Off sick for years

[BoredandStuck]

Someone I work with has been off work sick for over two and a half years now. That seems a really long time without them being sacked or let go. Has anyone else come across anything similar or longer?

Most companies check up on people who are off ill long term. I work for a large bank and they get paid for 6months full pay, then it reduces. We find that the majority return at the six month mark….

The fact that they’re off sick isn’t your business, but if you are having to do an unreasonable amount of work or are struggling to cope, then it would be reasonable to raise this with your manager and expect them to make arrangements for the role to be covered.

I would be surprised if they are being paid still. Where I work you get full pay for the first 6 months off sick then this drop to half pay for another six months. Not sure after that.

I worked somewhere and there was a person on my team who had been off I think about 10 years. No one seemed to remember working with her, never mention that she might come back so now role or desk only mentioned if a new org chart out and the most recent joiner would always ask who is that and when the Christmas hampers were given out as manger would then get her's delivered to her.
There were some redundancies during my time there but apparently she couldn't be on list as sick.

I was off work for almost 3 years and couldn't wait to go back. It took ages to get a proper diagnosis, and I kept failing the Occupational Health assessments due to poor health. My employer could see that I was really keen to return, and I was paid a percentage of my salary due to income protection insurance. My position was filled by someone else, and when I was finally able to return following a diagnosis and learning how to manage my symptoms, I was deployed to a similar position in another team.
I hated being off for so long; I felt I was getting stupider the longer I was off. Processes change and methods evolve, so I knew I would be in for a tough learning curve when I returned.

I can understand why some people are prickly about this question.

I've been sick now for almost two and a half years following an event that for most people would be a non-serious incident which they recover from in twenty-four hours. It was a completely freak accident, and it's left me with a seriously reduced quality of life, unable to do some many normal things I took for granted - like walking any distance, driving, drinking, etc etc.

I don't think my employer has income protection (?) so this will very much depend on your employer, but once you run out of paid sick leave, I think some people end up on unpaid leave (or SSP) for a good while. Luckily I've been able to go back to work, but I returned way too soon, partly because I felt under pressure to try.

People tend to expect you to just get better in a nice, neat, linear way. The reality is that many conditions involve ups and downs, setbacks due to other life stuff (I'm currently stuck off work because an ordinary viral bug has left me now unable to look at a screen for more than a few minutes without horrible pain and nausea). And what people don't seem to realise is that we can't predict the future. We don't get reliable prognoses on which to make decisions, we might even have reduced capacity to deal with making decisions (or the life admin around it), and being chronically ill is really bloody expensive. So of course we're not going to just quit! I never would have thought I'd still be in this state two years ago, and the doctors sure as hell didn't - A&E thought it was so trivial they barely wanted to even see me! Nor do I know now if I'll be able to work next week, next month, if it'll improve, deteriorate further... A surprising amount of medical science sadly seems to involve just leaving the patient on their own to see what happens.

As others have said, your issue is with management, not the person in question. Framing it as you did may make it seem like the latter (not to mention the other person who referred to sick leave 'stringing along' their employer). I appreciate you might not have meant that.

I'd suggest you just talk to your employer about workload. It doesn't need to be directly about the person in question at all - though I'm surprised they haven't changed anything after this long. Raising workload, and flagging the risks and things that won't get progressed without a change, is perfectly reasonable.

Needless to say, all of us who are chronically ill would bloody love to be well enough to work reliably. We're not having fun lying at home. Not being able to work usually means not being able to do all the other normal life things reliably too - like leave the house, drive, go for a walk, go to the cinema, have a pint, cook nice meals, etc. etc. It's bloody miserable and it's a shame - whether or not the OP meant this - that we've become such a society that bashes the sick and disabled without blinking.

If they're on full pay, sick and the company policy is being applied correctly/fairly, good luck to them.

It must be reassuring to know that if you need financial support if taken ill in the future, you'll be looked after to the same extent by your employer.

Some companies have an additional perk of permanent health insurance sometimes also called “group income protection.”

That’s what we get. Maybe the company doesn’t care how long the employee is off sick if they are being paid by the insurance?

It could depend as well why they are off - BIL’s gf is off work long term sick waiting for surgery. So far she’s been waiting over 18 months. Post surgery she’s expecting to be fit enough to go back to work so her workplace still have her job open (although temporarily being replaced by someone on a month to month contract).

if the workplace have decent insurance paying her then they should be using what they are not paying to bring in temp cover.

They are saving money while she is off sick as the rest of us are picking up her workload

That’s a strong possibility but will depend on how the employee cost centres are set up.

I’ve done a NC for this, probably understandably.

I get your view re workload, but you do come across as nosy/a bit judge re your colleague. And they really shouldn’t be your focus - it should be how your management/company are dealing with this.

As others have said, for a period of this length, it is highly likely (and you have agreed likely) that an income protection insurance is offered as part of your benefits package.

Firstly, these are pretty tough to secure as a claimant. They are also tough to renew on a regular basis. As with most forms of insurance, underwriters will put a fair amount of work into NOT paying out on claims. The decision will be nothing to do with your company and will be completely at the discretion of the insurer/underwriter. The claimant will not be paid full salary, it will be a percentage of their wage.

If the above is the case then, firstly, take comfort that a policy is in place that could help you if you ever need it - we all never know what is around the corner that could turn life plans upside down. Secondly, just take a moment to wonder what it’s like for someone who takes pride in their work to be in a position to no longer do so. It’s a tough place to be in while also dealing with the medical cause for it.

Having said all of this, you are not BU if you and your colleagues are impacted by the position not being covered by an additional employee. If your sick colleague is covered by some form of income protection insurance then your company are not paying them any wages, these are paid by the insurance company. Therefore, you are covering their workload for free - and that is 100% a fault on the part of your management and company.

You need to find a way to have a formal discussion with your management re managing workload. And find a way not to be “interested” in your colleague and their situation.

Patronising.

No, I work for the civil service and the person would have been dismissed or ill health retirement long before 2yrs. Usually 6 months plus, conversations start about dismissal if no chance of return. In my 25yrs we have dismissed a couple of staff for long term sickness, one was in and out though. Turns out that despite her bad back, she was moonlighting at a festival type occasion. That wasn’t why she was dismissed, but doesn’t help your cause when your back is too bad for work but ok for this other work she did.

Most of the most serious illness (cancer) colleagues have mainly worked through, in and out.

Looks like the Civil Service don’t have the same Income Protection as part of their contracts. Lots of private companies do. It’s a nice perk for obvious reasons.

Being unfit to carry out the job and have no realistic prospect of being fit to return can be grounds for dismissal. The employer will need to go through a process which in a large/structured organisation should involve occupational health. If the outcome of that process is that there's no prospect of timely return employer can probably justify dismissal.

However if your issue is that you/colleagues are carrying the absentee's workload then that, and not employer action to dismiss, is your gripe.

It the team has gotten by for two and a half years with one person short do you seriously think the company will advertise a vacancy as soon as the absentee is dismissed?.

That’s sort of correct - it can be grounds for dismissal BUT if there is a contractual benefit of this nature then the employer cannot (case law says must not!) restrict the access to the benefit. So as long as the employee meets the terms of the employer’s insurance policy, the insurer has to pay out and the employee cannot be sacked/dismissed as this would be an example of the employer restricting a contractual benefit.

I managed to let one lady I managed keep working for another 18 months with stage 4 cancer as she wanted her family to claim the death in service. In the end it became too much but she was grateful for the heavily adjusted role to keep her in work. It also gave her a sense of normality a couple of times a week. She sadly died a few months ago, but did live another 4yrs after early retirement.

OP you need to ask your manager about the increased workload if it’s too much. You’re not being insensitive, it’s directly impacting you. Maybe ask if there any plans to replace person off sick. Does sound like they are on the books still for this critical illness type cover.

People saying it’s not your business, but you’re only interested in that role being covered long term as it’s directly impacting you. If staff don’t speak up then they are going to assume that her role has been absorbed by you and your colleagues. If you aren’t all saying this is too much then they won’t know. It is too much as in you’re falling behind with other tasks, or just busier than you were. Managers need to assess if it’s fair that her role has been absorbed. May be other reasons they are keeping her job open too, but they could have got a temp in.

No we definitely don’t. That is really good. I have a serious health issue that was much worse 7-8yrs ago before a major surgery and it was so stressful wondering if I’d be able to keep my job. I was coming from a hospital stay into work the next day, still in severe pain and CRP (inflammation) bloods sky high. Clearly not fit for work, but i’d already had one warning which does feel incredibly unfair when I had several life threatening attacks before a major surgery made it a lot better (but not curable). If I had income protection that would have taken so much stress away, especially as i’m a single parent so only income.

There's someone at my workplace who is off sick about 90% of the time. Turns up for a few days, then is in hospital or too unwell. It's been going on for much longer than I've been there.

I think they genuinely want to be employed, and are probably claiming some kind of benefit or income protection, but I think there is a point where the company has to say enough.

Why are you so angry with op? They only asked if anyone had heard of it before

I worked for a very well
known large corporate and knew someone off sick for several years. After the six months full
pay and six months half pay she went onto statutory sick pay, her job was left open as there was a chance she
could still get well
enough to return in the future.

She never did return though, I’m not sure if she was finished in the end or went on a compromise agreement but she certainly wasn’t paid a salary indefinitely.

So in my job it would depend what they are off sick for- we have had people being treated for cancer who they keep on the books- as being employed would give the family a death in service payment if they died during treatment.

Because her work is still being done and the insurance company are covering her salary the situation is more profitable for the company. I assume you and your colleagues who are now doing her job have contracts that are worded in such a way that you are obliged to absorb this extra work indefinitely with no extra pay. It's unfair but I think our employment laws often are.

What puzzles me is the insurance company's position on this. My understanding is that all insurance is supposed to only cover a loss (not create a profit / gain). They are usually very good at protecting their position in their contracts. So I would've have thought with income protection policies there would be a clause specifying that the policy would only pay out if the policyholder was experiencing the loss of paying for temporary cover in addition to the ill person's salary. If so, then I would have thought your employers would need to send evidence of the additional cost each month for payments to continue.

I'm not sure how you might go about checking if that is true. Maybe someone who works in insurance will come on to say it is or that I've got it wrong.

But if it is true, it might give you some leverage if you cautiously raise it, perhaps more as a question than an accusation.