Bradford Factor

agnes

agnes

agnes

Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2006
Posts
16,867
Location
Amsterdam, NL
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!
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's unfair, the idea is that unplanned absences are more disruptive to the business than planned absence e.g. having an operation, and let's be honest a lot of "sickness" is really just a duvet day. As long as you don't have too many unplanned absences you should be OK.
 
My company has a back to work interview after any period of illness, even 1 day.

They found that a quick interview on why you were ill each time soon reduced the amount of people being sick as you're less inclined to fake a sick day.
 
The bradford factor is a stupid statistic used to quantify how much sickness someone has taken off work and heavily weight it against those who have sickness on many different occasions as opposed to long term sickness. Thereby trying to highlight those who fake the odd day off work.

The Bradford Factor is calculated using the formula BF(employee) = S * S * D where S is the number of absences recorded in the timesheet or schedule for the employee during the past 52 weeks, and D is the total number of days of absence.
For example an employee who was absent 12 times for a total of 13 days would look like: 12 * 12 * 13: 1872. Two absences of 5 days and 6 days would look like: 2 * 2 * 11: 44.

The employee with two long term absences receives a lower score (44) than the score of 1872.
 
godinman said:
Er, what's the Bradford Factor?
Click to expand...

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...

fidget said:
A "return to work meeting" after just 2 days off?? :eek:

Sounds like HR don't have enough to do!
Click to expand...

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?
 
42?! Is that it?! My old company used this system, only once above 120 was a quiet word from HR given or at least people asked questions!

Based on my past experiences I think it is a fair system, it stops multiple sick days for the fakers and highlights anyone with real issues.
 
agnes said:
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...



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?
Click to expand...


Crikey, were do you work?
 
We use it and HR target the top ten with silly scores, when you look at the employees on the 'hit list' you can sort of see why most are numpties, lots of random single days off are disruptive.
 
Our tolerance is 63, anything above that sparks an investigation and may lead onto verbal or written warnings. If you then go higher after that it can lead to disciplinary and dismissal.
 
I always find it interesting that opposition to the idea of the Bradford factor and similar measures always seems directly proportional to the employees score on it.

As a statistical means of identifying both those who need additional support (due to chronic or other long term conditions) and those who are taking the proverbial, it works really well, as it does to trigger the meetings to address both of the above.

I've never seen any company that actually uses it beyond triggering meetings in the process as a means of actually managing absence purely on the numbers.
 
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 *****.
 
UncleBob said:
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 *****.
Click to expand...

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
 
My employers were planning to use this in the IT review. Ended up with the union kicking off big time about it and long story short they aren't going to use it now.

It's a ridiculous system anyway imo.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom