Bradford Factor

[agnes]

Am I right in saying this this formula used by HR is unfair?

I have been off the last couple of days last week due to being pretty ill! Despite almost killing my self by going to Scotland for a visit to our office up their, which involved a 15 hour day. I should have stayed in bed but didn't want to waste time as the project started soon.

Anyway, I have my return to work meeting today and I know they will bring up the Bradford Factor... How strongly can the factor influence their judgement on the absence?

As I took a couple of random days off in the spring due to family emergency.

Am I right in thinking, that due to these days not being 'planned' (which is a joke in it's self... You can't plan being ill or a emergency!) I will get a higher Braford Factor score thus giving them ammo for issuing a verbal?

Last time I had a meeting with HR (return to work), they said if the Bradford Factor goes above 42, then it will have to be looked at and possibly a warning. This was said in friendly terms when I questioned the process, not a threat.

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I am just a bit annoyed that I know I will get a grilling for being ill due to a stupid formula telling them I have had too many 'unplanned' absences.

ags

EDIT: would also like to add, I as usual, followed procedure to the letter and continued to answer emails from bed. So wasn't like I left my team totally in the water without a paddle!

 

[agnes]

Er, what's the Bradford Factor?

Sorry mate, here you are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor

It's a formula to calculate a score, so say in a 12 month period, you had 1 day off in March, 2 days off in June and a further 2 days off in November...

That totals into 3 instances of absence, with 5 days 'unplanned' absence. When calculated through the formula it will be this:

45

Which in my work place, will start a investigation as to why you were off and you in trouble...

A "return to work meeting" after just 2 days off??

Sounds like HR don't have enough to do!

They have more than enough to do, but they live by the fact if you are ill... You MUST be fibbing... no one ever gets ill in the real world apparently?

 

[agnes]

It depends on the trigger levels allocated by the company, they tend to be a lot earlier in companies that treat staff like crap. I got a final written warning after my wife was hospitalised during a difficult pregnancy on four occasions with complications that could have resulted in miscarriage or premature birth, which accrued 300 points over a 6 month period.

Some HR people are utter *****.

Like I said, the company I work for does the same, they look at the score, ask a couple of questions but will go by the score for judgement more than your words.

ags

 

[agnes]

In Sweden they have a much more reasonable system to weed out the people faking sick leave.

First day you are absent you get zero pay. Second day you get 80%, third day 90% and fourth day you are back to real wages.

Surprisingly few people are sick for one day in Sweden. It also does not seem to encourage people to fake it for more than a day either.

That is a genius way of doing it! However, those that are genuinely ill will lose out

ags

 

[agnes]

Well, just had my return to work meeting, there are only 3 girls who work in HR, all of them lovely, and they even agree the Bradford thing is pointless and the whole process is pointless!

Anyway, my score is 36... Not bad, and they have raised the mark to 52 for triggering a investigation.

But as this lady said: "You have one more day off and you will be subject to investigation!" which she agreed was very silly.

So, must try my best not to break a bone, let any close relatives die, lose an eye or break down on the way to work!! The list goes on...

Anyway, the lady who was interviewing me had a heart attack recently and has a score of 136! Silly system.

 

[agnes]

Again, they have come back to me due to miss calculation (how hard can it be?). It's 18...

Good times I guess!

ags

 

[agnes]

I came in expecting to find some sort of bradford x-factor, I leave dissapointed.

Sorry chap

I will provide one day

 

[agnes]

1 instance of 6 weeks:

1 x 1 x 30 = 30

That said, I'm not sure if each week would be seen as an occurrence, which would be:

6 x 6 x 30 = 1080

I think it depends on the employer, but if you are off on a Friday and a Monday your days aren't accrued over the weekend but it is counted as 4 sickness days in our RTWs.

Not really - people don't take 6 weeks off sick unless they really are sick (broken leg or something). They will normally have to get a doctor's note to prove they were unfit to work as well. For an absence of this type, the business will be able to re-plan and re-schedule e.g. arrange temporary cover. What really kills businesses is people taking "duvet days" - usually a Friday or a Monday when the work just doesn't get done. Across the whole business absences like this have a very real impact. So while it might appear illogical, to the business 6 duvet days are far more damaging than one person being off sick for 6 weeks.

When you put the it like that, it does work...