Rather predictably we see posters accusing the OP of being rude and goady whilst also doing the same in reverse when they made clear that genuine sickness wasn’t the issue.
Unfortunately some people use certain conditions that are more easily self certifiable (such as migraines, stress/anxiety and gynaecological issues) to play the system. Saying this is not meant to demean people who genuinely experience these conditions.
I worked for decades in the private sector before moving to the public sector and my goodness it has been an eye opener.
There are absolutely a (not insignificant) number of people for whom “sickness” is a perk of the job and who do not give any thought whatsoever to the impact to their team or the tax payer.
These people are not difficult to spot.
It is not a situation where people lack compassion or understanding of genuine illness.
These people are utterly predictable in when, for what and for how long they claim sickness.
Their phased returns to work are timed to perfection and they stay “well” enough only long enough to re-start the clock or sit below the (ridiculously high) annual threshold of sickness that triggers any (usually lacklustre) intervention from HR.
There are two such members of my team. The detrimental impact is significant in wider team morale and staff retention when other team members burn out as a result of working at 120% to cover their absence. We lose brilliant experienced staff, incur avoidable recruitment costs and have a work backlog that’s proving impossible to address.
Saying “it’s a management issue” is an oversimplification. Many managers are hugely frustrated and impacted but also hidebound by HR policies (at a national or LA/trust level) that just beg to be exploited combined with skeleton staffing of a HR function that renders it ineffectual.
It just wouldn’t fly in the private sector and it’s incredibly frustrating.