I suspect a lot of the root of the issues hes having is here - a lot of people don't understand migraines and think they are just another word for headache. Had this from a boss before who thought I should just be taking some ibuprofen and getting on with it. (I only get maybe 1-2 migraines a year tops would not wish frequent migraines on my worst enemy).
Fired as result of medical conditions?
- Thread starter Safron414
- Start date
I suspect a lot of the root of the issues hes having is here - a lot of people don't understand migraines and think they are just another word for headache. Had this from a boss before who thought I should just be taking some ibuprofen and getting on with it. (I only get maybe 1-2 migraines a year tops would not wish frequent migraines on my worst enemy).
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
Indeed, I've had 3 in past 5 years, more than enough to do me for the next twenty.
One does not man up and go to work with a migraine.
He should get himself a biteguard to stop clenching and grinding.
Thats step one.
Soldato
On one hand, of course, we all sympathize with the original poster, her boyfriend and their personal circumstances.
On the other hand, as with every work place, there is a limit to what would be deemed reasonable in accommodating someone who requires a lot of random and unscheduled time off, beyond what would be statutory sickness, due to what essentially is undocumented and unprovable set of conditions. In short - where the es needs to get done, and the person that does it is regularly unable to perform his duties, there comes a moment where it becomes a weight on management and co-workers to the point where both parties should look at options rather than just start building foxholes around their positions.
I once worked in a large office where one of the very niche and highly specialized teams had three girls and one guy on staff. Now, this was a proper niche - for the purpose of the story, let's say it was trading rare commodities or analyzing super specific resources on selected emerging markets. Within month from each other two girls became absent due to maternity leave and the guy who initially covered their tasks left on prolonged sick absence to back/neck/general "whathaveyou" problems. All with doctors signatures and clean. Although none of them done anything that would breach their contract, and all of them took leave of absence in accordance with rules, the remaining member of their team was pretty much *****, as the company was for obvious to everyone involved reasons simply unable to provide sufficient cover. The niche and requirements, including language skills were so specific they couldn't train anyone in house at short notice and employing outsiders proven difficult, mostly because finding anyone from the industry with sufficient niche skills who would in return want to be employed on relatively short contract just to hand over all of their clients to staff eventually returning from their maternity/sick leave was just highly improbable in the first place. Although nothing that happened was unusual, illegal or unreasonable in employment law, the life of the remaining 1/4th of the team, plus agency temps performing minimal secretarial tasks around her, was absolute hell for over half a year. After which, the remaining two girls didn't return anyway, because few months down the line they both became pregnant again.
Looking at it from across the hallway I often imagined, what would happen if this was small firm, rather than large company, if this was my own firm and niche firm at that - say, North Kentish Cheesecake Crumble Pie Factory for example, and my own only two chefs with super secret family recipes vanished together with baker for way over half a year, leaving me to man all stations with help of delivery driver and whatever sad individual I could find standing in front of jobcentre on short notice. Government wants you to accommodate, but at the end of the day, you might as well just close the shop, right?
All of the above is of course anecdotal, but what I'm getting at is this - if it's a pain for him to turn up to work regularly due to his condition, and it's pain for his new management and staff to accommodate - sure you can fight it, prolong it, stretch it, hide behind union rep and squeeze few more months of salary out of it, but in the end - it's still going nowhere? He's not going to make a career out of it, they won't make it carpet ride either. Maybe it's time to look at alternatives?
On the other hand, as with every work place, there is a limit to what would be deemed reasonable in accommodating someone who requires a lot of random and unscheduled time off, beyond what would be statutory sickness, due to what essentially is undocumented and unprovable set of conditions. In short - where the es needs to get done, and the person that does it is regularly unable to perform his duties, there comes a moment where it becomes a weight on management and co-workers to the point where both parties should look at options rather than just start building foxholes around their positions.
I once worked in a large office where one of the very niche and highly specialized teams had three girls and one guy on staff. Now, this was a proper niche - for the purpose of the story, let's say it was trading rare commodities or analyzing super specific resources on selected emerging markets. Within month from each other two girls became absent due to maternity leave and the guy who initially covered their tasks left on prolonged sick absence to back/neck/general "whathaveyou" problems. All with doctors signatures and clean. Although none of them done anything that would breach their contract, and all of them took leave of absence in accordance with rules, the remaining member of their team was pretty much *****, as the company was for obvious to everyone involved reasons simply unable to provide sufficient cover. The niche and requirements, including language skills were so specific they couldn't train anyone in house at short notice and employing outsiders proven difficult, mostly because finding anyone from the industry with sufficient niche skills who would in return want to be employed on relatively short contract just to hand over all of their clients to staff eventually returning from their maternity/sick leave was just highly improbable in the first place. Although nothing that happened was unusual, illegal or unreasonable in employment law, the life of the remaining 1/4th of the team, plus agency temps performing minimal secretarial tasks around her, was absolute hell for over half a year. After which, the remaining two girls didn't return anyway, because few months down the line they both became pregnant again.
Looking at it from across the hallway I often imagined, what would happen if this was small firm, rather than large company, if this was my own firm and niche firm at that - say, North Kentish Cheesecake Crumble Pie Factory for example, and my own only two chefs with super secret family recipes vanished together with baker for way over half a year, leaving me to man all stations with help of delivery driver and whatever sad individual I could find standing in front of jobcentre on short notice. Government wants you to accommodate, but at the end of the day, you might as well just close the shop, right?
All of the above is of course anecdotal, but what I'm getting at is this - if it's a pain for him to turn up to work regularly due to his condition, and it's pain for his new management and staff to accommodate - sure you can fight it, prolong it, stretch it, hide behind union rep and squeeze few more months of salary out of it, but in the end - it's still going nowhere? He's not going to make a career out of it, they won't make it carpet ride either. Maybe it's time to look at alternatives?
Last edited:
Sorry no advice but if i'm right in remembering who you are and who your other half is i didn't know this and that's a real shame he's a great dude, good lad in l4d but keep him away from links suped up molotovs iirc
I knew it was a matter of time before someone from the old L4D crew showed up
It's not really something that we talk about with people. He is a great guy for sure, and he deserves a better situation and I'm gonna fight for it for as much as I can!I completely appreciate the fact that a work place is there to generate some kind of profit, and if a person is ill for longer amounts of time then that is a set back for the company as a whole and may also affect your colleagues negatively. But I think there is a very fine like between not taking care of your own health/being lazy/calling in sick for every tiny thing, and a genuine health issue that is affecting your every day life. If he is getting fired because they believe his absence is too much, who would hire him? Is he destined to be stuck on JSA for the rest of his life because nobody wants someone with a bad health background? Or because he is slightly disabled? He is not "disabled enough" to get benefits, and working part-time would not generate enough income
It could very well be that the times he manned up and went to work anyway was "just a bad headache". He does get headaches regulary on a weekly basis.
The doctor is trying to find something to help him. He have tried different antidepressants and he have also tried a biteguard. Nothing has helped. Some of the pills even made it worse, especially the throwing up
If a chronic migraine counts as a disability then that's great because that would help defending his case as it were.
Good news though, I spoke to him yesterday and he said he is in the union after all. I must have misunderstood him at some point because he have always been in the union. I told him not to have any more 1 to 1 meetings with his manager without having a representative from the union with him from now on!
Last edited:
Like previously mentioned, I fully understand that your job role has to be fulfilled, either by yourself or someone else.
We have tried asking for help, for example since he can not walk further than perhaps 20 metres without having to stop because he is in pain, his doctor suggested applying for a scheme where a disabled person can get a grant towards a car and disability parking. He was declined. If he is declined when he is asking for help to get to work, who would help him? What is the alternative? It feels like there is none...
Soldato
I understand he has his pride, but with respect he is a ****** fool to refuse, it might cause you further problems with benefits in months, years to come..
My mum is disable, but she still has the Blue Badge, plus her daughter is her carer & she gets a weekly carers premium paid monthly.
CAB can advise you on what you can get, there are a lot of unknown/ unclaimed grants, benefits out there.
Look at
http://www.careandrepair-england.org.uk/
http://www.foundations.uk.com/about-home-improvement-agencies/
They can help you with home repairs or adaptations for your home, grants are available, & in my mums case with the grants, the work,nearly £5000, a disable off-road parking bay was free.
My mum is disable, but she still has the Blue Badge, plus her daughter is her carer & she gets a weekly carers premium paid monthly.
CAB can advise you on what you can get, there are a lot of unknown/ unclaimed grants, benefits out there.
Look at
http://www.careandrepair-england.org.uk/
http://www.foundations.uk.com/about-home-improvement-agencies/
They can help you with home repairs or adaptations for your home, grants are available, & in my mums case with the grants, the work,nearly £5000, a disable off-road parking bay was free.
Last edited:
Soldato
ok biting can assure you that the RCN and unison won't take you on to sort a problem that you have encountered sorry that's the facts with those to that's why you should join in the first place
Man of Honour
ok biting can assure you that the RCN and unison won't take you on to sort a problem that you have encountered sorry that's the facts with those to that's why you should join in the first place
One of my colleagues at the NHS joined Unison only today because she is having problems - fact.
I really don't know where you've got your ideas from that a worker in trouble can't join a Union.
Soldato
well firstly that was said from the union itself! my colleague is going through disciplinary realized she isn't in a union rings up RCN they tell u can have advice but we can't represent you for this issue! I do not lie.
Man of Honour
I think we're reading from a different page here.
Depending on the Union they will still take you on, give advice and even sit with you in a disciplinary meeting (I know, I've sat with non union workers) but you don't get the 'full' Union package with insurance if it's an existing problem.
The main point I'm making is that you can still join with an existing problem and get expert advice & representation but don't expect them to get Union Solicitors on your side.
Then again things might have changed since 2007.
Soldato
DIMPLE!!!! yes they have changed from 5 years ago yes u can join and have advice but they won't represent you with current issue
Soldato
Frankly I find this sort of thing terrible.
We have a guy who has suffered severe injuries and yet he still manages to support himself and his family by going to work (to the best of his ability)
We really do need to me more understanding about this sort of case the last thing this country needs is another person on benefits (who was more than willing to work).
If anything is anti-human rights, it is this.
We have a guy who has suffered severe injuries and yet he still manages to support himself and his family by going to work (to the best of his ability)
We really do need to me more understanding about this sort of case the last thing this country needs is another person on benefits (who was more than willing to work).
If anything is anti-human rights, it is this.
Playing devils advocate, you can't expect an employer to keep you on indefinitely if you are incapable.
It's sad but both parties have rights, and it's unfair, especially for a small company with no budget, to be expected to be kept on the books. Thats what social security is for.
You can't afford to pay salary to someone who is not generating profit.
It's sad but both parties have rights, and it's unfair, especially for a small company with no budget, to be expected to be kept on the books. Thats what social security is for.
You can't afford to pay salary to someone who is not generating profit.
Soldato
Lets hope you never suffer a disability or illness that limits your ability "to make profit".
This is a terrible attitude.
I agree, you can't pay someone endless sick pay, I am sure that time off without pay would be fairer than the sack.
Everyone (within reason obviously) should be encouraged to contribute towards society in general, paying people 'benefits' to sit at home isn't the answer.
I of course make exceptions for severly disabled people, and by that I mean both mental and physical illness.
Last edited:
You have taken me slightly out of context there, but I admit I wrote that to get a reaction. Employment law is pretty complicated. Time off without pay is still employed and its tricky to do anything other than put a poor temp into the position.
For a smaller company this can spell disaster is cash flow is limited, and all who work for it could end up unemployed also.
I'm not saying that's how it should be in an ideal world, I'm saying that's how it is.
Soldato
@mattyfez.
I realise you said playing devils advocate.
Many companies these days particularly smaller ones, have staff on wages not salary therefore they are only entitled to SSP anyway.
We had a 'shirker' in my previous job who used to 'go ill' at the end of every month before the monthly account was due in. I was laughable, but he got away with it.
I really feel for those with genuine medical problems and applaud their efforts to stay in employment.
The job market is hard enough as it is.
I wasn't having a pop at you, just expressing my frustration as I can fully understand OPs partners situation.
I realise you said playing devils advocate.
Many companies these days particularly smaller ones, have staff on wages not salary therefore they are only entitled to SSP anyway.
We had a 'shirker' in my previous job who used to 'go ill' at the end of every month before the monthly account was due in. I was laughable, but he got away with it.
I really feel for those with genuine medical problems and applaud their efforts to stay in employment.
The job market is hard enough as it is.
I wasn't having a pop at you, just expressing my frustration as I can fully understand OPs partners situation.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Devils Advocate:
What if the disabled person works at 50% of the other workers, would you still keep them on or pay them full wages?
There has to be a point where a line is drawn.
Soldato
This thread keeps getting more interestin. Edit Dimple read my reply to you further up.
One of my jobs is processing HR files for a major global business including exactly this sort of stuff.
What they say is this, you have a contract with the business to work after a certain amount of time being sick they take action, first it's a few meetings followed by a medical assessment and eventually if it's decalred that you are not fit for work due to illness even if it's not your fault they will give you the notice agreed in your contract.
I have seen people dismissed for having cancer even though the treatment may be successful as well as people with on going mental illness or having death's in the family.
On a personal level it is just so wrong in so many ways, a lot of these people were not actually being paid any longer so there is no saving per se to be made.
On a business level they only care about getting the job done and making money, people are just another commodity to be used. I am glad I do not work for this company and just work as a supplier to them.
The company I am talking about also has full union involvement however they have teams of solicitors going over this stuff and generally have closely laid down rules they follow to remove you.
My advice is don't think it can't happen, speak to his employers as much as possible and keep them in the loop, make him as humna as possible and not just another number and if needed be prepared to meet them half way.
My uncle has just had a heart attack and will not be able to do the same job he did before but with the correct communication with his company they are finding another position for him otherwise he would have just lost his job.
What they say is this, you have a contract with the business to work after a certain amount of time being sick they take action, first it's a few meetings followed by a medical assessment and eventually if it's decalred that you are not fit for work due to illness even if it's not your fault they will give you the notice agreed in your contract.
I have seen people dismissed for having cancer even though the treatment may be successful as well as people with on going mental illness or having death's in the family.
On a personal level it is just so wrong in so many ways, a lot of these people were not actually being paid any longer so there is no saving per se to be made.
On a business level they only care about getting the job done and making money, people are just another commodity to be used. I am glad I do not work for this company and just work as a supplier to them.
The company I am talking about also has full union involvement however they have teams of solicitors going over this stuff and generally have closely laid down rules they follow to remove you.
My advice is don't think it can't happen, speak to his employers as much as possible and keep them in the loop, make him as humna as possible and not just another number and if needed be prepared to meet them half way.
My uncle has just had a heart attack and will not be able to do the same job he did before but with the correct communication with his company they are finding another position for him otherwise he would have just lost his job.
Soldato
You would have to adjust their wage to suit.
If someone was really ill then it would get to the stage where it wasn't worth their while working - The expenses would outweigh the pay.
I would much sooner spend tax payers money to subsidise a low wage for someone who is trying than pay benefits.
Last edited: