That actually being good a your job comes second to your absence record.

[Dollymixtureyumyum]

Just come to the end of my six month probation period at work, 3 other staff do the same job and we work as a team.
Due to having to go into hospital for a chest infection I was off for 3 days, another of my colleagues was off for four days with bad sickness.
Me and this collegeue have met and greatly exceeded our targets dispite being off and have had great evaluations from our clients, not had one bad one.
Two other colleagues have has no time off but have not met two of their targets and one even had two clients complain about his attitude. Their evaluation scores are not as high as me and colleague who has been off.
Guess which two have passed their probation period and which two have had theirs extended!!!

It's just so frustrating it was the same in my last job if you managed to get your arse in all year you got a bonus no matter how crap you where at the job. No bonus for actually meeting targets and being good.
Now I see schools are going the same way. I was off for most of my first two years of high school in and out of hospital for operation and I still came out with 10 GCSEs at grade C and over. Yet if a kid has two weeks off all hell breaks lose with nasty letters and warnings about attendance targets.
People get ill, it is a fact of life. Of course some people take the piss with absence and they should of course be delt with but I really think firms and schools need to realise that the majority of people only take time off when they absolutely need to and to not put (reasonable) absence levels above performance.

I don't necessarily think that is a good thing.

Can you talk to HR about this? I get it that three days off in 6 months would normally be a concern, particularly if it is odd days for a sniffle/headache/hangover etc; but three days when the person has been hospitalised is in a whole different category. Do they seriously want to give the message to all new employees that it doesn't matter if they have poor evaluations and don't hit their targets provided they drag their bodies into work every day?

We don't have an HR we have a board of trustees.
OMG we only got our letters yesterday re our probation.
I really can't believe it. I am just dazed

Sally - having been burnt by norovirus taking out most of the office, we now scream "stay home! Don't come near us!" at anyone who might have a bug. Fortunately we are set up to work from home so it's not normally a problem if someone stays home on a precautionary basis.

It means we've had far less actual sickness, which I'm pretty happy about.

it's tricky. If someone is absent a lot then it doesn't matter how good they are at the job if they're never there to actually do it.

Although I agree that letting someone go after just three days of absence seems somewhat excessive. But I've also worked with people who are constantly absent, a day off here, a week or two off there, and it's the rest of the team who have to pick up their workload while they're out. And fact is that it's a lot harder to get rid of people because of absence if you've taken them on permanently after probation than it is during their probation period.

Perhaps this company have been burned before by people who have had a couple of days off during probation only to ramp it up once they're taken on.

It sounds like a standard policy, more than one day off sick in probation period and it's extended. The complaints etc probably don't have a standard policy so someone was supposed to make a judgement call, and didn't.

What I would do, is to half start looking for another job, sounds like they arent the best place to work.

Firstly I'd just like to say that probation periods usually mean bog all. Less than two years service and you can still have very limited employment rights when it comes to making a claim for unfair dismissal. The only thing that would concern me would be if there are additional benefits after passing probation or if the process was not being applied fairly or if the sickness was related to disability. I think what you say does seem like the process may have been unfair and that's not ok.

I would concentrate on your individual performance and case for passing probation. The colleague with a fit note signing them off for depression is your manager's problem and if they have any sense will be contacting occupational health ASAP for an independent assessment. Do you have a right of appeal for the probation decision?

Any workplace that doesn't measure performance objectively is poorly managed which is bad news for everyone working there. Did you sickness go over two periods or anything like that? Having is sickness triggers in a probation period is not that unusual but they just be fairly applied.

Fwiw I would not have signed anyone off probation who wasn't hitting targets. I would be performance managing them very tightly to manage them up... Or they would be out.

I think this is incredibly short-sighted.

You weren't off several odd days, but for one three day period where you were hospitalized, this is hardly some 'slacker' period.

Who are these people who never get sick, never need to go to hospital, don't require minor or major operations, attend screening and so forth?

We have less rights and a more moralistic disapproval of people who get sick than in the past- when I was working in my twenties, people were not that fussed if a good employee had a day off every couple of months for a migraine or back issues, it was just normal because sickness is normal. Now it is subject to a disciplinary even if perfectly reasonable to be out of action (e.g. due to an operation).

How will we ever get to full employment if anyone who ever needs one or two days off in a 6 months period is automatically seen as a bad employee? Millions of people are chronically ill, should they all just never work then!

The irony is, of course, that in these public service jobs, they clamp down on a few days (even with legitimate documented reasons as here), the employee gets stressed and depressed and overworked and there's no flexibility, so they then sign off for months at a time as this colleague has done.

Sorry you've been sick, OP

I think it's difficult. I worked with someone who was off sick a LOT and it really brought down everyone's morale. She came across as unreliable and nobody wanted to work the same shift as her because if she rang in sick, they were stuck on their own.

Now she's left, the whole team is happier because the rest of us are reliable and never off sick. In the last year, nobody else has rung in sick. So I know when I go to work tomorrow, I'll not be stuck on my own, or asked to stay late to cover someone who's rang in sick yet again.

I'm not saying your absence wasn't justified but company's don't see it like that. If they have someone who is regularly off sick, they're not going to hire them above someone who is always at work. They have absence targets to meet and unfortunately, being off sick during probation is not going to look good.

I hope you're better now, though.

I meant that your colleague with the note for depression has done- the result of utter inflexibility and overloaded work is more people off with stress which is rarely a matter of a day or two here or there.

I couldn't agree more. Three days off sick in a six month period isn't excessive in any way, shape or form and if I will not work for any employer who would think it is.

FFS getting sick is a fact of life and dragging yourself into work and infecting everyone else is completely counterproductive anyway.

Overloading staff with work, being completely inflexible towards sick leave and parental leave is why it's like a constant revolving door in many organisations.

In the industry I work, this sounds like standard practice.

Whether or not an employee 1) passes their probationary period, 2) has it extended or 3) is let go, is weighted heavily on attendance rather than performance.

The process is computerized - it's not personal and there isn't a human being making a judgement on how 'worthy' an employee's absence happens to be or not.

In our system, to pass the probation period employees must meet their targets at a minimum; exceeding probation targets would not offset sickness days. In fact there isn't an option to record 'exceeds', it says "Employee has met all probationary performance targets, Yes/No".

Bonuses are dealt with differently. These are only ever paid to employees who 'significantly exceed' targets for the previous year. Sick days are not taken into account, however an employee is highly unlikely to 'significantly exceed' if they are off work a lot.

When the end of probation reports are being prepared, the reason for sickness absence is not shown (just the number of sick days taken).
I'm not sure it would be of any use anyway, as a doctor's certificate would only be required after seven days. We would not be allowed to independently confirm whether an employee had attended a doctors/hospital appointment/was admitted to hospital.

If there has been over a specific percentage of sick days on the report, the probation period would usually be extended automatically. If it was really bad, the employee would be let go.

The employee who has just passed their probation period and handed in a 2-month doctor's certificate for depression is on dangerous ground. I assume he displayed no symptoms whatsoever up until now? In these exact circumstances, I don't know many employers who would not look to dismiss that employee as soon as possible.

Although our processes are automated and impersonal, in practice my employer has been very good. I've required surgery/reasonable adjustments (equipment and a change in hours) and time off for appointments.

Have a chat with people who have been working there for a while - if they are generally happy then I would be inclined to think you are just going through the standard 'corporate computer process', rather than your employer being a bit rubbish.

I hope you're feeling better now

Lots of private sector jobs have similar absence targets. I work in retail and we're very hot on absence. 3 occasions or 3% in a six month period = counselling. Another two occasions or 2% in the following six month period = written warning. A further absence in the next 6 months is either another written warning (depending on the reason for absence) or dismissal.

If you're on long-term sick or off for an operation, they do make allowances. The strict criteria is to stop people calling in sick with a hangover or because they're tired or feel sick. If you come in and are sent home by a manager, you don't get marked as absent.

It might seem extremely unfair but the targets are they way they are because people took the piss. The amount of times I used to have to cover for people who rang in because they had hangovers or were too tired was ridiculous. Since they changed the targets to the above (previously they were much more lenient), the number of people ringing in sick has dropped massively.

Oh, in addition to the above, after a warning/counselling, if you go six months without an absence, your percentage/number of absences gets reset to 0 and you go through the process from the beginning again.

An absence of a few days prompted this op? That is ridiculous. Everyone has the misfortune to get ill occasionally. That's totally different to someone who is frequently off or has a poor attitude. I agree with you in general op although obviously if you'd been ill on several occasions during that period I could understand them extending the period. In this case I really can't.

I think you have to look at the overall picture of things and make decisions based on the team and the work and the outcomes.

With sickness its difficult - off for a cold every Mon issue, off for 5 days in hospital blah I have less of an issue with BUT many managers and HR teams have a difficulty with this as it is not seen to be consistent - I say that it means poor management

3 days off in a six mth period for a one off hospital admittance illness - is not poor attendance.

In my experience people with poor attitudes are harder to change and ddeal with than people who are off occasionally

Oh and by the way you don't have to accept extended probations - you can challenge it and make sure they are very clear at what point they review it and what criteria they are using

How depressing is this thread? I'm crippled with back pain. On 2 separate occasions since September I have been unable to move. I simply could not drag myself in as I was in too much pain to move.

People get ill, it's a fact of life..

I think the MAJORITY of organisations are reasonable when it's a documented condition (ie. chronic pain, depression) or needing an operation. The absence policies are there to stop people ringing in sick with minor things that don't require a day or more off work.

A lot of things are manageable. Minor colds are not a reason to stay off work, niggling headaches are not a reason to stay off work. But when people constantly ring in sick for those reasons, companies do have to take action because it's not fair on those who are at work and made to cover all the time.

High absence is bad for morale. Of course operations/hospital stays etc. are very different and they generally aren't dealt with under basic absence policies (in my experience, anyway). But I think it does come to a point that if you're off a LOT, managers do have to decide whether you're too unwell to actually do your job. Yes, it's not nice to be "punished" for being unwell, but companies are all about making money and meeting targets, unfortunately.

After I got this job. I bumped into my old boss and asked what my new one had asked about me. The answer was 2 questions. How often was I late? (Never) and how many days had I taken off sick? (2days in 7 years)
It seems to matter a lot.
At Dh's work you have to report to their company doctor if you have had time off sick.

Most places I worked valued attendance over everything.
My old boss, the one who sacked me eventually, used this analogy:
"You get more done on a slow computer everyday than on a fast computer half the time"
Also, a big supermarket chain I worked for insisted we worked even if we had a virus like diarrhoea etc even though I worked the bakery I was like,
"But that's putting customers at risk!"
Manger didn't care, just threatened my job.

YANBU. My particular bugbear is that senior staff take the piss and work at home when they're ill (aka stay in bed) and preserve their blemish-free sickness records. Then they bollock the rest of us when we're off sick. Utter hypocrisy.

I'm afraid its the first thing you have to apply to the redundancy matrix

I've been in the unfortunate position of having to make staff redundant . It's a lengthy and, IMO, cruel process. You have to fill in a 'matrix' and absence carries the most weight. I think it's TRYING to make it absolutely fair but believe me, it's horrible having to do it

And that is why it has to be so strictly documented. If they get it wrong, someone may end up being made redundant unfairly

IME probation period assessments are hugely biased and often used as a method of bullying/persecuting particular people.
People on probation have almost no rights so in companies with a high turnover managers are often those who like wielding power so they can pick on people in probationary period.

Probation measures are also created on a Friday afternoon by a small dog. Hence the assessments are biased and generally ludicrous.