You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In this age of caring sharing employers / mental well-being etc etc does this letter seem a bit heavy handed to you?
I've worked for the company for 23 years as a valued member of the technical staff. I get 33days (25+8 long term) holiday so don't need to pull 'sickies'.
My health has been good so is my health record - but a common cold / flu symptoms absolutely wipe me out as can be seen from my records.
I share a small office and a colleague came down with lurgy before Christmas that then brought me down. I don't think it fully cleared and came back after Christmas. I went to my GP and was diagnosed with chest infection / upper respiratory, anti biotics and my first ever fit/sick note. The previous back to work interviews have been with me coughing/snotty - I.E. I have genuinely been unwell.
Am I right to feel aggrieved at the disciplinary wording or is this the world of big corp and I just need to accept it?
[url= https://i.ibb.co/5xCb8CDR/IMG-0455.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/5xCb8CDR/IMG-0455.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
It's procedural standard form letter, populated with your details, if you want personal bespoke letters then overheads need to go up to fit that in but that's just dead cost in a big business.
If your record is like you've said then it'll be an open and closed meeting.
Crikey!
In my more 'caring & sharing' public sector role, if hitting a 'trigger' due to sickness, we could expect a formal process/letter to kick in, but it would be under 'sickness management' or 'absence management', rather than 'disciplinary' ...
On the face of it it does come across a bit heavy.
If you're attendance has been as good as you say then I'd be requesting the return to work forms and documentation for the last 23 years. Attend the meeting and let them talk, see if your initial thoughts/concerns are valid.
Looks to me like they have jumped several steps in the attendance management process - though I haven't seen your organisations one.
I'm an Occ Health Specialist Nurse - your absence history, where I work, would see an initial referral for "frequent intermittent absence" - 3 episodes or 10 days within rolling 12 months. I'd likely advise you've had 3 episodes or self-limiting opportunistic infections, no ongoing concern - no underlying issues of concern.
Have a look at organisation policy and make sure they are following it correctly, for me your record in that letter might lead to having little chat with HR and manager and 6 months monitoring of attendance, nothing major - not a panel/ hearing like they say. Also calling it a disciplinary review is OTT - what are they 'disciplining' for?
Definitely seems heavy handed - to channel @TJagain - are you in a union?
It's a formality. Don't fret.
Sure I'll be getting one when share my 6 week fit note for knee surgery..
Another public sector goon here - "x" days or "y" incidents in a year will trigger a conversation, but it's not disciplinary.
Its carelessly worded when the message it should be conveying is 'we want to check that you are ok'
My gf used to do a lot of campaigning work of social and poverty issues. Something she had to do once was to take a 'standard letter' that 'the computer just does' back to a benefits agency with the clients blood all over it. It was interesting to hear them find so many ways to say 'its nothing to worry about' when the worry was smeared all over the document.
It’s a bog standard big corp’ letter.
3 absences in a 12 month period have triggered it.
Don’t worry about it. Probably just a chat with your manager.
The way the letter is worded would seriously piss me off, but I think, as mentioned above, it's just a shitty template created with no thought as part of a process created with no thought. Mrs Pondo had something similar - hadn't been there long after a career break forced by anxiety that her new employer was well aware of, you just want to ask "how does this process help ME?!?"
I understand the procedure thats triggered and issued the letter, my problem is the overly abrasive wording and lack of compassion from a company that on the other hand talks big on mindfulness and wellbeing. It's the thing that I'm going to push back on tomorrow
I get that some people will take the piss with sickies but that can be dealt with in the 3strikes meeting.
Imagine being seriously ill with some of the shit that life can throw at you over a year, recovering then getting that letter.
Just remember, 'they' don't give a shiny shit and this is just some drone overhead going through the motions to justify their tired existence... It would be fun to take your 23 year record in and the policies on wellbeing, staff care etc just to wind them up...
Imagine being seriously ill with some of the shit that life can throw at you over a year, recovering then getting that letter.
A tale from civil service goon land of HR shit. A colleague was attacked and injured, to the extent of needing relatively major surgery, while at work and as a direct result of exercising his duties (going through a door first on a job), he's been told by our HR that once he's over six months off he'll be put on half pay. No support just f.u!
Take the fella that gave you the cold before christmas with you.
my problem is the overly abrasive wording and lack of compassion from a company that on the other hand talks big on mindfulness and wellbeing. It’s the thing that I’m going to push back on tomorrow
I'd suggest picking it up with your head of wellbeing (or equivalent) as well as whoever happens to be at the meeting.
Where I am this would be within the managers discretion and personally if this was someone on my team I wouldn't be worried. If I thought the absences were atypical or might be linked to work stress or being used as a smoke screen for poor mental health or another undisclosed issue then I wouldn't be moving to a disciplinary at this point but I would have a conversation to see if there was an underlying problem that I could help with.
When I have had to take things to HR due to Rules I make sure I discuss it with the person BEFORE they get the letter and explain why they are getting it so it doesn't cause undue stress worry.
It’ll be a short meeting. Wear a mask and take no chances of infecting them.
or them re infecting you
Get your union rep to go with you to the meeting. They may well have seen similar before and will let you know what is likely to be asked etc.
Also there will be a policy document that should be available to you describing the process you are now in. Read it and understand where they may be reasonable accomodation or some such.
If the document is not readily available then they may not be able to do much.
Yes it's rubbish.
10.5 days in 1 year would be enough I would think.
If the reasonable people take 10.5 days, then the unreasonable ones take 21. from 220 days thats an average 7.5% lost time, which means you need a 7.5% bigger workforce... so yeah they probably need to keep on top of people hitting the threshold.
As others are saying, it is a procedural thing which they 'have' to stick to.
Mrs_oab is currently in process of retiring due to ill health, after 4 months off following huge changes in health since September. We have bi-weekly letters or emails like that, as well as regular phone calls and meetings.
So far the meetings have been line manager and head of department, HR, Occupational Health, Union Rep and mrs_oab. The next meeting adds in senior manager, legal representation on both sides, improving attendance officer and all the previous. All will arrive, someone will be running late, spend 5- 10 mins chatting, there will be 5 mins of procedure and introductions, then 2 minute of the HR person stating that mrs_oab is retiring on ill health grounds and a protected characteristic, and therefore this meeting is pointless. So then everyone tries to be nice and supportive of her for another 5 minutes, and they all leave. So the near half hour meeting costs the council 4.5-5 hours of 'work hours' and on-costs in reality - but the process must be adhered to....
Bet this is because the company uses Bradford Scores.
You get points for each absence and they get multiplied by the frequency of absence.
You’ll have passed an arbitrary threshold set by the company for the scores.
A stupid system which doesn’t allow for discretion.
Bit short notice but I'd emailing them a quick note, copy of the sick note, and saying "happy to meet any time you want but does the attached doc answer your questions...?"
Wording is a bit soulsucking.
As they have clearly stated in writing that this is a 'disciplinary hearing/review meeting' I strongly advise you to take someone you can trust with you to be your witness. Take minutes/notes, write it all down.
HR are scum. They work for the company and have no interest in anything other than that.
I have previous bitter experience of this and have zero trust or respect for them. The first time it happened I didn't have a clue what was going on as I was way to naïve and trusting.
The second time it happened I knew exactly what was happening - the company was trying to cut costs due to tough financial times (circa 2009), primarily caused by piss poor management, and they were looking at any way to get rid of people with minimal costs to them.
I dealt with them accordingly and walked away with a very healthy leaving package.
That's my advice, and if it turns out to be trivial then at least you were prepared. Better to have and not need rather than need and not have...
I worked for bike company well known on here first letter P last X. I keeled over whilst building a bike (which was my job), luckily there was an ambulance training centre next door. I was quickly assessed by one of the trainees as having had a suspected stroke. They carted me off to hospital for tests and I had a few days bed rest. I checked my payslip at the end of the month, they had stopped paying my my hourly rate before I'd reached the hospital.
Yeah that's either a stupid standard process (ours would be under Absence Management not Disciplinary) if they were authorised absences (you called in sick to your line manager and had a sick not for over 5 days etc.) or it's something more nefarious - I assume the former though
Just calculate how many days you have worked there in the last 23 years, then calculate the % of sick days you have had in that time and ask them to confirm, in writing, that this represents a disciplinary matter. I doubt that (back of a fag packet) 0.16% sickness rate in that time could possibly be so.
"Discipinary" is an odd choice of words.
I'd argue that they have decided you're guilty before the meeting, which should absolutely not be the case.
It's good to see expected presenteeism is alive and kicking after a certain pandemic has wreaked havok for the last ~5 years. Was the infectious colleague kept away from others while attending with an unknown respiratory infection, which could have been covid? Were they expected to wear a mask?
It's good to see employers have taken onboard that we were all more likely to be hit harder from any non-covid respiratory bugs we caught, following the social distancing rules during the worst of covid.
Attendance reviews are usually an absoliute waste of everyone's time, because until consideration for dismissal (stage 3 in royal mail, not sure if that's UK standard), very few reasons or appeals are result in the review case being dismissed.
My only exception was a few years ago, when managers tried to give me a stage 1 that was only triggered because they included my once only part day absence, which royal mail managers review notes clearly stated should be ignored and unless they are frequent and the employee has been given a letter stating any future part day absences would be included. I quoted the review notes line word for word to the manager doing the review and case was dismissed.
Just calculate how many days you have worked there in the last 23 years, then calculate the % of sick days you have had in that time and ask them to confirm, in writing, that this represents a disciplinary matter.
Not how it works.
Not how it works.
Well I know that, but it just points out how bloody silly they are being.
It’s a bit strong to say disciplinary but I suspect it’s because someone weaselled out of being formally dismissed for absence as it hadn’t been made clear.
It is exactly that reason in the council mrs_oab is employed by.
Well I know that, but it just points out how bloody silly they are being.
No, as during the meeting you have a chance to mention you’ve previously had a good record. Being an arse about it won’t help
It is exactly that reason in the council mrs_oab is employed by.
Yup, seen it happen as some mangers weren’t clear during the interview.
It’s a shit letter for a standard process.
Personally I’d play them at their own game and bring that supportive colleague to the meeting. That suddenly makes it a bit harder for your boss to just say “sorry about the tone - they are just goons” which is both good and bad! Write stupid letters, get stupid responses.
id also reply saying as you believe the infection was workplace acquired you would be greatful if that could be added to the agenda so you can discuss if the absence policy encourages attendance whilst infectious and consequent risks to others.
but I’m a **** and would not be upset to leave a company who sends those letters in those circumstances.
a friend got a similar letter after a few weeks off for a workplace accident that nearly lost his thumb. He took the local health and safety manager as his “support” even though they weren’t particularly close.
Id be super p**sed off.....
Id either tell them to shove their job where the sun doesnt shine, or tell them that letter has caused severe stress and take 6 months off...
Remember they dont care about you, and will drop you like a hot potato if needs be, your just a cog in the machine.
It will be worded like that because officially it forms that start of a disciplinary process if [employee] is found to have been behaving inappropriately or fraudulently. As such there are a series of blunt statements of fact and positions that can be defended should they be accused of acting unreasonably or not in accordance with procedures.
If you've genuinely been ill then you'll have a quick chat and get on with your day.
I’m just really thankful that I’ve never been in this situation regarding absences from work. At my last job, when I lost Jo, my boss told me to go home and stay home until I felt up to returning to work. After a week, I just couldn’t stand being on my own so went back to work, and my boss, on seeing me coming into reception said, “what the hell are you doing here already, go home!” I said “no, I can’t bear being alone, I need to be occupied and being here is best.” He kept insisting, and I kept saying “no, this is where I need to be, I need to be occupied, to keep my mind on other things.” He heaved a big sigh, said “well, if you’re absolutely certain, then ok, but if you feel the need, then just go home and come back when you feel better.” HR were completely on board with this as well. I couldn’t have been working with better people.
As others have said, being 'the manager' you have a different view.
Informal chat that turns out to be pisstaking can't get acted upon because barrack room lawyer type then complains that procedure wasn't clear / wasn't fully followed, etc.
As a result everyone, including those where an informal chat would have done, now gets the full procedure applied whether needed or not.
Majority of people are dissatisfied by outcome because some people can't follow rule 1.
I'm guessing the trigger will be based on some version of Bradford Factor Score.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor
The factor weights number of separate sickness periods higher than number of days. It's pretty controversial and not popular with unions. Where to draw the line which tips into a review process is something that should be in terms of employment.
Ideally after any sickness there should be a return to work discussion with line manager about the absence, to see if there any underlying sick related (eg chronic conditions) or non-sickness issues (eg workplace bullying) contributing to absence - and importantly if anything can be done to help the employee
The letter does seem heavy handed.
It is perfectly standard procedure for any three periods of absence in a rolling 12-month period to trigger a review. This is as much arse-covering as anything, if you were off with work-related stress and they didn't address it, they're in the shit. The return to work interview should be little more than "are you OK?" - "yes" - "right then, crack on." Box ticked.
Somewhat perversely, it means you're better off taking four months off sick than one day in January, one in March and one in September. I fell foul of this, I had a stinking cold so took the day off, felt better midweek so came back into work, then relapsed and had the end of the week off. That's two periods of absence, one more day either 12 months before or 12 months after triggers a review. I'd have been better off staying at home for the whole week.
Dressing it up as a disciplinary however is bullshit of the highest order unless they were looking for an excuse to get rid of you anyway. I would be seriously vexed if I received that letter and I would be expressing my displeasure robustly in the interview.
Also, what they said. ^
Those are rookie numbers, if you worked where I do your colleagues would be encouraging you to be off more often as you'll be making them look bad!
I honestly wouldn't fret too much. My employer used to issue letters of a similar kind but after the union kept nagging them it's now been changed to Attendance support meetings.
HR really are ****s aren't they? Guy in my team will be going for a liver transplant when a donor "becomes available".
HR: "he can self cert for 5 days but after that he'll need a fit note"
Me "He's having A LIVER TRANSPLANT. He'll be in an induced coma for up to three days and he'll be fit for **** all for three months minimum. Can't we just do the fit note when he's out of immediate recuperation/IC?"
HR: "No".
****s.
I've been with my current employer 18 years, and lets say, given my position I'm fairly up on HR practices and can give the HR advisers a heck of a tough time if needed.
I've been on the absence thing twice, once due to messed up surgery needing further surgery, so that went on a couple of years, then breaking my spine whilst cycling to work. First time I was quite to the point about why I'd been off and we were trying to sort out the pain from the original procedure - I didn't hold back about the details - this shut them up. Same with my spine. I've had a clear run of 9 years since with next to no sickness, until three weeks ago when I came off on ice, so told my boss to log two days sick (one I was in A&E still doing emails) then the next drugged up at home - again doing emails).
Unfortunately, these letters are rather impersonal. TBH your line manager should have said something before the shitty letter comes out. My line managers were fine with it as they knew why I had been off, but the 'system' flags three instances in 12 months.
If done consistently, and followed through, this should nip the 'piss takers' in the bud. Wouldn't worry about it, and I'd give them a little stick back.
Somewhat perversely, it means you’re better off taking four months off sick than one day in January
similar at a previous employer- a colleague had been struggling for a while with flu/cold- coming in spreading germs because she would have been over a rolling 12 month threshold and didn’t want the grief.
Eventually she had a fortnight off to recover- she said that she could have come back after 3 days but as she was going to get hassle she thought she’d make it worthwhile.
my problem is the overly abrasive wording and lack of compassion from a company that on the other hand talks big on mindfulness and wellbeing. It’s the thing that I’m going to push back on tomorrow
Personally, I wouldn't really give a ****. But if feeling suitably vindictive, beat them at their own game.
Make a formal complaint about the stress and anxiety that this letter has caused you. And be clear that you'll need some time to recover.
I've had similar from an employer that uses the Bradford scores.
My sick was excellent but I'd gone sick with a horrendous cold one winter (working outside so not really able to just man up) for 2 or 3 days and then 'done the right thing' and come back in as soon as I was able to. A couple of weeks later the cough deteriorated into a chest infection and went off for another few days.
The Bradford system weights heavily against repeated short absences (as per the OP) and it triggered an attendance review. If I'd put my feet up for three weeks off work and binged box sets and tinkered around in the garage supping coffee and not worried about 'skiving' I'd have been OK and not triggered a meeting.
I still go back to work promptly but tend to give it an extra day to ensure I'm fully recovered, but if I'm worried about a relapse I'll be staying off next time!
Me “He’s having A LIVER TRANSPLANT. He’ll be in an induced coma for up to three days and he’ll be fit for **** all for three months minimum. Can’t we just do the fit note when he’s out of immediate recuperation/IC?”
He can get one from the GP to cover the recovery period before the op.
Given the size of organisation and circumstances you describe, it is almost certainly an auto-generated email/letter because you've hit one or more of the three(?) Bradford-type triggers.
The actual wording will have been dreamt up by some piss and vinegar HR type (who probably no longer works for the organisation having been paid off - after taking enough sick not to trigger a letter themselves) in a bid to suck up to management.
I can't remember the circumstances, but I've definitely sat in a meeting in my working life where the wording around this kind of policy has been discussed. There was a definite sense of trying to scare people into dragging themselves into work if at all possible. It's just corporate ****tiness.
It's funny. HR are often very willing to beat up the majority of staff who comply 99% of the time. But confront them with a properly difficult and clued-up shirker and the word 'tribunal' makes them shit their pants and go missing.
That's an appalling letter.
HR is there to protect the company, so take someone with you to protect your interests
I'd also be making my feelings known about the complete lack of empathy shown by the company in the face of an excellent work attendance record
I can’t remember the circumstances, but I’ve definitely sat in a meeting in my working life where the wording around this kind of policy has been discussed. There was a definite sense of trying to scare people into dragging themselves into work if at all possible. It’s just corporate ****tiness.
Same here, and that was in the public sector. I'd been off for two weeks with flu and a chest infection, couldn't get out of bed, so I really appreciated being told that my attendance was unacceptable.
Same here, and that was in the public sector. I’d been off for two weeks with flu and a chest infection, couldn’t get out of bed, so I really appreciated being told that my attendance was unacceptable.
Yes. To anyone with a conscience that initial jolt when you read certain wordings is no very nice. I was hospitalised just over 18 months ago with a kidney infection that nearly became sepsis. When I returned to work (public sector) I got a bluntly worded letter about needing to prove this that and the other. My manager was really cool about it, but when I attached said medical letters to my record in accordance with the rules I did draw attention to the actual wording on it that emphasised how serious it was. I bet no one even read it, though.
As I said, I was actually in a meeting years ago in the private sector when the wording of these auto-generated letters was being discussed. The view from the top was very much one of ingrained suspicion of the lower orders and the need to never be seen to be giving an inch. It was depressing, TBH.
He can get one from the GP to cover the recovery period before the op.
The point is - unless you don't believe he's going for a transplant or your think his surgery recovery is exagerated its all a bit stupid. There is no requirement in law to get sicknotes/fit notes. They do serve a valid purpose, but getting GPs to write them to cover a guesstimate of a recovery period after a date of an operation which is as yet unknown is a pointless waste of time. That means its a pointless waste of OUR resources (the ones you and I pay for from our taxes) so that an HR person can say "of course" and stick it in a file. I'd love to see what the Employment Appeal Tribunal said if they fired someone who had a transplant and didn't provide a sick note when they were in ICU!
3 absences in less than 12 months totalling over 10 days, seems fair to me.
I took over a dept in the NHS about 10 years ago, the first person who went sick had a return to work interview with me.
Over the next 12 months or so the sickness rated halved 🙂
3 absences in less than 12 months totalling over 10 days, seems fair to me.
I took over a dept in the NHS about 10 years ago, the first person who went sick had a return to work interview with me.
Over the next 12 months or so the sickness rated halved
Yes - but we're you being reasonable about it?
Genuine question.
The point is – unless you don’t believe he’s going for a transplant or your think his surgery recovery is exagerated its all a bit stupid.
It really isn’t its fair request and allows the absence to be covered. A GP can give an estimate and then can be easily extended or reduced by a phone or e appointment.
HR is there to protect the company
It is, yep. Which is why the letter is at odds with the idea of doing everything to protect a company from fallout; it's unnecessarily aggressive, and as such could be used as evidence of constructive dismissal if it came to a tribunal, for example.
Good HR is a balancing act between employer & employee interests. Trust is vital, both ways.
Just looks like a standard industry letter.
Yes – but we’re you being reasonable about it?
Genuine question.
Yep, I just sat with them and completed the internal sickness form that I'd to do for HR, in their words.
I didn't lean on them or anything, they just knew that if they went sick they'd have to go through the 'process', it didn't stop 'proper' sickness but it definitely reduced the single day-type absences.
Also worth knowing that I took no sickness in the 18 months I was there (and in the last 30 years I've only had 5 days of sickness - from a week off with Covid).
He can get one from the GP to cover the recovery period before the op.
Why should a GP issue the note? S/he is not performing the operation. The surgeon or one of his team can issue a fit note.
Also worth knowing that I took no sickness in the 18 months I was there (and in the last 30 years I’ve only had 5 days of sickness – from a week off with Covid).
Well you are very lucky then. Do you accept that there are people less fortunate who have genuinely had to take more time off than you have had to? Not all absences are ‘sickies’
One of Mrs Pondo's colleagues had her attendance reviewed as she took time off for apendicitus and subsequent septicemea.
Has the meeting finished yet? Are you still employed?
#PrayForRNP
I'm still here, 2xmanagers including my direct (who issued the letter) - felt like a disciplinary, no empathy from my direct. I pushed back on the letter - standard form that the other manager doesn't send out due to its abrasive nature.
I'm fed up with my direct - he's ruined the job since his arrival 3years ago and I'm half looking for a new job anyway. Shit like this just encourages me more.
The Bradford factor is a good tool, for managing managers. When an employee hits a trigger point the manager should be forced to make an assessment and support their decision. In this case the decision should have been no further action assuming previous years were lower bsence levels. It' amazing how many managers won't manage absence properly, either ignore it or want to sack someone for relatively small amounts of time off.
Very badly worded letter from a badly implemented absence management process.
The flip side is there are plenty of employees out there taking the wee wee, by the time you realise an employee needs to go you need to already have the documented evidence or it's a long drawn out process.
similar at a previous employer- a colleague had been struggling for a while with flu/cold- coming in spreading germs because she would have been over a rolling 12 month threshold and didn’t want the grief.
That's the other thing isn't it. Guilt-tripping an employee into coming in when they should be in bed just means more sick days from everyone else.
When I returned to work (public sector) I got a bluntly worded letter about needing to prove this that and the other.
"I was in hospital and the details are none of your concern."
Is it just me who finds this stuff invasive? I understand to a point that there has to be a need to catch trends, like someone having a suspicious "migraine" every Monday morning. But you shouldn't be guilted into providing an encyclopaedic list of symptoms to justify your absence, you can be off with a cold without it having to be a "bad cold" (like there's a good kind). We're not at school anymore trying to be excused from PE.
You're all amateurs. One of my colleagues has 470 sick days in the last 3 years. Been taking the piss for 20 years and HR can't / won't get rid of him.
Also worth knowing that I took no sickness in the 18 months I was there (and in the last 30 years I’ve only had 5 days of sickness – from a week off with Covid).
I managed about 10 years with no sickness as well, but it was predominantly desk based and I could hide behind a stack of tissues/turn on the fan heater/work from home when ill. When I finally escaped back to outside work, meeting external customers, physically demanding tasks and being out in the cold and wet for 9 hours a day, unsurprisingly I did need to start taking the odd sick period.
And there is nothing to be proud of by taking your illnesses into work to share around, be a considerate colleague and stay home!
did you bring Bert to the meeting?
did you bring Bert to the meeting?
Bert chaired the meeting.....
[url= https://i.ibb.co/hRX78wdR/IMG-5813.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/hRX78wdR/IMG-5813.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://i.ibb.co/4ZKjDXGz/IMG-5815.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.ibb.co/4ZKjDXGz/IMG-5815.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= https://imgbb.com/ ]image hosting websites[/url]
(My previous well vented spacious office, not my current shop floor shared windowless germ filled shit box office.)
Well you are very lucky then. Do you accept that there are people less fortunate who have genuinely had to take more time off than you have had to? Not all absences are ‘sickies’
Agree, but a simple grown-up approach cut out most of the 'sickies'.
And there is nothing to be proud of by taking your illnesses into work to share around, be a considerate colleague and stay home!
Not something I'd do, just don't get ill - a combination no doubt of genes, lifestyle AND luck.
It really isn’t its fair request and allows the absence to be covered. A GP can give an estimate and then can be easily extended or reduced by a phone or e appointment.
Its not really a sensible question nor a sensible use of GP's time. I've no idea what you mean by "allows the absence to be covered" - there's no legislative requirement for a sick note to claim SSP. The GP can't provide a start date for the transplant, because he doesn't know. He might be able to guess how long recovery might take, but without a start date that's meaningless. The idea of getting sick note in advance of an unpredictable event is a bit odd. I might crash my bike tomorrow and be off work for the next 6 weeks, my GP won't be able to pre-empt that but my employer will manage just fine. If I am in ICU for the first 10 days after my crash my employer won't be getting a sick note either. Now if the request was "can you give us something to put on file that shows how long you might be off for" that would probably be quite reasonable. There is probably already a letter from the transplant team telling him he's on the list, what notice he'll get for a transplant, what to expect after a transplant etc. Asking for anything else is a manager or HR person who hasn't bothered to actually understand what is required or why.
The correct response to one of your staff telling you they are waiting for a transplant is, "We are sorry to hear that, but encouraged that there is a potential route forward for you. What extra support do you need before the transplant? Once you have the procedure please ask your specialists if there is anything else we can do to make your return to work safer or easier."
A slight aside - but there are 3 bicycle related Easter eggs hidden in Bert pic#1.
#1 is easy and in full view....... but isn't necessarily intended for bikes.
#2 only a bicycle framebuilder would know and you'd need a very sharp eye to spot. There are two of them stacked on top of each other.
#3 an actual bike component and one that is still on my current desk.
Good luck!
#1 is easy and in full view……. but isn’t necessarily intended for bikes.
Multitool behind the scissors?
#2 only a bicycle framebuilder would know and you’d need a very sharp eye to spot. There are two of them stacked on top of each other.
Is that the protractor cum angle of the dangle thingy. Between the wooden box and the tape measures?
#3 an actual bike component and one that is still on my current desk.
What looks to be some kind of headset bearing cups on the right, next to the scissors?
I know I'm probably miles off and I can feel Bert's disapproving gaze judging me.
Multitool behind the scissors?
Cold! But the right area.
Is that the protractor cum angle of the dangle thingy. Between the wooden box and the tape measures?
Warm but it's not that. It's one for frame builders and is obscured by having a Hennecke injector pintle stood in the centre of it not that it really helps anyone.
What looks to be some kind of headset bearing cups on the right, next to the scissors?
It's a Bingo!
'Obsolete' Chris King polished 1 1/8th upper and lower cups desk ornament.
2 to play for.
And there is nothing to be proud of by taking your illnesses into work to share around, be a considerate colleague and stay home!
I completely agree with this. People who are proud of never taking a day off sick are really ****ing weird. What do you want, a medal, a round of applause? Going to work when ill is just ****ing stupid.