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've been mulling over this thread since yesterday and feeling very depressed (and no, I won't get a sick note for that because as a SAHM I won't get time off anyway).

What some of the pp describe as their company's practice is blatant disability discrimination. If you have an underlying condition, e.g. severe asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, you are more likely to have the odd sick day or hospital stay. It doesn't make you any less committed and loyal to your job! I can't believe companies use a very black and white matrix to decide on redundancies etc without looking into the reasons for the absence and thinking long term.

"What use is a brilliant employee to the boss, if she or he is never there?"

This is the attitude I am ranting against . There must be a way to distinguish between those with genuine illness and those just taking the piss. It's not rocket science to tell the two apart fgs.

aw, thanks violet. Feeling pretty sorry for myself!

I understood that absence because of a disability or ltc was handled differently from that unrelated to disability. In the same way pregnancy absence is discounted.

I don't think every company is quite so gung-ho about absence.

I've only been in work for 2 months out of the last 18 months due to illness. I want them to dismiss me, but the bureaucracy is breathtaking.

I randomly developed epilepsy last year, they wouldn't let me work until my seizures were under control. After 9 months I finally went back to work, but had a lot of annual leave to use up so wasn't there much. After 2 months I was sectioned by the Mental Health Act and was an inpatient in a mental health unit for nearly 6 months. I'm out now, but still not at work, I just want them to dismiss me!

My sister has no children... She works in retail... She drags herself in work so ill...I tell her she is s selfish..Lots of the people who work their have young families so it goes through the family...She has been sent home from work sick before now she is so ill...An adult really should know if they are too ill to work..

I am a C .minder and am aware that people rely on me for work themselves but they are told if I am unwell so their choice except for sickness bugs I close down.. It costs me money not to work but I have to consider the health of myself, my family and the family of all the children I look after.

Reliability is very important. I work in quite a high pressure environment - client deadlines constantly looming. I'm currently working with a woman in another part of the business who has numerous health issues and is off frequently.

Now, she is very good at her job - but I can't rely on her. Right now, I need work from her for a presentation next Tuesday. I have no comfort that I'm going to get this in time to integrate it in the way I need to. I'd infinitely prefer to be working with someone who was slightly less good at their job but I could rely on to deliver - I can always revise the work to get it up to standard.

Now, I get that it's tough on my colleague - her life is not easy. But, absence does impact on everyone else - it's just the way it is.

I think a lot of the time these days it's down to workplace policies. It might well be an across the board policy that you aren't considered to have passed probation if you've had time off sick, regardless of how good you are at the job and how genuine your reasons for being off. They have to be seen to be treating everybody the same for equality reasons these days. So there isn't that room for leniency they once had.

It's rubbish though, I agree.

It depends on the role, surely?

I have worked for so many organisations that insist that no-one can be allowed flexi-time or working from home on the grounds that it isn't 'fair' to those whose jobs can't be done in those ways. So I couldn't work from home because the advice workers needed to be physically present - but if I had a deadline I was expected to work overtime (at home if I wanted!), to work unsocial hours where necessary etc whereas the advice workers worked office hours and never took work home (because they couldn't!).

It's just lazy management.

Just as each role was assessed against various criteria in order to determine salary levels, it surely should have been possible to create criteria to determine whether working from home, flexi-time or other requests were agreed. The 'fairness' would be that every request was considered by the same criteria.

The trouble was the managers didn't know how to manage, so the only way they felt confident that you were doing your job was to have you physically present. It didn't seem to occur to them that you could be present but spending most of your time on Facebook, writing the next Booker prize winning novel, or ordering on-line shopping.

The trouble was the managers didn't know how to manage, so the only way they felt confident that you were doing your job was to have you physically present. It didn't seem to occur to them that you could be present but spending most of your time on Facebook

This is certainly true. The problem is that being present at your desk 9-5 is an easy thing to measure. More helpful / accurate gauge (output/quality/etc) are more difficult to measure.

It's lazy and counter productive to continue to measure the easy thing just because it's easy.

Wow. Nice attitude towards your colleague who's been signed off with depression!

What some of the pp describe as their company's practice is blatant disability discrimination. If you have an underlying condition, e.g. severe asthma, diabetes, epilepsy, you are more likely to have the odd sick day or hospital stay.

Thank you for that. I'm diabetic and not only do I have problems relating directly to diabetes but I'm more prone to infection and catching colds/viruses than people without chronic illnesses. Thankfully I work for a sensible company who offers 10 paid sick days and doesn't penalise anyone for taking them unless they all happen to fall on Mondays and only Mondays... They also allow me to go to a host of medical appointments in work time without having to make the time up or take sick leave for it.

As a result, when there is an urgent deadline and not enough time to get things done during my contracted hours, I stay late and get it done without resentment. Give and take.

I work from home so I never really have to go off sick even if I am feeling rubbish. In my current job, I have only taken one day's sick leave when I got up, did something I really had to do for work and went back to bed with a shocking (not "niggling") headache and didn't get up again until 5pm! That's one day in nearly 3 years.

In my last office-based job I took about 6 days in 4 years, and 3 of those days were at the same time when I had small operation. But my job is one where I can hide behind a computer with a Lemsip etc and hope nobody bothers me. If you are say a nurse or a teacher you really need to be on top of your game, and a "niggling" headache might stop you functioning properly. Equally I don't want a surgeon who's got a cold operating on me! So for me, what's acceptable sickness absence will vary on the type of job.

And those saying you should go into the office with a cold - then it infects everyone and some people will get it worse than others. I'm not sure a day's leave isn't better if it helps you work better and possibly makes you less infectious when you go back to work. And sometimes you'd be ok if you could work from home, but the journey is the problem, especially if you have to drive while feeling under the weather. I'd rather people stayed at home than caused a danger on the roads.

And here's some news too: you can get genuinely ill on a Monday. I hate this assumption that you're taking the mickey if you take Monday off.

There's a big difference between taking 3 days off in 6 months and "never being there". There are some really rubbish managers out there.

OP, you are definitely not BU.

It is really hard to work with a disability. I'm very aware of the pressure on my bosses and colleagues. Even if I wasn't being paid, I wouldn't be any more capable of managing to work at the moment.

The thing that ultimately regardless of whether the person taking persistant time off work suffers from genuine illnesses ( and if it's an ongoing chronic condition that counts as a disability then there is scope for adjustments within the workplace) or a workshy malingerer, the impact on the business is the same - they don't have the workforce there to do the job.

It's all very well blaming "management" and "managers" but most businesses are not staffed up with buffers to cover repeated periods of absence. I think that most like myself are happy enough to take on extra duties for a short period of a colleagues absence on a non-regular basis, it's when it becomes the norm that the goodwill dries up.

I used to be a line manager and had to have the chat with people about recurring absence - some people just have a lower tolerance threshold and say feel that because they have headaches around their periods they're entitled to take the day off. I had little sympathy for that one as at the time I suffered from chronic endometriosis (now under control) and was in agony several days a month, but managed to come in but for a couple of rare instances, not because I was particularly gung ho, but when you've got people counting on you and you're getting a salary, I figure if you're not contagious and you're able to just about function,then you should try to get in.

Yes extending the probation period for sickness is a blunt instrument, but in OPs case she will presumably have no further illness in the extended period so it shouldn't be a problem.

PP have mentioned that coming in with a cold is wrong because it infects everyone else, but if you work for a company that doesn't pay sick pay, you often can't afford to be off with a
cold or another minor illness.

I had a chest infections and blood poisoning
You were only off 3 days with blood poisoning??

I'd infinitely prefer to be working with someone who was slightly less good at their job but I could rely on to deliver - I can always revise the work to get it up to standard.

Exactly.
Work has to be 'done'.

You can't 'do' the work if you are 'not working'.

Excellent post, Rookiemere.

Why thank you violets - not often anyone says that to me .

I figure if you're not contagious and you're able to just about function,then you should try to get in.

Wow. I don't want to work with people who are "just about" able to function.

As a manager I probably have a level at which I am happy with performance. Here all 4 of you will have met that, albeit some better than others. I'll also a level of attendance I'm expecting. 2 colleagues have reached this and their job is confirmed. 2 don't so their probation is extended. This sounds fine to me.

They haven't all met their targets, Ghoul? In fact, the two male colleagues who've passed their promotion are the one's who haven't.

Meeting all targets might not be essential though. The pass level for probation might be 90% of targets and no more than 2 days sick leave in 6 months. It might be good old fashioned sexism but it isn't necessarily.

yes I have to agree with rookiemere

Especially about the lower tolerance

We used to employ someone who took days off every couple of weeks with headaches.

It was a total PITA as other people had to do her job and then they got totally fed up. I spent most of my day trying to sort out personnel related problems - small businesses don't have the luxury of lots of 'managers' or HR depts to sort this out.

I was relieved when she left tbh.

I also agree with rookiemere.

I accept that people have different levels of immunity or accident proneness or risk taking or partying or medical conditions. The problem is if you end up with someone who is constantly pulling sickies, however genuine the reason, it disrupts the business and the morale of others in the team in a way which is very very difficult to manage.

As a manager, I want to work with someone else who is reliable but I have to 'support' the employee instead. I cannot call them up on it or expect them to improve because I have to assume it is genuine. For those unexpected absences that last for god knows how long, I cannot hire someone else. The team basically has to just suck it up and pick up the pieces for someone that is now difficult to get rid of and impossible to predict.

I would move mountains to avoid having someone like that in my team. Everyone, including myself, no matter how good, is not indispensable. Hence it is not just results, it is reliability as well.

That is why some companies might be perceived to overreact to sickness absence. I appreciate the OP was genuinely off.