If anybody knows about the Bradford Factor.

[SandyMindyMandy]

Putting this here for traffic because there seem to be a lot with HR experience on this board.

The management decided to bring The Bradford Factor in this January. I've never heard of it before. Have googled it but am none the wiser. I've read plenty but don't get it as am useless at maths. It's never even been mentioned before. Not one person understands it. Not now anyway. There was one but they sacked him, the HR chap, and it's now being used by random managers without a clue of the ins and outs of it
They're having meetings with everybody and their dog about massive scores. It turns out they're counting everything for the last year, possibly back to last January (they're being cagey about the exact date).

They are including everything.
Sick leave.
Hospital admissions.
Accidents.
Emergencies.
Leave for dependants.
Basically all types of leave apart from annual.
Everyone is terrified they are going to get the sack as nobody understands it.

They already take away pay for soms Christmas holiday days off for certain numbers of unbooked time off days using a formula they don't let on about. No matter what the cause. Now they're threatening people with undefined other punishments for high scores.

There's people with disabled kids and partners who they are sole carers for. There are those who are disabled themselves. There's a lot of single/two day off absences when caring for very sick relatives and these people are getting massive scores. The whole place has turned toxic over this. The management have not a single thought towards the fact the workers are human beings with human problems. It all feels wrong and I don't know what to do. Several colleagues have somehow amassed over 4,500 points and nobody is explaining how they got them. The managers don't care one jot if their employee's loved ones die if it means they get perfect attendance.

I'm basically asking AIBU to be very worried.

I can't say where I fit in all this as the MD's wife is on here somewhere and I don't want to give the management ammo seeing as they like sacking people for speaking about the company online in any identifiable way. Small company with a very large ego.

It’s a shit tool because basically it’s a one size fits all and I have never known an employer use it as it should be used which is not in isolation. If employer used it as they should then

all disability absence should be not included for a start.

pregnancy related absence- def not

short term absences in a short length of time should be looked at to see if they are linked

• for example if you were off with an infection but came back to work after a week and then it flared up again and you had to go off it should count as one absence not two as it is the same condition. You have just been unlucky

common sense needs to be applied. Very little employers have this

it totally backfired in my last job in a disability charity where 80% of us had disabilities. They tried to include disability absence and it meant instead of people taking one or two days of then just managing to come back in as a lot of our disabilities were fluctuating we took 2 or 3 weeks off to dam well make sure we were better. We were basically scared of coming back in still not right in case we had to go off again in a short space of time. Also unison were not impressed. I got a high Bradford score completely wiped as my union rep threatened legal action.

this was the first time off I had in five years, unfortunately my disability flared up and I ended up having 4 lots of absence in a short time. My seizures ramped up due to me having anemia. And they would only take the seizures as a reason and not the anemia

it lasted six months and there was a major reshuffle (getting rid of) stupid trustees who did not have a bloody clue

Discrimination based on what. What protected characteristic do you have

You would only be able to bring legal action.....

As it's now their absence policy since January they can only count absence going forward

Ok then unison said they would support me and other employees to take legal action

They funding it or just giving advice? Giving you Counsel?

It did not get that fair they just had to threaten it via us but they said they would look into supporting with costs but it never got that fair

You also needed a doctor to write that they were unable to work.....

They can sack people with disabilities if they are absent, just have to go via absence reviews

I think you would struggle to sack someone who had been there for five years without absence and then suddenly had a relapse of their disability. Which led to fours periods of absence with totalled no more then 8 days!!!

and I have never known anyone sacked due to being off due to their disability. Let go on health ground yes but not sacked.

work got in touch with my doctor who told them why I needed to be off. He was quite sharp with them in his letter as they knew all about my disability and how it affected me.

as it happens I left six months later due to them making my life hell after all this had happened but that was my choice

Disability isn’t considered.

They can adjust if they want, but they don’t have to . But they could find themselves in hot water if they don’t. But they don’t have to.

Bitter experience here.

Just read your last post and it sounds like an incredibly toxic workplace, rolling out some illegal practices and badly managed. If the MD’s wife is reading this, I hope she is ashamed and reflective.

Your employer sounds awful and toxic for many reasons and I certainly don't condone the heavy handed approach they've taken with this. However...

The reason I mentioned the high scores is because they are only high because they are counting absences accrued in the (at least) 9 months prior to announcing the Bradford Factor was being initiated. In effect, including absences in scoring for a period in which employees didn't even know it existed. It's like passing a brand new law then prosecuting people for doing it last year while doing it was still legal IYSWIM. That's what doesn't feel right.

This does make a little sense. If employees feel they would have changed their behaviour/absences had they known that they'd be monitored and potentially disciplined in this way, it suggests that some of them were likely abusing the system. I can see why an employer would want to put a system in place to monitor the issue given that the scores are so high. If there wasn't a tangible problem in the first place, they wouldn't be doing this. It makes sense for an employer to question someone about their absences based on the previous 9 months if their scores are as high as 4,500, which is extremely disruptive and suggests that they're either a) taking advantage or b) need additional support. The absence management conversation has to be triggered by something and start somewhere and this needs to be acknowledged (they wouldn't be bringing it in if scores were acceptable and business wasn't disrupted in the first place).

Having said the above, the company culture sounds toxic (no wonder people are absent whenever they have a vaguely legitimate excuse - I think I'd feel like calling in sick at the first sign of a sniff!) and the policy sounds badly explained and implemented. Best practice to start addressing such a culture of absenteeism (and taking an approach of wanting to keep the team vs discipline and lose them/start over) would probably be to say something like "we are going to bring in a new absence policy from x date and we will be using the Bradford Factor to monitor it. I'd like to make you aware that your score based on the past year is very high and under the new policy it would trigger a review/disciplinary procedure/etc. which is concerning. Is there anything we can support you with or make a note of going forward so that we can work together to [reduce absence/reduce work stress/support disability/put reasonable adjustments in place]?"

In an ideal world, in this situation, a company would also want to look at the reason that employees aren't motivated to come into work and make changes to environment/culture/management...

Yes. It has happened several times before they even started using The Bradford Factor. Took a few dads out too.

This is possibly why they prefer male late middle aged employees as their permanent workers. Maybe thinking they're past all the child rearing years.

There's very few women left now.

They've got a multi-faith prayer room for all religions to go to for quiet reflection time though, so long as it's in one's lunch break, and all workers received sensitivity training in avoiding offensive language. So, they're not complete dinosaurs. They're aware of racism, sexism and such. Ableism, not so much.

It sounds fucking awful. Are they using Dickens novels as a management guide?

No specific advice, OP, but a shedload of sympathy for you all. I would've thought at least some of the practices you outlined illegal. A call to ACAS might not be a bad idea.

I hope you all find a job with more humane management very soon. In the meantime, I hope you find a way to bring these bastards in line and make them sorry.

Think you need to name and shame

That's a really excellent post. It's given me plenty to think about.

I suppose it sticks in the throat, them including the 9 months before introduction in to the score, because at that time, they were often telling people, "don't worry about it, family comes first". Not always and not everyone, but now that seems like a big fat hairy two-faced lie. It used to be they were annoyed about it but made understanding noises. They would recoup as much money and make up favours as they could, pinch a bit of your Christmas holiday pay and leave it at that. Most are on hourly rates so don't get pay if absent. Obviously. We are talking people who are desperate to keep it to the one day off, preferably no days off at all.

It seems like everybody was lulled into this false sense of security that existed from the years where it felt like a family. They did used to at least appear to care. Then, after the infamous Credit Crunch, little policies started to creep in. Tinkering, micromanaging and such. The trust began to die on both sides. A them and us mentality slowly grew. It could have something to with the two decent owners retiring and selling their interest to the one rather unpleasant control freak. Now, he sits there all day making up new rules to make everyone's job harder, along with his friends in upper management who can do no wrong and kiss his ring on command. It's all very well wishing for karma to bite him on the bottom but there are a lot of artisans who are going to go down with him if his relatively small company goes under. I'm going to take your advice and phone ACAS. I already tried but the lines are incredibly busy.

Thanks for all the replies. I'm going to sleep now before I throw up again. Oh boy, migraines are a misery.

I don't think so. Very few will have heard of the place anyway. Very niche.

They'd just do a company wide witch-hunt and sack away.

It's in everyone's contract to not name the place online. It was like an FBI investigation when an ex-employee called his lordship a wanker on Facebook not too long back. Big man wanted to know who he'd been talking to. As if the bloke didn't have enough of his own experience to form that opinion!

@SandyMindyMandy
May have missed it... Are you in UK??

Am no lawyer - a lot of what you've written about the company... Sounds as if they're acting illegally??

Any employment lawyers on here?

We had it at work for a couple of years but thankfully the powers that be decided it was completely inflexible and didn't work and scrapped it

Sure, it was late, I was paraphraseing but that's what I meant.

@SandyMindyMandyyour workplace sounds awful. However , sounds like people expect to be off regularly for disabled relatives , this can’t happen to often.
Also they are not allowed to stop you joining a union in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/join-trade-union/trade-union-membership-your-employment-rights#:~:text=Refusing%20to%20employ%20you%20for,or%20leave%20a%20trade%20union