If others genuinely have an issue like that they they could also sign off with stress, how it was arranged isn't anyone else's business than the employee and Dis86/immediate management, it's not something that needs be broadcast but being proactive about this stuff absolutely is in the interests of the company and the consequences of not dealing with it are what you're describing here:
Helping Employee
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
If others genuinely have an issue like that they they could also sign off with stress, how it was arranged isn't anyone else's business than the employee and Dis86/immediate management, it's not something that needs be broadcast but being proactive about this stuff absolutely is in the interests of the company and the consequences of not dealing with it are what you're describing here:
Problem is that isn't how some people think - we had a guy back in the pandemic days after several people were genuinely off with COVID for a couple of weeks, had a couple of weeks off with "COVID" and putting on the most fake cough ever when he got back and clearly never had COVID - but he was the kind of person who didn't think it fair if other people had time off and he didn't, etc.
I don't really see the relevance here - no one needs to know the private details - whether this guy is off because the company said so or because his GP signed him off with stress. If some other chancer wants to abuse time off then that’s on them and they’re already able to do so as they can at any other employer by getting their GP to write a letter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,679
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
Dis one thing that springs to mind is getting him to request flexible working
If you as the manager support him its more tricky for the employer to go down the "it won't work" route, especially if you agree with him to make it a limited say 6 month thing with review at the end
As his manager you sound like your really helping.
I can only say from my perspective that working when I had any drama in my life always felt better than not working, especially if it was women drama.
If you as the manager support him its more tricky for the employer to go down the "it won't work" route, especially if you agree with him to make it a limited say 6 month thing with review at the end
As his manager you sound like your really helping.
I can only say from my perspective that working when I had any drama in my life always felt better than not working, especially if it was women drama.
Last edited:
Spoken about flexi with him and we agreed to just keep the policy that im working to with him in place. Hes able to drop his kids off and pick them up the majority of days with it. Hes meeting his required hours. Im making sure hes paid for any appointments he has to help his parents with. Im satisfied im doing all I can to help from that side of things.
Ive made sure to hang around a couple of jobs hes working on this week just to chat crap and take an interest in what hes doing. Spit balled ideas off one another on a couple of faults and worked out some solutions that we'd probably not have come to as quickly on an individual basis.
The relevance was in relation to your post about HR - one of the reasons why they don't always do what seems to make the most sense in that context is because they have to balance it with people who'll take advantage of they can.
I understood that but it's just wrong, it's a flawed point anyway as the minority who might be inclined to take advantage could already take advantage via getting a GP to sign them off with stress, in practice the vast majority of people don't tend to and it's far better to work with people and support employees than it is to end up creating an environment where employees see the relationship in a more adversarial way.
What actually tends to happen is presenteeism is higher in more hostile workplaces and supportive employers see shorter absences. Presenteeism is typically more costly than people taking time off too.
This is why the CIPD emphasises proactive, early interventions as do NICE guidelines. The HR person here is making a bad call and attempts to rationalise it with individual anecdotes or via imagining people taking advantage if an employer is proactive when it comes to employee wellbeing just contradicts what the latest management research shows.
When was the last time you saw HR actually apply guidelines to the letter? HR is always there to protect the interests of the company first, employees second - and sure some people will already be inclined to play the system up - that is precisely why HR in these kind of matters will try to balance it with not giving them more opportunities to.
There's compassionate leave - he could take a week off (perhaps unpaid) but he could then sort out the parents etc.
Note - IIRC the law protects people with kids or dependents for emergencies. There's no limit to the number of times (although people get annoyed in the company). That should help with the child problems where there was child care (ie his deranged) and it is disappears at short range. It's not a replacement for long term child care plans but for those times it's an emergency in that way.
The other point is - are his parents a dependency? A call to CAB could help define his options here - specifically from a work perspective.
In the end the company will see this as his life to sort out - Parents, Partners and Progeny. Best thing you an do is precisely what you're doing - provide a stable environment that supports his needs. It will be one less thing for him to worry about.
I'm not talking about regulations but rather evidence based best practice - this *is* in the interests of the company, the HR in this particular case is making a *bad* decision as far as available research is concerned, if you don't understand that point then I'm not sure what else I can say to get you to understand.
They might *think* they're acting in the best interest of the company but in practice they're not and that's why I'm saying it's a bad call.
In a superficial way yes - but there is often more to it as to why HR makes decisions in the best interests of the company.
You can argue it all you like but you'll find in reality this is what is happening up and down the country in companies.
Last edited:
The opposite is the case, I'm referring to current best practices and you're justifying the superficial whims of a HR person making a bad decision.
Preventing issues like this from causing more stress or more time off later absolutely *is* in the interests of the company and it's short sighted to think otherwise as is allowing some flexibility. The notion that you shouldn't do these things and should take an inflexible approach out of some fear of being taken advantage of is misguided - in fact doing that and making employee lives worse gives worse outcomes.
I'm not sure this needs any more back and forth unless something new is going to be added so if you are insistent then I'm curious if you can cite anything or any management orgs that would support your position here that being ridged in this sort of situation is beneficial because of some apparent downside risks w.r.t being taken advantage of?
Last edited:
Doesn't change the fact it's bad practice in this day and age, just demonstrates there's a lot of poor HR teams out there - which isn't a surprise but also isn't an argument as to why anything @dowie has said here is wrong really.
With current guidelines yes bad practise but ultimately HR is always looking at what broadly is in the best interests of the company and the reality is in a lot of companies they will be balancing it against things like not setting a precedent other employees might abuse.
Nothing Dowie has said is "really wrong" but also it isn't how things often work in reality or the full considerations HR will be working with.
Engaging in bad HR practice is unlikely to ever be 'broadly' in the best interests of the company though - it might be easier in the short term but to me that's a very different thing. If they were genuinely aiming to act in the best interests of the company in a broader sense, they'd not be rigidly sticking to outdated approaches that all manner of evidence shows will lead to worse overall outcomes for the company.
I've seen it play out both ways time after time. These kind of things generally tend to be a lose-lose situation for a company - depending a bit on the industry.
That's why it's better to rely on evidence and best practices than making decisions on a whim because of anecdotal experience or prior beliefs.
I don't know why you're treating some random HR person as an infallible here, that some workplaces are managed badly in practice isn’t evidence in favour of that being a good idea.
This is nothing to do with that specific HR person.