OK yeah every sickness is genuine and no one feigns or exaggerates illness, you win
I never said that.
I said the majority are real, and designing a sick system based on the assumption that most are fake is nasty, vindictive, unecessary, and punishing those in poor health the most.
There is a chance you are correct. However in a system where union reps defend the worst offenders and also abuse the system themselves to great effect, do you not think some change should be made somehow.. not necessarily this one
Yep a change needs to be made to reduce sickness. Make the job less stressful by stopping management harassment, ease the physical demands by resourcing offices properly and having a limit on outdoor delivery spans, build in proper rest periods to duty rotations, and make it easier to take leave rather than this ridiculous thing of filling a form out 18 months in advance,
Those should all achieve less sickness, I agree.
Trouble is.. the management trust us as much as we trust them. And I personally can understand why on both sides
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've had 3 in the last 12 months. One covid, which (more likely than not) came from a work colleague, who caught it off another, a violent stomach bug from my daughter and finally a terrible incident on the job. I've been told in writing that I've been let off this time because of the last incident. But I cannot be off again in the next 12 months.
So next time I'll have to come in spread covid, sh!t all over the frame or die on the job.
An unlucky year. Be really s**t if you had 3 unlucky years in a row. But that's what we're told the reps are there for that we need to save...
From my experience you've got be pretty terrible to get sacked at this job. Even then, you'll probably get off on some clause.
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?
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
Which means people might choose to milk the first absence because this policy is ridiculous and unfair. People will milk the first one to make up for any subsequent absences.
If anything - it opens it up to more abuse and more skiving.
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
Which means people might choose to milk the first absence because this policy is ridiculous and unfair. People will milk the first one to make up for any subsequent absences.
If anything - it opens it up to more abuse and more skiving.
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
Do you know what, I have worked for the company for over 30 years and I can only recall one person, taking the piss as you put it.
So what specialist inside knowledge do you have that makes you an authority?
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
Do you know what, I have worked for the company for over 30 years and I can only recall one person, taking the piss as you put it.
So what specialist inside knowledge do you have that makes you an authority?
Well clearly my office must be full of em and you're all whiter than white
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
Do you know what, I have worked for the company for over 30 years and I can only recall one person, taking the piss as you put it.
So what specialist inside knowledge do you have that makes you an authority?
Well clearly my office must be full of em and you're all whiter than white
Never mind the stupid comment, what's your inside knowledge?
Please imagine that if you go on sick in January, 11 months after in November (first 2 days unpaid) next sick 6/7 months later in June (again 2 days unpaid) and unfortunately after 5 months something happened and you have to go sick again in October straight away loosing first 4 days of sick absences.
That's absolutely not acceptable.
Last edited by mmalecki88 on 26 Apr 2023, 08:29, edited 2 times in total.
It’s worth noting that in the new sick policy, when sick falls to a certain level, the policy will return to what it is currently.
Good luck getting RM to be honest with that one
Plus that doesnt even make any sense, if RM think the new policy will lower absence levels - why would they get rid of that policy once those levels were lower.......surely they would believe that the policy is what got it lowered in the first place so it should stay to keep it lower
Last edited by Acca Dacca on 25 Apr 2023, 22:12, edited 3 times in total.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
It’s worth noting that in the new sick policy, when sick falls to a certain level, the policy will return to what it is currently.
Allegedly. The "deal" and the revisions would seem to indicate that the chances of sick leave falling to that certain level are almost non existent. Rather like the profit sharing plan. Very easy to offer something when it has very little chance of coming to fruition.
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
Do you know what, I have worked for the company for over 30 years and I can only recall one person, taking the piss as you put it.
So what specialist inside knowledge do you have that makes you an authority?
Well clearly my office must be full of em and you're all whiter than white
Never mind the stupid comment, what's your inside knowledge?
Could argue all night. The job is gone. Vote no and terms are coming in anyway. Survival of the fittest it seems unfortunately
