do 4 hours physical activity a day.

The physicality of the job obviously means people are going to go off with arthritis, strains, sprains, hip replacements, knee replacements, back issues.

Maybe make it less physical or let us buy more holiday.

Make the job a 4 day week for those who want to work a day less so they are less likely to be in constant pain.

[sixfoottwo]

Acceptable.

Hi Grant!

Pretty standard working practices outside of royal mail now.

Which makes it acceptable, race to the bottom is clearly on

[ted_e_bear]

The elephant in the room is the IHR payment. If you'd been off for 34 weeks before they pay you off you will literally get nothing. The whole reason people get paid off is because they have been absent for a long time with a serious illness and likely won't be able to return to working for RM. Scary times ahead

That's exactly what I thought.

[Sir Henry]

"Sick absence is a serious problem for Royal Mail. It is three times higher the national
average (ONS, 2022) and costs more than £250 million a year."

Using 2022's figures I should think it would look bad. Try using Pre-Covid figures. The national average, bet there's not many industries that are as physically demanding in that mx eh?

"This proposal will not affect the vast majority of our people. It will only affect a small number of colleagues taking lots
of short-term absences where the issue is the impact on workmates."

So it's NOT the £250 million a year then? It's some nebulous impact on the good boys and girls caused by the bad boys and girls who take sick days? Or maybe you're talking out of your shitbox?



"The changes will have little or no effect on the majority of colleagues who have one or no
absence each year."
True but what if the one absence over the course of the year was greater than the sum of all the sick days of those you're attempting to scapegoat?

"However, it will achieve greater fairness in the way colleagues are
treated, including those who are required to cover the work of colleagues who are regularly
absent."

How? How does lowering your sick pay outgoings increase fair treatment of colleagues?
If all overtime is voluntary how are colleagues 'required' to cover work? If they cover work on overtime they're paid so how is that unfair? Are you suggesting that all colleagues suffer an extended duty due to sickness absence? If that was the case they would cover the duty of people whe WERE NOT REGULARLY ABSENT too? We look forward to clarification on this and many other vague claims.

" We will continue to offer industry leading arrangements for managing sickness
absence."

Industries lead by c***s you mean.

[aiden01]

Acceptable.

Are you simons best mate by any chance ffs

[aiden01]

Acceptable.

Hi Grant!

Pretty standard working practices outside of royal mail now.

Who cares about outside rm ffs get out if you dont want to keep the terms an conditions many before an after you will fight for. really hope you dont get seriously ill in this job an maybe have to walk away without a penny in your pocket.

[Woody Guthrie]

The elephant in the room is the IHR payment. If you'd been off for 34 weeks before they pay you off you will literally get nothing. The whole reason people get paid off is because they have been absent for a long time with a serious illness and likely won't be able to return to working for RM. Scary times ahead

It's a poorly thought out plan.
IHR helps the business move people on that will otherwise cost the business more in lost productivity and sick absence.

It's a safe and usually mutually agreeable way to part company with for want of a better word, dead wood.

If you don't have that you risk having people around who are not much use to you or themselves or you risk dismissing someone who might go straight to a tribunal.

If you start a countdown on the money they get the minute they go sick you'll end up with people panicking and trying to go for IHR immediately then claiming they were forced into it.

It's one of those half assed ideas that end up costing you more in the long run, seems to be a feature of these clowns.

[blacov]

I would add it strongly encourages taking much longer sick than necessary as after you have used it first time the second one is ssp for first week. People instead of being off 2-3days will carry on for weeks.

[Woody Guthrie]

Anytime you try to reduce sick absence using financial penalties you force people into making a finance vs health decision.

So you end up with genuinely ill people at work.

Sick people are not productive.
Sick people are far more likely to have an accident.
Sick people can spread that sickness to other healthy people.

Despite the bullshit this is not about the piss takers or the impact on the rest of us, that's just a smokescreen designed to promote an us and them mentality.

This is purely about reducing our terms and conditions to the level those privileged few in the boardroom think we deserve.

[POSTMAN]

Simon Says

80% of the team take 1 day a year (magnificent) - almost all of our sickness is in 20% of the team - and a relatively small number of offices...

[k979aaa]

The thing with lot of toffee nosed truffles is they would not last one second as a worker yet attack them and their protections so to feather their nests for their own benefit just opened my courier mag and some twat who was in charge of jaguar land rover is pontificating about survive or die on the next page he is walking with hi viz but is non productive. At least he wears his own shoes and by the way cannot even put hi viz on as it is inside out what clowns rule us page 13 courier is my reference!

[Sir Henry]

Simon Says

80% of the team take 1 day a year (magnificent) - almost all of our sickness is in 20% of the team - and a relatively small number of offices...

I've bored folk with this before, but on the off-chance that one of Slymon's lickspittles is lurking.....

This 80% who take 1 day a year sick, just a small point here Si, does it include those who take part days that aren't counted?
My guess is you wouldn't know as you probably have someone to explain to you what those numbers are as you don't recognise numbers that aren't preceded by a pound sign. As I said a small point.
Anyway is this 80% an average from several financial years? How many? Recent years including the pandemic years? One year? One cherry picked year? Probably.
If an average of several years there would have been people that moved from the Fit People percentile to the Sick People percentile and vice versa yes?
So who exactly are those that should be approached by their colleagues and be the recipients of "a word" from them?
Sounds alarmingly like encouraging bullying on the shop floor but that alright it's to be expected as that's the only bullying that is recognised in the company eh?

A wise person once said,I'm paraphrasing so forgive the historical inaccuracy...
"There's lies, damned lies and Royal Mail figures."

[fb1969]

Not only that, but liar Simon's basic way of using statistics says that every postie takes at least one day off sick per year. I haven't had any in the last year, so Simon is lying yet again

[Clappedoutpostie]

If most of the sickness was in a relatively small amount of offices shouldn’t you be investigating these offices to see what the issue/s are?