Went for a work related training today and meet few new people. As we are all from hospitality you always end-up badmouthing you customers that come to hotels but also discuss how they the competition do it. However the manager I meet today has honestly surprised me, saddened me and even pissed me off. One thing is certain I am glad I do not work anywhere near said manager and will code it in my head to never work anywhere near. At one stage we started discussing changes in regards of sick notes, fact that now you have to be sick for minimum 7 days to get a sick note. We all agreed it will create at one stage small holiday issue where people will call in sick for few days and will not be able to provide doctors note as none can be issued. We all agreed it is bad and started discussing what is the best way to deal with that before it becomes a problem. Said manager admitted how it is done in his place of work. In short he does not hire anyone who has a dangerous hobby, dangerous in his mind. He has also banned anyone working at his reception from taking part in any such activity. Reason if for example person playing football brakes leg it is minimum 4 weeks off where he will have 1 staff missing and be forced to arrange cover (pay overtime). I would never be hired by him as in my CV as hobby I have motorbikes. I asked him then what if I did not have a hobby listed? Assuming all would be well he would hire me but if he seen me coming to work on motorbike during probation period he would end my contract ASAP. So I started digging deeper. I asked so how will that help him cut down on people calling in sick? He said it already did. When I asked how many people and how often had a broken leg in his place before he could not reply. So I was digging deeper again. How did he do it as most of sick days are one to two day sicknesses real or not. It turns out he obviously keeps file on all of them and if someone has to many in one year without doctors note disciplinary action is taken, even if they fallowed company policy regarding calling in sick. As we still had time I returned to original subject of doctors note after 7 days. At the end if you have flu or food poisoning, legit one, it will not last longer then 7 days in 95% of cases so he will have to put everyone on disciplinary. Got no reply to that think I got him cornered. I also went back to my hobby. I said his reasoning has a big flaw. Someone on the way to work also can have an accident and be off for a month. How is it fair then employing anyone as we are all subjected to accidents at one stage or another. I also noted that as far as I know there is no law that allow him, a representative of X company to dictate what I do or do not do in my free time and that if he fired me for riding motorbikes or if I found out he did not hire me for that reason I could take action. His reply was most astonishing. He is aware of that but most people do not know the law and besides work has to come first in life? I honestly hope he is a one off idiot but sadly I seen few that shared the least part of his ideology. If that is the case we are doomed as corporations well all employers will pick that up quickly. Less days wasted on sick pays = more profits. No matter how they got there.
Less sick = more profit...way of the world and not really anything wrong with that. Most places will put peolpe on a disciplinary if they have more than 2 bouts of non related sickness, maybe 3, in a 12 month period the hobby thing is bang out of order though
We have return to works and after 3 absences we have advice and counselling. This helps the employer establish any underlying problems and to check that the employee is ok or may need further help. Many long term sickness is helped by slowing adjusting the employee back into work like myself It's fit notes now Luca. You can be signed off as not fit for work and then if you want to return to work on light duties you can. My work was aware of my hobby and most embraced it even shocked I rode a bike like a Ducati.
I agree that less sick is more profit and is a good thing. What I do not agree is blatant attitude that if you are sick to much you will be disciplined and at the end fired completely ignoring fact people might actually be sick. In old rules you could get a sick note for flu as it could easy last over 3 days, man flu lasts about 6 days. In current legislation no one will ever have a fit to work note as most sicknesses will not last required 7 days. That opened a way for a prick like him to be able to make life hard for someone or even possibly fire them. How can you prove you were sick without doctors note? In hotels people work close together and if someone has a flu that means within a month most had a flu minimum one time and none provided sick note. We did discuss return to work interview's but the way I seen them they are pointless as you just repeat what you said when you called in sick just on paper. Bradders elaborate none related sicknesses? If anything I would look for pattern rather then lack of it. Sickness is random, being sick every Saturday morning or each time before your holiday starts/finishes is a good indication you were not that sick.
Employers know that nearly all employees fall sick for a few days each year, and that any employee may occasionally suffer an injury or disease which puts them off work for weeks or months. An employer who did not tolerate this reality would soon find they had no workforce. So far so good. Problems arise at the two extremes. At one end are people whose health has become so poor they are not capable of doing the job and will never be able to do it again; the employer has to find a way of terminating their employment, such as early retirement. At the other end are people who take sick days off when they are not genuinely ill - 'throwing a sickie'. If they find employees doing this, especially repeatedly, employers really have to sack them. Otherwise everybody would do it all the time. This is basic HR stuff which anyone responsible for managing staff has to deal with. Inevitably some managers will make a balls of it.
Non related ie recurring issue such as migranes, immune system issues which give flu and may be symptoms of smethng else...hangover! Tough one, sick pay is to help those who need it when they need it most. Some treat it as holiday pay all I can say is they must turn over their staff frequently if he can sack staff that easily
Sorry pete i disagree The place i work at has a known collection of employees, probably at least one in each department that have a horrendous attendance record. Funnily enough usually mondays and fridays and no surprise there. Management( HR ) is so poor that it is either tolerated or unnoticed. The point is , the rest of us know its easy to do but are not like that. I admit to the occasional sickie , i'm no saint but i dont believe everyone does it if they see others doing it . Just doesn't happen like that.
Agree with Desmoboy. There is always few but most will not do it that often. Issue is we all know it, they all know it can you prove it without a doubt? Firing someone can ruin that persons life and if he was actually sick it is double kick ass for him. Basic and proper HR should be about looking for patterns, monitoring and discussing it with employee. If someone was sick 3 times a year does not automatically mean he was on holiday. Up until now the least one of those sicknesses in that year had a chance of qualifying for sick note so you were ok. Now none do so it opens doors to kicking people out almost as you see fit, everyone eventually gets sick or has accident.
When I hire someone they are automatically on a 3 month trial/probation period where I can dismiss them with no notice period from me. If I am not 100% satisfied that the person is suitable for whatever reason, be that sickness, timekeeping, general attitude etc, then I may and do extend the trial period. Only when I am sure that they are the right person for the job, and for me, will the trial period end. I discriminate against all manner of people when hiring. Many employers do. We're just not daft enough to admit to it to the applicant.
Given the amount of money sickness all costs and the fact that i have not had a day off sick in over 9 years..........shouldnt i get maybe a bonus of some sort for not going off sick......obvioulsy they couldnt send me a letter thanking me for my attendance....that would be unfair to those that were sick...... Also any course i have been on or qualifications ive passed, ive passed first time. Give the fact some of these courses could cost up to ten grand, and that there are some who have been unsuccessful and given another go, shouldnt i get a bit of a bonus for passing first time....
Thing is Gilps the discrimination is it your prejudice or business concern also do you dictate your employees what to do/not do on their time off?
Discrimination at this level is nigh on impossible to remove. If I meet a biker in an interview I've got some common ground, very useful when building a rapport or relationship (of course they can still turn out to be a twonk). I don't think I consider it in the final reckoning but if I have two candidates of very similar abilities, who do I choose?
Something else not mentioned is team fit. If I have a successful team of people I don't necessarily want to upset the balance by introducing someone who will clearly clash with the culture. In the interests of 'fairness' I've tried it and it took a lot of work to recover from.
Well hard one. In Germany they did a trial of blind job applications. You send your CV without hobby or cover letter just pure date. Instead of name and personal details just number. When they chose CV's for final interview number was used to get employees contact details. All to minimise prejudice. Results were great as all candidates chosen were very good for the job. Well that is not discrimination, they might have skills but attitude or values do not match company so fair game.
There's almost always going to be some personal prejudice, but my discrimination is based on what's best for my business. I have used agency staff in the past and if I ever get someone who is black or Asian then one or two of my permanent staff have been known to make racist comments, fortunately none of which were heard by the person they were aimed at. I was offended by the remarks and took the individuals to task over it, but quite frankly I don't need the grief from having to admonish staff or having to deal with racial abuse action from offended parties, so I just avoid hiring anyone from a different cultural background. I hired a Polish guy some years back and he was excellent, a real hard worker, but my staff were rather unpleasant towards him as he was nicking a job from a British worker, even though the only two applicants were the Pole and a guy from Somalia. I don't dictate what staff can do in their spare time, but if at interview stage I found out about a hobby or past time that could result in the person being absent from work then I wouldn't hire them.
No offence here please but that sounds like most hypocritical thing I heard ever. You ride a motorbike, as business owner, and I guess manager, if you have an accident and long absence you influence your life, life of your family and your employees life. If anyone it should be you who locks himself on a room to stay safe. On the other comment. Not hiring someone because you do not want to deal with your other staff member being a ass is in my book slightly below an actual ass. Any bad behaviour spreads if it is not challenged. Avoiding the issue is not the same. If your bike was to get nicked, touch wood it will not, you would be pissed off that no one arrested or stopped little scrotum. Thing is if as no one challenged his behaviour in past he felt it is ok to steal from you. Oh my good we are heading towards jihad thread
Fair play for admitting it Gilps, and that freedom of speech is what our grand parents died for, but imo its very wrong to discriminate in the way you appear to be. May be the way its written but non white and English only sounds a recipe for disaster in recruitment terms
I said in post no. 5 that some managers with HR responsibilities will inevitably make a balls of it. We seem to have found a good example to prove me right.
So your response to racist behaviour of your employees is... racial discrimination? Wow... I'm actually speechless...
