How many sick absences would be acceptable

[ampallang]

If you were asked the question in a DM interview-"What is your sickness record"- How many days off sick would be acceptable to the interviewer? Is this legal even?

 

[Roverman]

IMO the question should be banned along the lines of asking a woman if she plans to have kids.

The question is not deep enough, it merely lists absences as a number without looking it the whys and wherefores of it. It is simply being used as a way of reducing the number of eligible applicants down.

 

[DmanPoppet]

Purely my own opinion, not based on anything: I doubt they would ask at interview as they would find out how many absences you had when taking references.

 

[W230]

Purely my own opinion, not based on anything: I doubt they would ask at interview as they would find out how many absences you had when taking references.

They'll enquire with your current employer when they get your reference and will decide from there.

The question is not deep enough, it merely lists absences as a number without looking it the whys and wherefores of it. It is simply being used as a way of reducing the number of eligible applicants down.

True. But I guess if you have twenty people through all the assessments and they are all eligible for the job, you would surely stand a better chance with a lower sickness record?

Like you say, this sort of enquiry makes no account of what the sickness reasons are but that may be of little concern to a prospective employer anyway.

 

[cobbler]

i think its a perfectly valid question , if it was your business and you had the choice of 2 equal employees but one had more sickness episodes , then its an easy choice isnt it
unfortunately the railway is full of people on the sick for all kinds of weird and wonderful things that if employed anywhere else would see them jobless

 

[Beveridges]

We got MDDs who have 6 months worth on the sick every year

 

[Greenback]

I have bene told that it is now a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to ask such sickness related questions at interview. However, I have not done any research myself to confirm that this is true!

 

[route:oxford]

I have bene told that it is now a breach of the Equality Act 2010 to ask such sickness related questions at interview. However, I have not done any research myself to confirm that this is true!

My former employer specifically instructed us not to ask anything about sickness absence at the interview.

It was also the policy of the employer not to disclose sickness absence records in a reference.

My view is that a total of 20 days in any 10 year period would be acceptable.

 

[gswindale]

The number of days is somewhat misleading though.

If 20 days over 10 years is deemed "acceptable", then how do you differentiate between 2 evenly matched applicants except for the fact that A had 15 days off 8 years ago due to a serious illness and the rest as an odd day here/there; whilst B has had no serious illnesses, but has actually had only a day less of sick leave.

 

[W230]

The number of days is somewhat misleading though.

If 20 days over 10 years is deemed "acceptable", then how do you differentiate between 2 evenly matched applicants except for the fact that A had 15 days off 8 years ago due to a serious illness and the rest as an odd day here/there; whilst B has had no serious illnesses, but has actually had only a day less of sick leave.

You don't need to differentiate as either would most likely be fine - you choose on other skills. But as already mentioned by cobbler, if one has had five, six month periods off sick in 10 years and the other has had 20 days in 10 years then I know who I would employ/rather work with.

Many people on the railways seem to be sickly but I have never worked in a job anywhere with so much sickness. Amazingly many of them seem to recover at six months though...

 

[richw]

My employer deems 3% to be the maximum tolerated sickness leave per annum for existing employees unless they are provided with doctors letters. Works out as about 7 days a year.

 

[Greenback]

My former employer specifically instructed us not to ask anything about sickness absence at the interview.

It was also the policy of the employer not to disclose sickness absence records in a reference.

My view is that a total of 20 days in any 10 year period would be acceptable.

I rarely see sickness information in a reference these days.

In my organisation a successful applicant has to fill out a health questionnaire and may be subject to a medical examination by Occupational Health before commencing employment.

If there is information in a reference concerning sickness absence, this may well be investigated further by OH.

The number of days is somewhat misleading though.

If 20 days over 10 years is deemed "acceptable", then how do you differentiate between 2 evenly matched applicants except for the fact that A had 15 days off 8 years ago due to a serious illness and the rest as an odd day here/there; whilst B has had no serious illnesses, but has actually had only a day less of sick leave.

If it is against the law to ask health related questions at interviews, then the question doesn't arise. The best person is given the job, and then their health is considered during pre employment checks.

If it is considered that the person is not fit for the duties of the post, the next best person from the itnerviews will be offered the position instead.

 

[Captain Chaos]

I had to have a long period off sick for depression which would be far in excess of these limits. Would this mean I am 'unemployable'? It's not just the number of days. It's the reasons as well. Someone who has had serious illness should not be looked on any less favourably than the 'healthier' candidate just because they have been luckier with their health.

Things like going sick right after weekends with flu or stomach bugs constantly would be far more of an indicator to me about how likely a candidate is going to be good at turning up for work.

 

[edwin_m]

Don't applicants have to fill in a medical questionnaire including this type of question? Giving incorrect information on one of these would be grounds for dismissal.

 

[Greenback]

I had to have a long period off sick for depression which would be far in excess of these limits. Would this mean I am 'unemployable'? It's not just the number of days. It's the reasons as well. Someone who has had serious illness should not be looked on any less favourably than the 'healthier' candidate just because they have been luckier with their health.

I agree, and this is one of the things that the Equality Act wa sintended to correct.

Don't applicants have to fill in a medical questionnaire including this type of question? Giving incorrect information on one of these would be grounds for dismissal.

Yes, that is correct. It is important for applicants to be honest as having had issues with previous employment which may have adversely affected their health may not be relevant in a different position. All these thing sneed to be investigated during the pre employment phase, and appropriate and legal conclusions drawn. Each case should be treated on its merits.

 

[plastictaffy]

There's some people at my TOC that almost always seem to be on the sick...... Some even work out where to go sick so that it coincides with their block leave allocation, so that they can then take that when they want it.

 

[jnty]

It is illegal in the UK for employers to ask questions or make hiring decisions based on an applicant's health record, and this includes asking questions about days off sick. If a company did ask me that question I'd probably take it as a sign they intended to discriminate based on health and fitness, assume they're a pretty awful lot all round and not work for them.

Note that this doesn't include checking that a successful applicant meets the minimum health standards for a specific role.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ta/file/85013/employment-health-questions.pdf

 

[ultra4]

My employer deems 3% to be the maximum tolerated sickness leave per annum for existing employees unless they are provided with doctors letters. Works out as about 7 days a year.

We also have 3% threshold. Anything above requires taking action.
i.e. sickness monitoring, discipline lv1 etc.

 

[JSB]

It's silly to calculate a number of days that's acceptable IMO, I broke my ankle last year which led to me having around 3 months off work - I would hope that didn't affect my chances of attaining another job, was hardly my fault!

 

[Greenback]

While sickness and absence policies will vary between employers, the intention behind all of them is to ensure that ther eis a process to be followed when non attendance reaches a particular level. A second intention is to help and support an employee where they may have health issues that have not been identified.

Every organisation I have ever worked for has had these policies. All of them have had trigger points, but the circumstances of the illness or accident have a bearing on any action that is taken at that point. It has not been unknown for 'no further action' to be the decision when someone has a very good attendance record but has then suffered a misfortune such as a broken ankle.

Any of these policies are also subject to the law of the land, such as the Equality Act 2010.

 

[dvboy]

Virgin Trains online application form:

During the last 12 months of employment, the total number of days sick and I had time off:
The reason for any periods of sickness when I had time off work were as follows:

 

[TDK]

It is not only the amount of days but more importantly the amount of times. This question was asked when I interviewed and I would always say that it is important that the question is accurately answered as the HR department would always check with the previous employer. I had one candidate who passed everything including the medical was given a provincial start date and HR discovered that he had been off sick with his previous employer and had not divulged this at interview, he was refused employment on these grounds.

 

[Greenback]

It is important to be truthful at an interview. But some organisations will not give out any information about the attendance record or performance of an employee. It is increasingly common to get a response that it is company policy only to confirm dates of employment.

 

[welshjpc]

In the fifteen years that I've been in my current job I've had five days off following a surgical procedure and three days off with man flu. Eight days in fifteen years.

There's one guy I work with (well, he occasionally attends) who always has some excuse with trivial illness. While the political correctness brigade say that it's unfair to ask someone their sick leave record I feel that I am a far more employable prospect than the waste of oxygen who is always on the phone to the doctors to get signed off because he's got the sniffles. Again.

If you're a malingering sicknote with no sense of teamwork, leaving your shift colleagues to have to work harder thanks to your latest bout of mad cow disease (or something equally ridiculous) get into the dole queue with all of the rest of your sort.

Rant over.

 

[Greenback]

In the fifteen years that I've been in my current job I've had five days off following a surgical procedure and three days off with man flu. Eight days in fifteen years.

There's one guy I work with (well, he occasionally attends) who always has some excuse with trivial illness. While the political correctness brigade say that it's unfair to ask someone their sick leave record I feel that I am a far more employable prospect than the waste of oxygen who is always on the phone to the doctors to get signed off because he's got the sniffles. Again.

If you're a malingering sicknote with no sense of teamwork, leaving your shift colleagues to have to work harder thanks to your latest bout of mad cow disease (or something equally ridiculous) get into the dole queue with all of the rest of your sort.

Rant over.

It may not be a trivial illness.

There are, without doubt, people who play the system and take as much sick leave as they can get away with. But there are also people who have genuine, underlying health conditions that are often not visible to others but which have a significant effect on their day to day lives ,and which cause them to have higher levels of absence than someone who does not have the same condition.

Given that it is a government objective to help more people into employment rather than living on benefits, it is only fair that those genuine people have allowances made, otherwise they would be unable to remain in employment for very long at all.

Not everyone who is off sick is a malingerer with no sense of teamwork.

 

[DRFT101]

What if you are working and you have set holidays, and you cannot have time off to attend all the assessments etc without pulling a sick day? What if you even disclose this at interview, will it still be recorded as a sick day and count against you?

 

[WelshBluebird]

I find the attitude some people have of "sick days are bad" is quite naive. If I am working with food, do you really want me serving you food if I am sneezing? Of course you don't (indeed when I did work with food during uni, we were told if we had any symptoms of being ill - sneezing, coughing, even feeling a bit dodgy, don't come in just incase). Even in an office, do you want someone who is ill infecting other people around them? No! Of course the reasons should be monitored, but this whole "sick days are bad, you must battle in" mentality is just stupid.

 

[JSB]

It may not be a trivial illness.

There are, without doubt, people who play the system and take as much sick leave as they can get away with. But there are also people who have genuine, underlying health conditions that are often not visible to others but which have a significant effect on their day to day lives ,and which cause them to have higher levels of absence than someone who does not have the same condition.

Given that it is a government objective to help more people into employment rather than living on benefits, it is only fair that those genuine people have allowances made, otherwise they would be unable to remain in employment for very long at all.

Not everyone who is off sick is a malingerer with no sense of teamwork.

Absolutely 100% agreed. Great post. Just because you've had less sick days doesn't make you a better employee.

 

[welshjpc]

Absolutely 100% agreed. Great post. Just because you've had less sick days doesn't make you a better employee.

Tell that to the guys who have had to work late (no overtime) or have had to come in over the weekend (short notice, no overtime) to cover someone who signs himself off work cause he's feeling like he's getting a cold. :-x

I have no problem with people with genuine reasons for medical absence but there will always be a minority making the majority look bad.

Put simply: Work won't get done if the employee isn't there to do it. Someone who is reliable is better than someone who is not, genuine reason or not.

It's all political correctness gone mad.

 

[JSB]

welshJPC, having worked retail for many years I can tell you I am one of those people you refer to - the guy who comes in to cover shifts at short notice etc. it's never bothered me. I can always choose to decline if I wish, and whilst there has always been the odd person trying to game the system I've never seen it as a huge problem as personally if I was ever to fall ill on a consistent basis I would like very much not to have my right to work and earn money taken away from me!

I also genuinely hope you yourself never suffer any afflictions that could mean working is a lot more difficult for you, as I have compassion for my fellow worker!