NEW ATTENDANCE PROCEDURE – NATIONAL BRIEFING

[flaminmoses]

• An absent employee shall remain at their normal home address (other than to receive in-patient treatment) unless they have consent of their line or local personnel manager



haha
so if you go to the shops to buy food to survive your pay can be stopped??

[General Mannerheim]

Well isn't that just the bees knees - how can we possibly trust the union when they are clearly Royal Mail stooges -to paraphrase a quote "thats the best we can get" and haven't we just heard those same words somewhere before - just waiting for the next feeble pitch like "if we didn't agree they'd just implement it" - FFS it's about time they grew a pair of bollocks instead of talking it.

Well it did take 2 years of hard graft to get to this stage so it must be a good deal.
I can't wait to see my managers going through all the `guides` on how to handle the new agreement,I hope the cleaner has plenty of black bin liners that week.

[Poorly]

Vote yes!

This is a great deal for us, I think the union for once has done a good job here. The points highlighted in red are fair and not really different to what is there now. Why shouldn't RM ask that absences be justified? Employees can still go on holiday, they just need to let their manager know. I don't think there should be an appeal at stage 1 but there should at stage 2. We'll see a lot less people going to stage 3 with these new standards.

Vote Yes!

[dvbuk55]

Vote yes!

This is a great deal for us, I think the union for once has done a good job here. The points highlighted in red are fair and not really different to what is there now. Why shouldn't RM ask that absences be justified? Employees can still go on holiday, they just need to let their manager know. I don't think there should be an appeal at stage 1 but there should at stage 2. We'll see a lot less people going to stage 3 with these new standards.

Vote Yes!

Rubbish! There should be appeal at Stage 2 - well why isn't there - if it was such a good deal.

[fishtank]

Why shouldn't RM ask that absences be justified?

Probably because the actual agreement states that all absences are considered genuine whereas the sick pay policy states that RM has to be convinced that they are genuine,that kind of leaves a bit of distance between the two documents.

Employees can still go on holiday, they just need to let their manager know.

No.
They need their line manager's permission.
Very different.

We'll see a lot less people going to stage 3 with these new standards.

I think we will see less members getting to stage 3 however by legitimising RM's sick absence policy we could see many more of those stage 3's turned into dismissals and we will lose more appeals so although we may see less stage 3's triggered we could see more members sacked through the attendance procedure than at present.

[Poorly]

Rubbish! There should be appeal at Stage 2 - well why isn't there - if it was such a good deal.

RM don't want an appeal at stage 1 and 2 because it would be a nightmare to manage. Imagine all the thousands of stages that would be appealed against, it would cost a fortune. To be fair to RM I don't think many other companies would offer this either. We'd have to double our union fees too.

[Poorly]

Why shouldn't RM ask that absences be justified?

Probably because the actual agreement states that all absences are considered genuine whereas the sick pay policy states that RM has to be convinced that they are genuine,that kind of leaves a bit of distance between the two documents.

I don't think there is any great conspiracy here. Sick notes give the justification along with ATOS reports. No real change there.

Employees can still go on holiday, they just need to let their manager know.

No.
They need their line manager's permission.
Very different.

Fair enough, do people get told they can't go? Either it is no different to the current situation.

We'll see a lot less people going to stage 3 with these new standards.

I think we will see less members getting to stage 3 however by legitimising RM's sick absence policy we could see many more of those stage 3's turned into dismissals and we will lose more appeals so although we may see less stage 3's triggered we could see more members sacked through the attendance procedure than at present.

I agree we will see less successful appeals as a percentage but will probably see less dismissals on the whole. They seem to be tightening up on the whole process but the rules are more lenient. Disabled employees will hopefully fair better.

[dvbuk55]

Rubbish! There should be appeal at Stage 2 - well why isn't there - if it was such a good deal.

RM don't want an appeal at stage 1 and 2 because it would be a nightmare to manage. Imagine all the thousands of stages that would be appealed against, it would cost a fortune. To be fair to RM I don't think many other companies would offer this either. We'd have to double our union fees too.

To be fair to RM? That sounds like CWU speak to me - how about fairness to the members and as for doubling the subs - that does sound like CWU speak, but more to the point, why?

[General Mannerheim]

Disabled employees will hopefully fair better.

How?

[fishtank]

Disabled employees will hopefully fair better.

How?

They will be forced to leave the company.
Then they'll probably fair better.
You can see his logic.

[Poorly]

To be fair to RM? That sounds like CWU speak to me - how about fairness to the members and as for doubling the subs - that does sound like CWU speak, but more to the point, why?

Why? More appeals means more representation which means more cost. Simple really.

[Poorly]

Disabled employees will hopefully fair better.

How?

Warnings don't last as long so less chance of getting to stage 3. I really can't understand why people don't think that is better. I'm on a stage 2 at the moment, I'd rather it lasted 6 months not 12.

[dvbuk55]

To be fair to RM? That sounds like CWU speak to me - how about fairness to the members and as for doubling the subs - that does sound like CWU speak, but more to the point, why?

Why? More appeals means more representation which means more cost. Simple really.

You're not talking about the spanish inquisition for an appeal at stages 1 and 2, the unit rep is perfectly capable of arguing the case - as for simple - think you've cornered the market.

[Poorly]

You're not talking about the spanish inquisition for an appeal at stages 1 and 2, the unit rep is perfectly capable of arguing the case - as for simple - think you've cornered the market.

No need to be rude. You have to have some basis of making an appeal, all of which takes time to prepare and then conduct. Do you think that has no cost?

[fishtank]

No need to be rude. You have to have some basis of making an appeal, all of which takes time to prepare and then conduct. Do you think that has no cost?

The vast majority of appeals would be on procedural grounds at very little cost and could be dealt with during weekly resource meetings or during existing release.
I don't believe a stage 1 appeal is necessarily needed but i do believe an appeal before dismissal stage at stage 2 should have been a priority.
The stress members are placed under by unnecessary stage 3 procedures is ridiculous.
Most of the extra cost could be mitigated by reducing the resultant number of stage 3 appeals which are naturally more detailed and therefore more expensive.