Work colleagues

[hk blues]

18 hours ago, jessmagic said:

Totally counter productive as well - so many companies must loose good folk due to rubbish like this. 

I was in HR for a good few years (and I'm not a complete cnut) - such policies we had but it was always clearly stated they were minimum  and totally discretionary beyond that.  I can honestly say there was not one time where an employee was hurried back to work due to bereavement.  I reckon my employers were no different to most but there are some cunty managers out there, many of whom are spineless and more than happy to pass the buck back to HR whenever they can.  

The longest time an employee had off was a year when his wife passed away and he was left to take care of a young child.  The average was a week I'd say but many were longer and a month wouldn't raise any eyebrows.  

 

[hk blues]

18 hours ago, Michael W said:

I can't imagine what that must've felt like at the time. I'm only reading it and am appalled. 

Disgusting way to to treat someone. 

 

I'm not one for running to teacher but such behaviour should be reported to senior management and not let go.  I can understand though that that is low on the priority list at such times and that's why folk get away with it.

[Elric]

Years ago, while working shifts, wife was pregnant with three months to go and having a rough time being in and out of hospital. We had a child at the time and I could work day shift  no problem while the kid was at a child minders but the other shifts were impossible.  Again she got admitted and spoke to my supervisor about day shift and was told to use my annual leave. No problem I said, what I will do, to make things easier,  is go and see my doctor and I will see you in 3 or 4 months time.  Just do day shift anytime you need to was the reply!

[TheScarf]

1 hour ago, Elric said:

Years ago, while working shifts, wife was pregnant with three months to go and having a rough time being in and out of hospital. We had a child at the time and I could work day shift  no problem while the kid was at a child minders but the other shifts were impossible.  Again she got admitted and spoke to my supervisor about day shift and was told to use my annual leave. No problem I said, what I will do, to make things easier,  is go and see my doctor and I will see you in 3 or 4 months time.  Just do day shift anytime you need to was the reply!

You'll find that works more often than not, the threat of going on long term sick usually forces the employers hand.

[Rugster]

Some of the attitudes of employers and that c**t of a lecturer I'm reading here are absolutely fucking appalling. Makes me realise how lucky I am. Had months off without a raised eyebrow after my son was born prematurely and HSF was diagnosed. Went from early September 2018 until the end of the year basically off on full pay. Then when I did return I was in and out all the time for about six months for hospital stuff, childcare and then went another 6 weeks off when she was in hospital for her transplant. I know for a fact if I was still working for the c**t of a company I was previously I'd have been sacked or had to quit. 

[V.Aye.R]

The highlight from the last couple of weeks is undoubtedly when this boy, let’s call him Stevie (that’s not his name, his real name is Darren) 

No idea why this tickled me, but it did [emoji23]

[RH33]

58 minutes ago, Rugster said:

Some of the attitudes of employers and that c**t of a lecturer I'm reading here are absolutely fucking appalling. Makes me realise how lucky I am. Had months off without a raised eyebrow after my son was born prematurely and HSF was diagnosed. Went from early September 2018 until the end of the year basically off on full pay. Then when I did return I was in and out all the time for about six months for hospital stuff, childcare and then went another 6 weeks off when she was in hospital for her transplant. I know for a fact if I was still working for the c**t of a company I was previously I'd have been sacked or had to quit. 

If that's the same company I worked for, my daughter was blue lighted out of nursery after a fit. As I grabbed my keys(10mins before end shift) the manager shouted up the office "I'm referring you to HR because of absence".

I'd been off as my daughter had had several serious allergic/apahalxis issues. I was deducted salary if I missed a day and my whatever formula was rubbish.

Four week line and resignation followed.

[Rugster]

1 minute ago, RH33 said:

If that's the same company I worked for, my daughter was blue lighted out of nursery after a fit. As I grabbed my keys(10mins before end shift) the manager shouted up the office "I'm referring you to HR because of absence".

I'd been off as my daughter had had several serious allergic/apahalxis issues. I was deducted salary if I missed a day and my whatever formula was rubbish.

Four week line and resignation followed.

Yes it was. 

[RH33]

3 minutes ago, Rugster said:

Yes it was. 

They'd not have given you the shit off the bottom of their shoe. Awful company

[GordonD]

There was a woman in my office who had major internal problems and was on sick leave for months at a time for operations. One time I think she was away for more than a year. I don't know what her sick pay situation was but there was never any question of her being let go. Her job was kept open for her and she would come back for a few weeks before having to go off again. Despite it all she was a cheerful wee thing and extremely popular in the office. Eventually though her body couldn't take any more and she died but the company stuck by her right to the end.

[Derry Alli]

5 hours ago, hk blues said:

I reckon my employers were no different to most but there are some cunty managers out there, many of whom are spineless and more than happy to pass the buck back to HR whenever they can.  

HR in my company (of 90 employees) is the guy who owns the company. 

It was a woman who knew what she was doing but she was sacked for providing the pension regulator with documents without passing it with the owner. She - and 4 others - have cases against the company just now. 

[hk blues]

Just now, Mr. Alli said:

HR in my company (of 90 employees) is the guy who owns the company. 

It was a woman who knew what she was doing but she was sacked for providing the pension regulator with documents without passing it with the owner. She - and 4 others - have cases against the company just now. 

Small companies are responsible for the vast majority of bad press HR gets.  In these places HR is often tagged onto other responsibilities and the person doing it knows next to nothing about it.  Saying that, I've worked in big companies where the same approach was applied - the Finance guys often had HR as part of their responsibility despite having no  knowledge.

[DA Baracus]

The lack of empathy and humanity is just atrocious. I don't get how people can be such scum, especially since they aren't in any way affected by it. To most of them it's all about money, and if they perceive that the business might not make as much profit, despite them not being affected, there are tears and dickhead reactions. Genuinely, f**k capitalism so much. 

These people genuinely deserve an absolute hiding.

[Honest_Man#1]

3 minutes ago, DA Baracus said:

The lack of empathy and humanity is just atrocious. I don't get how people can be such scum, especially since they aren't in any way affected by it. To most of them it's all about money, and if they perceive that the business might not make as much profit, despite them not being affected, there are tears and dickhead reactions. Genuinely, f**k capitalism so much. 

These people genuinely deserve an absolute hiding.

To be clear before the rest of the post, I agree with the above in the vast majority of cases. Especially in bigger companies where they can clearly afford to take a hit on profit to support someone.

There are plenty of scenarios though where that’s not possible, particularly in smaller (e.g family run) businesses, and I do have sympathy for them. In certain scenarios the manager/owner would clearly be directly affected, and could in fact lead to the rest of the staff being directly affected as well with redundancies if the business is no longer profitable, and if they have to hire someone else to do the job if it’s a long term absence. It’s a fairly niche area though, and as I say I think the majority of employers who don’t support people in these scenarios could afford to do so, but are choosing not to out of greed. 

[Busta Nut]

1 hour ago, RH33 said:

If that's the same company I worked for, my daughter was blue lighted out of nursery after a fit. As I grabbed my keys(10mins before end shift) the manager shouted up the office "I'm referring you to HR because of absence".

I'd been off as my daughter had had several serious allergic/apahalxis issues. I was deducted salary if I missed a day and my whatever formula was rubbish.

Four week line and resignation followed.

Again, next time I'd went in there I'd have thrown him over his desk. 

[NotThePars]

We had a case recently where some guy requested a career break to look after his dying father and the manager responsible for giving approval declined because his recent attendance wasn't sufficiently good... Because he was looking after his dying father. Just a horrid attitude and short-sighted as well as the guy clearly is going to piss off when he gets the chance and more power to him.

[Sergeant Wilson]

14 hours ago, CountyFan said:

Don't surreptitiously record it on your phone though whatever you do. Ask politely at the start if they mind you recording it. If they've nothing to hide they wont care. 

And you'll be told not to. Take someone with you and take notes.

[Bairnardo]

To be clear before the rest of the post, I agree with the above in the vast majority of cases. Especially in bigger companies where they can clearly afford to take a hit on profit to support someone.
There are plenty of scenarios though where that’s not possible, particularly in smaller (e.g family run) businesses, and I do have sympathy for them. In certain scenarios the manager/owner would clearly be directly affected, and could in fact lead to the rest of the staff being directly affected as well with redundancies if the business is no longer profitable, and if they have to hire someone else to do the job if it’s a long term absence. It’s a fairly niche area though, and as I say I think the majority of employers who don’t support people in these scenarios could afford to do so, but are choosing not to out of greed. 

In many cases, such as the last two conpanies I have worked for, both of which are at the very top of their game worldwide, and would pretty mucb be considered two of the biggest companies in existence, I would go as far as to disagree that its to do with greed and instead apply the Mixu theory about billionaore tax dodging.

Its ideological. The money involved is way below irrelevance. So why argue with an employee that, for example, pat leave doesnt start till the wean is born and he should take a days holiday to cover the day in between getting told he needs to fly home ASAP or he will miss the birth of his child, and the actual birth.....

It because they want to give nothing, and be seen to be giving nothing. Its their career advancement at the cost of, well whatever shite they are shovelling at their employees for them to swallow that day.

Its all about getting it right up you in the case of big companies. f**k all to do with the pounds and pence.

[DiegoDiego]

It works both ways and being lenient sets precedents. Employees can and do absolutely rip the piss when given a chance and that ruins things for the rest. I don't think either set is more moral, one just has more power than the other.

[RossDee01]

10 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

Hopefully I’m anonymous on here and no one from my work reads this forum, as I’ve got another doozy from the boy I spoke about a few pages back. 
 

 

I think you'll be fine, from the sound of it the boy doesn't know how to read