A friend of mine who works for the Home Office has told me on a few occasions that, for whatever reason, any employee who takes more than a certain number of days off sick has to recieve some kind of warning, and have their absence reviewed. This has come about because of union pressure, apparently, as the union felt that 'taking a view' on someone's sickness could effectively equal an imbalance of treatment.

In other words, you could get situations where an employee could be disciplined for taking 'excessive' sickness, whereas another employee with comparable or greater levels of sickness wouldn't be.

It would appear then, that your wife is a victim of a policy created to weed out those who take the Mick, and I'm sure that if there is any common sense to be had, she will be all right, as long as she defends this in the right way, and doesnt get on her high horse about it.

Purely from a 'Devils Advocate' point of view though, could it be that they're suggesting she COULD be at work, if she has - say - a desk job? That said, if she has been signed off sick by her doctor and ordered to stay away from work, then they really can't dispute it.

Yes I pointed out that the rep was rubbish and unprofessional, that doesn't go hand in hand with how I described public Sector hierachy effecting those at the coal face does it?
I've seen many reps who clearly didn't understand their jobs, nor how to deal with people properly, no better than the middle and senior management I was more directly having a poke at.
However if you have an agenda spit it out, I was clearly pointing out how poor management in PS is through the manager phoning her at work which was the main issue but crack on with your rant regarding how pee poor it is for the workforce because I already know. I've seen/heard and employed people who used to work for PS and they hated it because of the working conditions/environment.
If you think me pointing out that the rep here is part of the problem (which is clearly a hugely less effect than the hierachy as I explained originally) is a problem, tell me how it isn't?
Or do you agree with a union rep telling the person off sick due to an injury at work they [imight[/i not lose their job because of it but they don't know and can't explain why??? Do you not think that because that is a small thing it is a tip of an ceberg in relation to the management senir staff problems that feed down to the workforce?

Actually, don't bother, you clearly can't, or don't want to grasp what I'm saying....
Good luck to the OP and t'other half, I hope it works out ok for you..

depends how you want to play it once you have received the formal warning in writing.

a ) Ask your manager to come round for a meeting, also get a union rep there too and sort it out straight away, citing employment laws etc.

b ) Put a counter claim in for the accident hoping 1 ) they drop the warnings 2 ) you at least get a pay out and they have to also drop the warnings.

c ) Don't do anything until they sack her and then put in a claim for unfair dismissal, sounds like an easy win for a payout but no job at the end of it.

I don't have an "agenda" on this, although as a trade unionist (a strike-winning MoC, for the record) and someone who supports the public sector, there are plenty here who would say that I have a very left-wing "agenda".



Let's examine what you actually posted and that I responded to, shall we?