The culture will change for a few months then back to normal.
I hate them fackers that come in who have sickness and the squirts . And you always find yourself sat near the facker.
They look like an extra from a George a Romero movie all pale and groaning selfish fackers.
This whole thing is a damn nightmare.
totally agree
in my workplace ppl darent stay off sick for a cold...even a really heavy one...and end up spreading it around
every xmas for the past 5 years ive been ill, coz some numpty in work has come in the week before xmas coughing and sneezing everywhere
i hope it does change the culture...ppls health is the most important thing
I feel people in my job are taking advantage of the situation knowing too well if they ring in saying they have a cough they’ll be told stay away for two weeks.
I must admit I'm one of those who go in with a small cold, be it a runny nose, or sore throat. This nightmare will definitely change my thinking.
This is a big issue with me, immunosuppressed and places recently in a revised office environment near a blinking door!!
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
I agree with the OP however some employers are decent and some are not, so your actions will really depend on the decency of your employer.
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
I worked for SSE for 14 years , they gave a bloke a formal warning for being of a year with cancer.
Hopefully with all this WFH phenomenon when people have a bug they can work from home than go in the office.
This is a plague not like the common cold or flu you get every winter. For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
Everyone suffers a cold and that alone is a very poor reason not to come in. If you are a sort of person that just falls ill all the time, be considerate of those around you and your employer and leave and work where taking sick days off won’t affect your workplace
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 4 minutes ago
This is a plague not like the common cold or flu you get every winter. For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
Everyone suffers a cold and that alone is a very poor reason not to come in. If you are a sort of person that just falls ill all the time, be considerate of those around you and your employer and leave and work where taking sick days off won’t affect your workplace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you haven't read the OP properly
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 40 minutes ago
I hate them fackers that come in who have sickness and the squirts . And you always find yourself sat near the facker.
They look like an extra from a George a Romero movie all pale and groaning selfish fackers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I hate disease and illness, I stay well clear as much as I can wash hands after everything, basically doing what we’ve been told to now.
Those feckers who think that they are too important to have a sick day off, are usually the complete opposite, and are just selfish erseholes
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 minutes ago
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, most jobs have that, and its fine, if you are dealing with someone who's taking the piiiis. But if someone has a genuine reason and it only happened once for one 6 months period because of some serious issue, dont facking apply the policy. Its common sense.
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going into detail, but yes, sometimes a person needs to deal with something. My wife had a lot of issues after the pregnancy of our twins. If an employer cannot understand that and feels a warning is in place for someone who before the pregnancy called in sick once every 2 years for 10 years, then you are a diiiickhead of an employer.
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going into detail, but yes, sometimes a person needs to deal with something. My wife had a lot of issues after the pregnancy of our twins. If an employer cannot understand that and feels a warning is in place for someone who before the pregnancy called in sick once every 2 years for 10 years, then you are a diiiickhead of an employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Twins....I’d have a medical condition too if my missus had twins...I’d be dead.
From hari kari.
For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
---------------------------
So you are one of those people that get me sick then.
You do realise if you infect someone else with your flu they potentially could die.
Sorry, but if you sick with a viral disease, stay the fack home, work from home, but dont take the bus, train and metro into work, have lunch in the canteen, and infect dozens of people doing so.
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 8 minutes ago
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its perfectly fine. The world needs to stop being so harsh and much more emphatic. Happy people have less stress and work harder.
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had to give a warning to somebody for having two single days off due to illness, a day off as his mrs got pleurisy and then a day off as she found out her coworker had just returned from Italy and he thought he had to self isolate(this was in the very early stages).
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 minutes ago
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, most jobs have that, and its fine, if you are dealing with someone who's taking the piiiis. But if someone has a genuine reason and it only happened once for one 6 months period because of some serious issue, dont facking apply the policy. Its common sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am forced to apply the policy. In fact HR attacked me once for not doing it.
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 8 minutes ago
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its perfectly fine. The world needs to stop being so harsh and much more emphatic. Happy people have less stress and work harder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree I had my wife and youngest I’ll this week . Called up my work took three days holiday Mon-Weds no back chat or sarcastic comments. As long as I updated them they were happy as larry.
Sign in if you want to comment
Not calling in sick
Page 1 of 5
posted on 3/4/20
The culture will change for a few months then back to normal.
posted on 3/4/20
I hate them fackers that come in who have sickness and the squirts . And you always find yourself sat near the facker.
They look like an extra from a George a Romero movie all pale and groaning selfish fackers.
posted on 3/4/20
This whole thing is a damn nightmare.
posted on 3/4/20
totally agree
in my workplace ppl darent stay off sick for a cold...even a really heavy one...and end up spreading it around
every xmas for the past 5 years ive been ill, coz some numpty in work has come in the week before xmas coughing and sneezing everywhere
i hope it does change the culture...ppls health is the most important thing
posted on 3/4/20
I feel people in my job are taking advantage of the situation knowing too well if they ring in saying they have a cough they’ll be told stay away for two weeks.
posted on 3/4/20
I must admit I'm one of those who go in with a small cold, be it a runny nose, or sore throat. This nightmare will definitely change my thinking.
posted on 3/4/20
This is a big issue with me, immunosuppressed and places recently in a revised office environment near a blinking door!!
posted on 3/4/20
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
posted on 3/4/20
I agree with the OP however some employers are decent and some are not, so your actions will really depend on the decency of your employer.
posted on 3/4/20
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
posted on 3/4/20
I worked for SSE for 14 years , they gave a bloke a formal warning for being of a year with cancer.
posted on 3/4/20
Hopefully with all this WFH phenomenon when people have a bug they can work from home than go in the office.
posted on 3/4/20
This is a plague not like the common cold or flu you get every winter. For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
Everyone suffers a cold and that alone is a very poor reason not to come in. If you are a sort of person that just falls ill all the time, be considerate of those around you and your employer and leave and work where taking sick days off won’t affect your workplace
posted on 3/4/20
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 4 minutes ago
This is a plague not like the common cold or flu you get every winter. For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
Everyone suffers a cold and that alone is a very poor reason not to come in. If you are a sort of person that just falls ill all the time, be considerate of those around you and your employer and leave and work where taking sick days off won’t affect your workplace
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess you haven't read the OP properly
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 40 minutes ago
I hate them fackers that come in who have sickness and the squirts . And you always find yourself sat near the facker.
They look like an extra from a George a Romero movie all pale and groaning selfish fackers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I hate disease and illness, I stay well clear as much as I can wash hands after everything, basically doing what we’ve been told to now.
Those feckers who think that they are too important to have a sick day off, are usually the complete opposite, and are just selfish erseholes
posted on 3/4/20
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
posted on 3/4/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 minutes ago
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, most jobs have that, and its fine, if you are dealing with someone who's taking the piiiis. But if someone has a genuine reason and it only happened once for one 6 months period because of some serious issue, dont facking apply the policy. Its common sense.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going into detail, but yes, sometimes a person needs to deal with something. My wife had a lot of issues after the pregnancy of our twins. If an employer cannot understand that and feels a warning is in place for someone who before the pregnancy called in sick once every 2 years for 10 years, then you are a diiiickhead of an employer.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not going into detail, but yes, sometimes a person needs to deal with something. My wife had a lot of issues after the pregnancy of our twins. If an employer cannot understand that and feels a warning is in place for someone who before the pregnancy called in sick once every 2 years for 10 years, then you are a diiiickhead of an employer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Twins....I’d have a medical condition too if my missus had twins...I’d be dead.
From hari kari.
posted on 3/4/20
For the latter two, not coming in to work is an actual disgrace. You have to look at it from heriachy point of view. They’re paying you to come to work everyday, and give you the 28 day holiday. Now taking days off outside of those allocated days can affect business, especially if said business relies quite a bit on making sure staff are available to work rather than other businesses which at times are over staffed and you can get away with.
---------------------------
So you are one of those people that get me sick then.
You do realise if you infect someone else with your flu they potentially could die.
Sorry, but if you sick with a viral disease, stay the fack home, work from home, but dont take the bus, train and metro into work, have lunch in the canteen, and infect dozens of people doing so.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 8 minutes ago
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its perfectly fine. The world needs to stop being so harsh and much more emphatic. Happy people have less stress and work harder.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by 50... (U1147)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by TheFoxOutsideTheBox (U20459)
posted 22 minutes ago
4 times in 6 months is excessive. In what grounds did you appeal and 'basically win'? How do you basically win? You either have it over turned or you don't and with 4 in 6 months a warning is pretty fair game, the only thing I can thing is there was some technicality or poor policy wording which wouldn't mean it was overturned because it was incorrect either.
That level of absence isn't sustainable for a business. Giving a warning isn't a personal attack, I've given plenty and not doubted the legitimacy of an illness(s), it just simply isn't sustainable and the impact of those levels in terms of customer, business and colleagues isn't manageable.
I suspect there's some kind of detail you've not really given here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who’s not coming to work on 4 different occasions in 6 months is either taking the mick or they’ve got some serious underlying issues which they need to take care off.
The bit about the impact the sick days has is something a person who’s regularly of sick just doesn’t consider otherwise they’d try better to look after themselves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I had to give a warning to somebody for having two single days off due to illness, a day off as his mrs got pleurisy and then a day off as she found out her coworker had just returned from Italy and he thought he had to self isolate(this was in the very early stages).
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 24 minutes ago
In my job, if you have three periods of absence within 6 months, you get a warning.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, most jobs have that, and its fine, if you are dealing with someone who's taking the piiiis. But if someone has a genuine reason and it only happened once for one 6 months period because of some serious issue, dont facking apply the policy. Its common sense.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am forced to apply the policy. In fact HR attacked me once for not doing it.
posted on 3/4/20
comment by Stay Safe (U1250)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Edward Elizabeth Hitler. (U14393)
posted 8 minutes ago
What’s everyone’s view on taking time off to look after kids if wife is ill?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its perfectly fine. The world needs to stop being so harsh and much more emphatic. Happy people have less stress and work harder.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree I had my wife and youngest I’ll this week . Called up my work took three days holiday Mon-Weds no back chat or sarcastic comments. As long as I updated them they were happy as larry.
Page 1 of 5