Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Our tolerance is 250. Yours is stupidly low.
Bradford Factor
- Thread starter agnes
- Start date
We don't have a set tolerance, though it is used to pick up issues. It is referred to as the Bradford Score though.
I think if it is used to identify a possible problem that's fine. I think if it is used as a stick to beat staff with that is a problem in itself.
I think if it is used to identify a possible problem that's fine. I think if it is used as a stick to beat staff with that is a problem in itself.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
HR 
That is a genius way of doing it! However, those that are genuinely ill will lose out
ags
That is a genius way of doing it! However, those that are genuinely ill will lose out
ags
Those that are genuinely ill seem to be fine with it. After 5 days sickness, you have to come in with a doctors note, and then I think you get fully paid for it all.
The unions in Sweden are stupidly strong, so I don't think they would let a system like that get through unless it was only to stop people faking illness getting benefits from the system.
In the UK there are huge complaints from the Sun and other redtops about when "Barmy" union bosses want people to get fair payrises and it gets to a period of strikes and brinkmanship.
In Sweden it never goes that far because the unions have so much weight that employers are pretty much forced to keep executive pay down and workers pay good.
It's a tricky one to call really, there are very few illnesses where you'll genuinely not be able to work/get to work one day and be fine the next. That said, it's usually in the company's best interests that you don't come in if you've got something just starting as a) you'll probably be over it quicker if you take a break immediately and b) you're not going to infect other people if you're not in the office.That is a genius way of doing it! However, those that are genuinely ill will lose out
ags
Absolutely, its based on fairly arbitary factors and can't be used to 100% indicate anything - any HR/company using it that way are incredibly dense - but it is a good guide to identify problems.
one problem with this kind of calculation is it leads employees to be more likely to be off for longer rather than risk having to be off again....
ie if you're 90% well, you'll stay off instead of having one day back in work and potentially deteriorating and needing another day, as being off on monday and wednesday looks worse than being off monday tuesday wednesday....
ie if you're 90% well, you'll stay off instead of having one day back in work and potentially deteriorating and needing another day, as being off on monday and wednesday looks worse than being off monday tuesday wednesday....
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.
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.
I can see why they would use such a system to identify potential problems and deal with them by interview on a case by case basis. But to simply use the number generated as ammo against staff is daft.
Besides, any employer who decides they need ammo to use against their staff as a matter of course isn't worth working for. People should be working TOGETHER, not pulling in opposite directions.
Besides, any employer who decides they need ammo to use against their staff as a matter of course isn't worth working for. People should be working TOGETHER, not pulling in opposite directions.
Why not? Family emergencies are not an employer's problem unless they happen to be an employer and it's their family that is having a problem!
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,528
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
Break downs AFAIK shouldn't be covered, my recent car writing off experience was put down as "casual" and I can just work the time back whenever. Relatives and family members AFAIK shouldn't be added to the bradford thing either as far as I understand it.
It's called empathy.
I've been allowed to leave after being in only an hour as my gf's grandad died suddenly, and I didn't get penalised for it. He wasn't even related to me, but my work is so awesome that they cater for people properly.
Really?!
How close were you to you GF's grandad? I wouldn't consider leaving work if my GF's grandad died. GF's parents yeh, but grandparents, really?
Really?!
How close were you to you GF's grandad? I wouldn't consider leaving work if my GF's grandad died. GF's parents yeh, but grandparents, really?
I wasn't close at all, it was to support the family as they have had a rough time as it is. Gf was with her grandma in the hospital, all other family member were over 2 hours away, I got there in 20 minutes.