Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.
All absences are deemed legitimate are they not? This is the RM policy I believe although I could be wrong?
Personally I don't think the piss takers are the ones that 2 weeks off in a year. In our job working outside in all weathers and sharing offices in close proximity to large groups of fellow workers sharing germs, 2 weeks is not extreme! It's the ones that go off for months at a time that's the problem. The ones who seem to have a bad back every other year or some other health problem that is basically down to their word that it's genuine?
Either way I still don't think penalising everyone for the few that abuse the sick policy is the way to go. If they really feel the need to trim it down then something fairer should be brought in. Maybe half pay for every absence over a month or something?
For me, I know people that really do abuse the system. People that actually have in their diary the weeks they can have off without triggering a stage.
But equally there are genuine injuries that do re occur. Bad backs or bad hips or bad knees will most likely happen the longer you are a postie and I don’t think they should be penalised.
From a business point of view it’s a bit harsh to tarnish everyone with the same brush. But then these sick leave abusers were probably shouting “solidarity” a few months back.
And I get that people throw abuse at me for being a strike breaker but I think the ones who have abused the terms and conditions (the fake sickness, the runners, the coming in early type; the working through breaks, the not doing van checks, not using trolleys etc) are the ones who have ruined it for everyone else. They want to fight for the rights they have been happy to abuse.
Iv always been in it for myself but iv never hid behind slogans and pretended to be hard done by at every turn.
Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.
All absences are deemed legitimate are they not? This is the RM policy I believe although I could be wrong?
Personally I don't think the piss takers are the ones that 2 weeks off in a year. In our job working outside in all weathers and sharing offices in close proximity to large groups of fellow workers sharing germs, 2 weeks is not extreme! It's the ones that go off for months at a time that's the problem. The ones who seem to have a bad back every other year or some other health problem that is basically down to their word that it's genuine?
Either way I still don't think penalising everyone for the few that abuse the sick policy is the way to go. If they really feel the need to trim it down then something fairer should be brought in. Maybe half pay for every absence over a month or something?
For me, I know people that really do abuse the system. People that actually have in their diary the weeks they can have off without triggering a stage.
But equally there are genuine injuries that do re occur. Bad backs or bad hips or bad knees will most likely happen the longer you are a postie and I don’t think they should be penalised.
From a business point of view it’s a bit harsh to tarnish everyone with the same brush. But then these sick leave abusers were probably shouting “solidarity” a few months back.
And I get that people throw abuse at me for being a strike breaker but I think the ones who have abused the terms and conditions (the fake sickness, the runners, the coming in early type; the working through breaks, the not doing van checks, not using trolleys etc) are the ones who have ruined it for everyone else. They want to fight for the rights they have been happy to abuse.
Iv always been in it for myself but iv never hid behind slogans and pretended to be hard done by at every turn.
Going by this response you progressed to management after leaving the CWU.
Thanks for answering my initial query on the Martin Walsh thread
Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.
All absences are deemed legitimate are they not? This is the RM policy I believe although I could be wrong?
Personally I don't think the piss takers are the ones that 2 weeks off in a year. In our job working outside in all weathers and sharing offices in close proximity to large groups of fellow workers sharing germs, 2 weeks is not extreme! It's the ones that go off for months at a time that's the problem. The ones who seem to have a bad back every other year or some other health problem that is basically down to their word that it's genuine?
Either way I still don't think penalising everyone for the few that abuse the sick policy is the way to go. If they really feel the need to trim it down then something fairer should be brought in. Maybe half pay for every absence over a month or something?
For me, I know people that really do abuse the system. People that actually have in their diary the weeks they can have off without triggering a stage.
But equally there are genuine injuries that do re occur. Bad backs or bad hips or bad knees will most likely happen the longer you are a postie and I don’t think they should be penalised.
From a business point of view it’s a bit harsh to tarnish everyone with the same brush. But then these sick leave abusers were probably shouting “solidarity” a few months back.
And I get that people throw abuse at me for being a strike breaker but I think the ones who have abused the terms and conditions (the fake sickness, the runners, the coming in early type; the working through breaks, the not doing van checks, not using trolleys etc) are the ones who have ruined it for everyone else. They want to fight for the rights they have been happy to abuse.
Iv always been in it for myself but iv never hid behind slogans and pretended to be hard done by at every turn.
Going by this response you progressed to management after leaving the CWU.
Thanks for answering my initial query on the Martin Walsh thread
Well, I’m the manager of my duty. I manage myself. I do the job to the best of my ability and I know my contract and rights to be able to defend myself against the pressure the managers try and put on people.
I would never be a manager that sits in an office all day. I like being outside and on my own too much for that.
Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.
The nhs staff actually get a bonus if they dont go sick,maybe thats an answer but punishing people whose bodies are broken after decades given to the company is wrong,i know it,you know it and the union know it ,but the CWU would rather save their own skins than do the job they are paid to do ,VOTE NO !!!!
35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.
Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??
35 hour full-time is 50 minutes less meal relife a week than 36 hours or 35.5 hour week? As to is he a rep probably and is it relevant on here most of us all are in more communication than them. As to the legally binding bit they did walk away from the pervious agreements and nothing will stop them again!
it WOULD be 50mins less meal break a week if we did 5x7hr shifts, but that probs would not be the case. you could have 2 short days on say Monday & Tuesday of say 6hrs 40 mins which will give you 2x 30mins breaks on those days but have the rest of your week Wed-Sat over 7hrs which will give you the full 40mins. so you would only lose 20mins break over the full week.
So if your day off was Monday or Tuesday you would be working more than 35 hours??
35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.
Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??
35 hour full-time is 50 minutes less meal relife a week than 36 hours or 35.5 hour week? As to is he a rep probably and is it relevant on here most of us all are in more communication than them. As to the legally binding bit they did walk away from the pervious agreements and nothing will stop them again!
it WOULD be 50mins less meal break a week if we did 5x7hr shifts, but that probs would not be the case. you could have 2 short days on say Monday & Tuesday of say 6hrs 40 mins which will give you 2x 30mins breaks on those days but have the rest of your week Wed-Sat over 7hrs which will give you the full 40mins. so you would only lose 20mins break over the full week.
So if your day off was Monday or Tuesday you would be working more than 35 hours??
it averages out after every month.
It only averages out if you don't have Annual leave.
We all get annual leave at ours and it averages out for 37 hrs on longs n shorts.
That's impossible! Unless you are restricted to which weeks you can choose for annual leave. What about leave reserves that days off change every week.
We tried long and shorts in our office and it didn't work for the above reasons.
