Stay at home if you're sick even in hard times, say bosses

So OK 'not paying even if it's an Industrial Injury' may well be your cast-in-stone policy B H but surely to goodness the company won't profit from that once the Industrial Injury claim goes to settlement?

Yes - as an ex Liability insurance underwriting clerk I know very well there are some people who try to or do threaten their employers with spurious claims - but surely the goodwill and the hardship caused to the genuine individual; let alone the reputation of your business lost - to the workforce and in the community - has got to be worth more than the interest you would have gained on the money not spent at the time?

OK - so the claim fails and you will have lost the money if the person isn't still employed by you and you can't recoup it but in genuine cases you will land up eventually paying the original amount plus the interest (plus the pain & suffering and expenses) - but your insurer will re-imburse you for that but of course any additional H & S costs to redress the problem that caused it and any fine imposed for breaches of H &S. Then of course it can also affect the future annual premium you pay for that very insurance - so how does the business budget for that in future?

Has the firm seriously carried out comparitive costings and found it really saves serious money?

Perhaps it's the advent or shift toward "Strict Liability" or guilty unless you can prove innocence in terms of 'it want me i weren't there' fixed penanlty for any potential non-compliance that has encouraged a "zero tolerance" for any lapse in anything other than 'total performace'?

Fear and guilt founded in "approval deprivation" as with any other stressors is gauranteed to increase the risk of 'performance anxiety', 'fatigue' or vigilance decremation that will result in more errors and mishaps even injury.

It comes to something when the workplace is more dangerous than serving in Iraq where you would be safer and suffer fewer incidents of Friendly Fire and Collateral Damage to human resources than staying in the UK.

What happened to interpersonal relationships founded on good communication and Positive Regard for one's peers or coleagues ?

Presenteeism is said to be more costly to employers than sickness absence because of degraded performance at work. In the 90s recession the sickness absence rate dropped but increased markedly as the recovery started. Looking after the health and welfare of employees during a downturn is "money in the bank" in terms not only survival, but recovery once the crisis is over.

There is a fine line between an effective absence policy and one that eventually creates bad employee employer relations. As BH says they usually cut absence numbers but I bet the work load, time and extra staff that have to be taken on to deal with the number of cases that end up on the wrong end of the policy don’t always justify the money saved.

If you are only allowed two or three absences in a rolling period and you enter the policy - or are about to, it is a sure bet that you are going to turn up to work when you should really not be there and in my book that is really being forced to work under duress - especially if you have already been warned about previous absence.

Yes if you have a disability and your absence is to do with it you can usually not have any further missed days counted against you, but what if you just happen to be somebody who is unlucky enough to keep picking up bugs over the winter? They can screw up a perfectly good career just because they have been working really hard and let themselves get a bit run down..............and in today’s working environment that’s going to get pretty common if not already so!

Too much emphasis is put on the absence policy and not enough on common sense, good old fashion individual management and discretion.

I agree Anne. our company deals with sickness by refusing to pay employees if they are off sick for 2 period in a rolling year. Some employees are entitled to 12 months sick pay after 10 years service but if they have 2 separate days off sick in a 12 month rolling year, the third period of sickness will not be paid. This includes industrial injuries.

The policy does reduce sickness absence but also encourages employees who are unfit, to go into work. The job involves driving and employees working when they are unfit could have fatal consequences, for themselves and others.

Thats fine if you have a decent absence policy and dont negatively punish those who have been ill.
Some employers use their polcies as a weapon to constantly batter staff with and many workers are vulnerable in todays climate.

I couldn't agree more with the reasoning for staying at home when sick.
Although it may come hard to some to 'stay away' during illness the facts are pretty conclusive when reviewing past experience.
1. You are only going to delay/slow down your recovery time and let's face it how efffective are you going to be?
2. When you are ill your are ill there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it apart from take the 'best medicine' stay at home and try to rest.
3. We all appreciate the extra special efforts of our colleagues who plough on through illness regardless, until of course you become the next vitim in the cycle!
'Stay at Home' is my message!