Work now tells everyone why you’re off? AIBU to think it’s a bit naff?

[ContactTraced]

At work we’ve recently appointed a new senior manager. They’ve brought with them a new sickness policy…

First; no more emailing in; you have to call his mobile directly and explain why you are going to be off.

Second; and this is the bit I think is a bit crap… and email comes out everyday with a list of who is not in the building and why, it doesn’t go into masses of detail but does say if someone is “WFH” “Meeting” or “Sick” for example.

This is supposedly so we can “support” in places where they might have a lot of people off, but AIBU to think this is a little crap; and is actually meant to encourage presenteeism… which is a bit irresponsible considering the pandemic isn’t over yet!

I used to have to ring in and speak to a manager if I was off sick, that is standard.

I assume the it's to stop any calls/interruptions to someone who is off sick and needs to rest, rather than working from home.

I think it's extremely useful to know if somebody is sick and also stops their inbox from getting clogged up with increasingly irate colleagues wondering why they're not getting a response. Then returning to a horrible inbox of stress.

When everybody worked in the office it was relatively easy to drop by and say 'where's so and so' to be told 'off sick'. In remote working there needs to be another way.

The thing is, if you read this as them trying to shame you for being sick then that's a company culture problem, not that the process is necessarily bad. In my last place of work (positive culture) it would be a signal to colleagues to cover for the missing person, pick up the slack and show them compassion.

@FlorenceWintle

Whichever way you look at it, it’s designed to make calling in sick more uncomfortable and therefore discourage people faking it.

Without doubt, but some people take the mick with sick leave and management have no choice but to crack down.

Phoning in is good practice. It does make it less likely that staff will take unecessary days and for those genuinely sick it (should) mean support cam be offered where needed.

It's useful to known who's out and surely the fact that someone is off sick is not confidential, provided the reason is not stated? We do the same. When I started it included the specific reason for the sickness absence, I did put a stop to that.

Whichever way you look at it, it’s designed to make calling in sick more uncomfortable and therefore discourage people faking it

Which is a good thing for all concerned?

Actually, reading through, I’ve changed my mind. I wouldn’t bother someone with a phone call if I knew they were unwell. So, both policies are ok with me.

Ringing in sick is normal. I’m never sure it’s a brilliant idea because the thing that’s going to make you better, often, is staying asleep. So if you’re up all night ill, it’s sensible to be able to send an email and then go to bed.

However it’s normal and allowed so I said yabu.

The list thing - I can see it being reasonable to know who is WFH and who is not around. However “leave” would be more reasonable as it covers annual leave, sick leave and any other kind, so you’re not potentially breaching any confidentiality.

[quote mokojolo]@IntermittentParps Well obviously I started there. It didn't work.[/quote]
I'd have stuck to 'that's personal' on repeat rather than making up dentist appointments. Or taken it higher.

dont worry it wont last long, unless you have a very small group and a secretary with time to do all this emailing and keeping track. your "senior" manager just wants to assert him/herself...

Some people do take the mick, as pps have said, so that does have to be factored in.

DHS work has told the world and his wife that someone is off with depression.

I once told my boss I was having my genital warts burnt off when she kept pressing me for my illness. I dont think she asked again or might have been more gory ( it was just a week off with a reoccurring killer sore throat that I needed to rest up)

It wouldn't bother me at all. I'd rather know if someone is off sick as then you know not to expect them back at a certain point if you need something from them.

There's no shame in being off sick or having a medical appointment...

I don't think it's so unreasonable of him to request a phone call ; but listing all the absentees with reasons for their absence is totally unreasonable.

I once told my boss I was having my genital warts burnt off when she kept pressing me for my illness.

OP, does the boss ask why you are sick and want personal details when you call?

This is standard I thought. We get an email every day with who is in, WFH, sick, A/L. No one knows WHY you are sick.

This used to happen when I worked at a big FTSE company… it was quite useful, to be fair. Knowing if someone is working from home, so available, or sick (and therefore might be off for any length of time) or on annual leave so will have a set return date was quite helpful…

And almost everyone would have that in their out of office anyway, so it wasn’t sharing more than they’d usually know, just putting it in an easy accessible list that helps to reduce how many emails John gets while he’s off so people can see if he’s got a return date or if he’s off sick etc.

To ring your manager is expected in my office. The one time I had no voice I rang, and put DH straight on the phone to explain what was going on.

Very often we text first thing and then ring when the office opens so we can also explain what work is urgent and need coverage. If you can’t speak then you wrote a short mail.

I would complain to HR about the absence email though. We have a list everyone gets but it only shows the managers and sickness is only shown if it is a long term thing or planned surgery etc so people know someone is out for longer and they then go straight to the other team members instead of emailing or phoning people who aren’t on for weeks.

@sirfredfredgeorge

Sigh. Why do people (even the ones who say they don’t know) spout GDPR for everything. Telling an office who is in or out doesn’t breech GDPR

The only grounds for processing sensitive personal information is consent, sickness is sensitive personal information, therefore consent is required.

The ICO won't give a shit, because they never give a shit about the law, it came from the EU.

Data concerning someone's health is indeed sensitive. However, it is completely wrong to say it can only be processed with consent. Any of the lawful reasons for processing non-sensitive data can still be used. However, the data controller also needs to identify one of the 10 conditions for processing sensitive information. Explicit consent is one of these conditions but there are 9 others that allow sensitive information to be shared without consent.

Any data related to an indentifiable living individual is classified as personal data, so even flagging that someone is working from home is personal data. However, flagging that someone is off sick is likely to be a breach of GDPR. Revealing the nature of their sickness would clearly be a breach, although, in my experience, many employers share too much information with members of the absentee's team.

It is not true that the ICO don't care about the law. They have imposed large fines on some companies. However, their resources are limited so they can't deal with everything. I suspect they wouldn't do anything more than issue some advice to the employer and they may not even do that. However, individuals affected by this have the right to sue their employer over any data breach.

Those on early shift will message our group chat if they can't make it in to open up so the next person in knows and can try and get in sooner but otherwise we are meant to call the boss/deputy with detail. If they are going to be in work after us we also call the building to let the staff already there know so staff deployment can be managed easier.

With a phone call you know someone is aware you are going to be off rather than wondering if the text or email has been seen in time.

We are a small team so we will always know why someone is off- ie if its holiday or illness.

We have to call in, on the grounds that anyone could send an email or text, and they need to make sure it is you.

Snap. And I completely agree with this reasoning.

I can understand needing to know who is off each day, BUT, there shouldn't be a reason next to it. That is an invasion of privacy.

It makes perfect sense for people to know if someone is in a meeting/WFH/ or sick. That enables colleagies to know whether or not thay're going to be available shortly or not, and whether to bother them with something or not. And as PP said, removes the need to be asking around constantly.

As long as the reason for sickness/medical appointment isn't revealed it seems fine to me. It's just the digital equivalent of the grapevine that's always happened when people are off.

Going against the grain here but I see nothing wrong with this.

Notifying your manager by phone if illness is not unreasonable

Indicating whereabouts and availability of staff seems reasonable. For those who are listed as sick, I would expect them not to be called or expected to work that day whereas those listed as WFH or Meeting should be expected to reply / be contactable during the day albeit delayed response from those in a meeting.

That sounds really normal for every place i’ve ever worked. If you know they’re sick rather than WFH then you know they’re not available for calls etc. My last workplace had a webpage where you could look up people’s availability and it would tell you if they were sick, WFH, not working that day (if they were part time), on holiday, travelling for business etc.

Explicit consent is one of these conditions but there are 9 others that allow sensitive information to be shared without consent

None of those could realistically be used to share information with colleagues though, as you note, so I was being simplistic.

Your view on the ICO is different to mine, and have certainly not imposed any large fines in my mind, but that is of course a matter of degree, but the fines so far have always been less than the profit gained from not being compliant.

The little enforcement they do is to justify their chocolate budget