Thursday, July 10. 2008Only Four Sleeps To Go.......John Linton .......pity there remain around 18 sleeps of things to do before that time. I remember now why I have so irregularly taken a holiday over the past 20 or so years - I'd book them and then cancel them a week or so before I was due to go as there was seldom a year when things were running smoothly enough for me to believe I could spare the time. I also remember one or two holidays I did take that I ruined for my traveling companion(s) by constantly calling back to Australia and then worrying about what I heard or thought I had heard. This time, as with last year and the year before, I have no choice as I'm so physically and mentally tired that actually attempting to continue to work is not an option - even I notice I'm doing too many things badly at the moment. How pathetic and self indulgent you may now be thinking - and who could blame you? There is a point to that particularly 'poor me' opening which is just how hard and consistently is it to expect anyone, in any position, to work in this period of commercial endeavour where most 'commentary' is on "quality of life in the workplace". Of course such commentary on 'quality of life' is almost always made by people who, as far as I can see, have never worked very hard, if at all, in any part of their life. I'm sure there are exceptions but I'm not in a forgiving mood at the moment. I used to say to people who asked me what I did to relax or what 'hobbies' I had that "a person who needs a hobby needs a different career" - by which I meant of course, if you don't enjoy the work you do (or at least get more satisfaction/reward from) more than anything else you could do with that time, then you needed to change your career. Of course all I got for my trouble in pointing out that jewel of advice was blank or self satisfied pitying looks at what an idiot I was. Everyone to their particular view I suppose. This melange of incoherent thought crossed my mind as I once again pondered on why so many Australians take 'sickies' and why that 'right' has been enshrined in Australian work practices. I particularly wondered why so many young males seem to suffer so greatly from one day maladies which don't allow them to attend their work place but don't stop them playing pool or going to the pub or just hanging out with their friends who have no job to go to. Clearly they aren't either needed by their employer nor are they more interested in their job than they are in doing something else when they are needed to work. Long ago the 'long weekend sickie' (where a person calls in sick early on Friday morning before heading off for a long weekend with their mates) and the 'Monday hangover sickie' (where a person has such a great weekend they drink and stay up to excess) have been identified by employers as accounting for 70% of all 'short term medical problems' for employees. So much so that no employer ever believes that ANY employee is ever actually sick on Mondays or Fridays and just regards people who take those days off as lacking in ethics. Is this too jaundiced a way of looking at 'sickies'? My mother never got sick. My wife (and my children's mother) never gets sick. Why would that be as they seem to have the same number of colds and 'flu' and all of the other minor ailments that afflict the human race over the years? The answer, obviously, is that they have too much to do (for other people) to ever let any physical discomfort get in the way of them discharging their obligations to their family and their other commitments. So are all 'sickie takers' cynically unethical bludgers? Who knows and, apart from the people they work with who have to do their work while the 'sickie taker' is skiving off with his mates, who cares? No employer has found a way of eliminating the 'sickie taking' problem as far as I know. Most competent employers deal with it by hiring people who will be more interested in progressing their career than by damaging their prospects by Friday and Monday 'sickies'. As companies like Exetel operate in their early years there are no such problems as the few people in the company share a dedication and an interest in keeping the company 'alive' and take so much personal responsibility for all aspects of customer happiness that the problem is to get them to cut down on their working hours. It's clearly not possible to ignore the need to ensure that employees who are genuinely unwell or unfit aren't financially disadvantaged when they need to undergo medical or hospital treatment that includes the need not to go to work - we do live in a civilised commercial society. But that means that the healthy and diligent are 'punished' by our nanny state regulations in that the fact that they choose to work every day of the week and deal with minor discomforts with over the counter pharmaceuticals rather than getting their mummy or their partner to call someone at the office and say they are sick and won't be in today. This shouldn't be the case. It's actually grossly unfair and therefore it shouldn't exist in commercial practice. In the 'bad old days' I know of companies that used to deal with this insidious disruption by reducing any annual increase by a percentage dependent on the number of 'sickies' taken by an employee. I doubt that it ever achieved anything except losing valuable employees over the next 12 month period or made them less valuable because of discontent. So, subject to legal advice, and general 'directorial' agreement, we will make a change to our own work practices by giving our employees who don't take 'sickies' a financial reward equivalent to 1.5 times the value of the 'sick days' they didn't take in each financial year. It seems only fair, at least to me, that people who choose to work on the 'public holidays' awarded by the nanny state (mandated sick leave) should be paid for the extra time they 'volunteer' to put in. We will probably also introduce a 'profit sharing scheme' in this financial year; we are in the final stages of getting the documentation from the accountants. One of the eligibility criteria will be 'full attendance' or however that turns out to be worded. My expectation of introducing such changes in to Exetel is that they will prevent a problem that has cursed Australian companies for decades ever developing in our company as it gets larger. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Interesting article, John
Being self employed, if I get sick I have to cover the cost. Fortunately some aspects of my work bring in a small amount of money even when I'm idle, reducing the need to save for a 'rainy day.' I assume that these weekend sickies aren't accompanied by a doctor's certificate, etc? How about maternity and paternity leave? As a sole trader, I've never made the jump to employing another person as it seems like a huge hurdle to get over, both in paperwork and expense. I tend to be of the opinion that you earn while you work and you don't earn while you don't work, but that simplistic view doesn't apply to employees; and probably earns me some unfortunate moniker that I can't think of at the moment. Comment (1)
Sounds like people that take sick leave at Exetel WILL be financially disadvantaged.
No 1.5 bonus, no "profit sharing"... If I was genuinely sick or needed to undergo some sort of surgical procedure I'd certainly feel discriminated against. We recently had a gastro bug go around our floor at work that struck about 70% of us. Various doctors described it as "Highly contagious" and to stay at home for two days so you don't spread it. Needless to say some/most didn't hence the 70% infection rate. I certainly would have preferred it if the first person affected had just stayed at home and saved the rest of the floor from getting the %^&*'s. Comments (4)
I consider a sickie a day unattended which ethically should have been attended. I disagree slightly with your view of what is an unethical unattendance.
Do you consider it fair on those you engage with in a working day to be at arms length to your minor discomfort which requires pharmaceuticals? Do you think it is fair to encourage employees in this condition to engage there colleagues? Personally I consider those types of people who 'never take a day off' almost as much of a nuisance as those who take sickies. Funnily enough this includes my employer. As we all know money has an enormous influence on the decisions we make in this area and I think a zero tolerance approach to full attendance is an unfair method of differentiating between employees worthy of bonuses and those who are not. I hope you do not consider this an attack of any sort - I too believe each is entitled to his own opinion. Comments (3)
Exetel requires a doctor's certificate for any 'sick' day. (and we know how to detect the more obvious forgeries).
n maternity leave is a different scenario and is something that hasn't affected Exetel to date - we employ males in their early 20s overwhelmingly. If it becomes an issue then we simply won't employ females - something that I would think all small businesses would also be forced to do. Paternity leave? I can't bring myself to comment. Comments (12)
Surgery doesn't count as a 'sickie' in my view.
'Sickies' are easy to detect - only employees who think their employer is truly stupid try them on. As Exetel has total 'work from home' capabilities the 'don't come to the office as I'm infectious' isn't an issue for us. Comments (12)
Sick leave IS there for a reason. The last thing a small company like Exetel needs is contagious people coming to work and wiping out a whole team with a bout of the flu, measles, etc. And you don't want genuinely sick people coming to work miserable and underperforming when they should be home in bed. Much better for them AND your company. I suggest softening your full attendance financial reward scheme to allow for sick days accompanied by a medical certificate... and this should apply to parents who NEED to stay home to care for sick children on occasion.
Also, you speak in generalities but does Exetel even HAVE an issue with long weekend sickies? No point wasting time and money on a problem that doesn't even exist. What do your HR leave records show? Is there an absentee spike significantly higher than 20% around Mondays and Fridays? But in general terms I suggest that companies offering a good work/life balance do reap tangible benefits such as lower staff turnover and even lower salaries (i.e. people will forgo a higher salary for flex time, etc.) Comments (3)
I don't regard any disagreement as any form of 'attack'.
I also don't think that if someone is genuinely ill they should go to work. I was commenting on the obvious 'sickies'. Comments (12)
"If it becomes an issue then we simply won't employ females"
I'm pretty sure that's illegal. Comment (1)
I don't think it's illegal not to employ a person who you consider will not be able to fulfil the job specification.
Comments (12)
Oh... if work from home was allowed, yeah, I'd be much more intolerant of sickies. I'd have happily worked from home with intermittent bathroom breaks in the above situation.
Comments (4)
"It is illegal in NSW to dismiss or otherwise treat unfavourably any employee solely on the ground that she is pregnant or thought likely to become pregnant. If you feel you are being discriminated against in this way, you should contact the Office of Industrial Relations or the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board."
http://www.workandfamily.nsw.gov.au/frequently+asked+questions.html#q1 Discriminating based on sex is also illegal: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/pages/adb_general#s Comments (3)
In response to your comments regarding needing a hobby, or pastime outside of the workplace.
If you were to take up some activity, maybe for 2 or 3 hours a week, that took you completely away from your business, you might find that your batteries would be recharged each time, and you might not be in the position you find yourself now. In your own words. "I have no choice as I'm so physically and mentally tired that actually attempting to continue to work is not an option". I started playing Tennis once a week, for 3 hours on a Wednesday evening, where I leave behind all worries of work and family and come back recharged ( if not a little sore as the body does not cope with the exercise as well as it used to) and I actually feel bad when I miss out on these nights. so my advice, take your 2 or 3 hr 'holiday' every week!!!! Comment (1)
Exetel would never break any Federal or NSW law relating to any aspect of it's operations.
Not employing people who apply for jobs is not something that is capable of being legislated though. Irrespective of how you wish to try and use "discrimination" there will never be a situation where you can determine the reasoning and other characteristics of hiring one person in preference to the others who applied for the position - particularly if they never got an interview. Comments (12)
I have got to agree with Thomas.
I used to work ridicules hours (90+, now blissfully retired) in a senior management role, a work/attendance practice I would now consider just plain stupid. On the two occasions that I suffered extended illness it was because I was unable or refused to stay home and be a sick person, thus allowing a simple short term virus to develop through stubbornness in to something altogether more serious. My advice though unsolicited, is to trust your HR choices and take that holiday completely and unreservedly. Comments (2)
Good point and it's almost certainly my inability to make a coherent statement that causes the necessity for you to correct my stupidity.
Comments (12)
I think 90 hours a week is something I could never have done and certainly not at this advanced age of my life.
I understand just how pointless prolonged working is but, sometimes, especially in a start up business, it's unavoidable. I agree with what you and other have said. Comments (12)
"Not employing people who apply for jobs is not something that is capable of being legislated though."
I fully realise how hard it is to police, and I'm not so naive as to think the practice doesn't take place, but it IS legislated. It is illegal both in the spirit and letter of the law: "For example, if an employer won’t hire someone just because they are a woman this is likely to be direct sex discrimination" http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/adb/ll_adb.nsf/vwFiles/Disc+adb%200705%20for%20web.pdf/$file/Disc+adb%200705%20for%20web.pdf Not to mention that you effectively halve the talent pool of eligible candidates based on what MIGHT occur in the future. Comments (3)
Everything you say is true except that you don't "halve the talent pool" in our case as we work in a 'blokey' industry where there are few suitable female engineers.
The point is, in small companies, that you have enough trouble without taking gambles you don't have to. Comments (12)
The other consideration is that, like you refered to with legals costs on P2P litigation, such a thing could only end up costing the customer anyway.
Comments (3)
One way some companies are combating sickies is if you're not sick in a calendar month, they will give you one day off the next month (to be taken that month). So for those who are never sick, he/she can have 12 extra leave days a year.
Comment (1)
I'd be happy with a couple of hours off the next month...
Comments (3)
This makes ALL the difference.
If my employers over the years always let me worked from home (and you rightly state in this line of work there is very little reason that it can't be done), I would never have taken any sick days, even though I have been genuinely ill. Comment (1)
Yeah, you'd be amazed at how much a half day every now and then that isn't taken from annual leave is appreciated.
Comments (4)
I guess we could offer an alternative:
a) Day off b) Cash daily rate x 1.5 Comments (12)
I am a small business owner and a female and I have never worried about employing females. I have worried more about employing males for reasons that make males in general more risky than females in general when it comes to performance at work. Your sexism does you no good. I was considering becoming your customer, but not now. Your candid sexist view on why you would not hire women has just stopped me.
Comment (1)
Although I think I understand what you are saying my view can't really be described as "sexist".
Some jobs are not suitable to females just as some jobs are not suitable to males. That is simply a fact and cannot be described as "sexist". To be so 'doctrinaire' to the point that a person insists that all jobs must be made equally available to people irrespective of gender is the sheerest nonsense and ignores the fact that the different genders, of themselves, impose 'exclusions' in some circumstances. In any event, a small business has many, many financial restraints that larger businesses don't have - to insist that all businesses have similar circumstances is equally silly. Comments (12)
A problem might be that an incentive for not taking a sickie could (legally?) be taken as a penalty for taking a sickie?
Comment (1)
I'm sure some union influenced apology for logical government will always find a way to make nonsense out of commonsense.
Comments (12)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |