To think that you must be able to cite capability after 5 years

[Edenspirits]

Someone in my work has a long term health condition which I have huge sympathy for (it’s bipolar plus other mental health issues) but it means that over the last 5 years, they are off work for approx 6 months of the year.

They don’t want to go part time but it seems fairly clear that they can’t sustain the role but work have said that there is nothing they can do. It’s putting an enormous strain on the health and well-being of everyone else as we have to fill in that work & pick up the gaps.

I have huge sympathy but aibu to think after 5 years, there must be some kind of capability issue here?

This is very common in the NHS and very frustrating

IME, it's rotten for everybody, in different ways.

What are people with disabilities meant to do though? If they claim benefits they are called “scroungers.” If they try and work they get put under capability proceedings.

To be honest I applaud your employer for keeping her. They could have dismissed, but have supported her instead likely making an unquantifiable difference to her wellbeing and quality of life. Very unreasonable of you to involve yourself in a colleagues employment and talk about them behind your back.

The workload issue you should absolutely escolate and insist is covered somehow.

I used to work in the civil service still have plenty of friends there. They are definitely managing people out with high sickness, there are water tight procedures to follow so there is no litigation.

Absolutely poor management and nothing else especially after 5 years!

@Donotfeedthebears

What’s going to happen to all the people with long Covid?

I have long covid.

My CEO is an ex union leader. He's been massively supportive. We are both in full agreement that he doesn't want to exacerbate my recovery. We also agree that work isn't everything and if I need to quit because my health isn't up to it then so be it.

@Donotfeedthebears

What are people with disabilities meant to do though? If they claim benefits they are called “scroungers.” If they try and work they get put under capability proceedings.

I sometimes wonder if a reduction in hours would help to prevent sickness for some of my previous colleagues. It’s like they power through full time for as long as they can then burn out and need 5/6 months off. In the NHS they aren’t covered when they’re off so we have to pick up a full time workload to cover for half the year. I wonder if people with disabilities were able to claim whilst working to enable them to reduce their hours of time in work would increase. It’s not fair on the people with disabilities to struggle physically and financially with the pressure and need to work even when unwell and isn’t fair on colleagues regularly picking up their work. I will add no one I have ever worked with has ever complained about time off for genuine reasons other than the lack of cover provided by management. There are in the NHS however people who play the system due to 6 months full pay and regularly have various illnesses such as a sprained wrist meaning 3 months off yet they post photos on Facebook of them rowing in a race with said sprained wrist. Same person ran a marathon whilst off for 4 months with an ankle injury.

Is she taking her meds properly? It sounds as though things are very chaotic for her. I do feel for you all having to pick up the slack.

From an employers point of view how do they afford to employ someone full time when they only work 50% of the time? How many staff could they afford to employ on that basis?

I don't have an issue with disabled people being entitled to benefits and they should be receiving more than the current rates. Employers are not a charity though.

I have been on both sides of the fence long term illness and being part of a team where one person when they finally left after 20 years had a less than 50% attendance rate - people your taxes funded that person and she bitched and bitched about "benefit scroungers" she had it all worked out only 30 hours per week, got her Mums council house, used her Mums disability car and blue badge - completely worked the system and the sick pay policy. The union refused to support her in the end.

To be honest I applaud your employer for keeping her. They could have dismissed, but have supported her instead likely making an unquantifiable difference to her wellbeing and quality of life.

But the employer is offering support to one employee at the cost of others ' wellbeing and quality of life. Surely the employer would be more impressive if they actually put proper systems in place rather than letting their other staff take up all the slack to save them the trouble of dealing with the situation more effectively.

Some of the replies on here ane why its so difficult for someone with disabilities to get and hold down a job. You then complain about them claiming benefits

No, its not responses on here that make it difficult to hold down a job when you need 6 months in every year off. That's the person's inability to do their job for whatever reason, don't blame it on the people who have to do the work they aren't doing.

There are limits to accommodations. If you can't actually do a job, you can't keep it indefinitely. It's as simple as that

I work for NHS and I have a colleague who is always off sick due to a health condition.
My managers made her temporarily drop to very very part time (1/4 of her original hours) until she gets her sick record under control (it won’t ever be).
So surely your managers should be looking into something like that?

Please at least have a little sympathy for disabled workers, too. Life can be utter hell for them

Those of us who have colleagues with disabilities generally know how rotten working life can be for them.

But - that doesn't stop us from feeling exhausted by having to cover for them, or take on their work, or feel awful when we refuse to do their work, and thus exacerbate the danger of our colleague with disabilities being managed out ...

I hope my colleague finds a way of managing their workload, or takes a step back to part-time (I suspect they cannot afford to), because if they are managed out, I will feel awful at their going. But doing their work, or supporting them beyond my workload, is also tiring and stressful.

From an employers point of view how do they afford to employ someone full time when they only work 50% of the time? How many staff could they afford to employ on that basis?

They can do it because other staff pick up the slack - and let me tell you, it is - in my experience - rather more than just a bit here & there. I've had to take over whole projects at a day's notice, and with no reduction in my workload in other areas.

And it's not just the work - one as to placate anxious or angry clients/users, and collegiality requires I can't just say what's happened. That's quite a lot of exhausting emotional work, IME.

i have been in this exact position, you can still capability manage if the work isnt getting done and to an expected standard when they are in however you do have to document everything and show how you are also helping to improve such as additional training. Also you can still go through absence management but this is a much harder procedure as you will need to go through occupational health so i would recommend a very good HR specialist or legal advice. Your best chance is capability. DM me if you need any more advice. Good luck x

[quote Pinkfreesias]@Sugarplumfairy65, you're absolutely right. As a disabled person, it is incredibly hard to get and/or keep a job. People don't want someone disabled on their team, as has been clearly illustrated here, but also like to use the lazy scrounger narrative all too readily.

I've experienced the whispering and sniping and it was awful. Knowing that, on top on my declining health, people were angry at me.

I was on capability proceedings and, in the end, left before they were about to sack me; I just couldn'tbear it any longer. This was public sector, and they do sack people, whatever people here might think.

Please at least have a little sympathy for disabled workers, too. Life can be utter hell for them.[/quote]
Just to clarify, because there seem to be some unwarranted assumptions - do you actually know if those comments were all made by able bodied people? Just wondering, because I am significantly disabled. I would expect my employer to look to make reasonable adjustments (and they do) to make my working life a bit easier to manage. But my expectation is not that I get treated better than my non-disabled counterparts. I expect to be expected to work and to perform. And I don't expect my employer to be a social service providing income without performance. If I were unable to to my job they would not need to take capability procedures, because I would resign, and not complain that I expected to be treated with kid gloves.

I am disabled, not incapable. And that is the message that employers need to be managing - being disabled does not mean that we are incapable. I am as capable, or more capable, than any non-disabled person.

@MeltsAway my point is they couldn't do it if 50/60/70/80/90% of their workforce was only performing at 50% capability they would go bust!!!

I remember a colleague that I also knew socially that was dithering about accepting retirement on ill health grounds when they just weren't capable of doing the job they were in. Wasn't to do with their disability they had just got promoted beyond their capability and then used the disability card 🤦🏼‍♀️ it was embarrassing knowing both "sides" of the story. These days they would get managed out on capability and not offered retirement.