'Plane Crash.

[spook]

 

 

I believe I posted it earlier in the thread, but in my opinion if someone in that sort of job is found to be suicidal the doctor should be able to contact their employer and (without giving details) say "This person is unfit to work until I say otherwise".

That might put other suicidal pilots off seeking treatment and lead to more planes being crashed.

 

Why would it? They can't fire you for being signed off on the sick.

 

But a person can be declared redundant if unfit for the job for which he was first employed and no other post exists to which he is suited. It's a bit of a torturous process in the UK and usually ends up going down the 'early retirement' path. In the UK a person may also be dismissed on medical grounds is found to be unfit to do the job for which he was employed.

 

So yes, a person CAN be fired for being 'signed off sick'.

[spook]

Who would want to work in a toilet : ) ?

Bell?

[spook]

The bottom line is that the very best security in the world in virtually all cases end up being compromised one way or another when a lunatic is involved.

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

But a person can be declared redundant if unfit for the job

No, redundancy means the job no longer exists in the short term.

 

 

 

In the UK a person may also be dismissed on medical grounds is found to be unfit to do the job for which he was employed

And in the IOM apparently even when under medical care trying to regain fitness.

[spook]

 

 

 

But a person can be declared redundant if unfit for the job

No, redundancy means the job no longer exists in the short term.

 

 

 

In the UK a person may also be dismissed on medical grounds is found to be unfit to do the job for which he was employed

And in the IOM apparently even when under medical care trying to regain fitness.

 

Why should an employer be expected to pay for someone who has become incapable to execute the duties for which he was employed unless the disability is short term, i.e. a few weeks at most.

[ballaughbiker]

Because illness can't always be regarded as the employees fault no matter how much interested parties might want that to be seen to be the case.

 

Are you really saying that because someone is ill for > a few weeks they should be sacked?

[Albert Tatlock]

Because illness can't always be regarded as the employees fault no matter how much interested parties might want that to be seen to be the case.

 

Are you really saying that because someone is ill for > a few weeks they should be sacked?

 

Depends on the illness and the job sometimes...someone has a hearty or a stroke and not deemed safe for the job anymore...e.g bus driver. Bad back expected to regularly have to lift etc.

 

Some companies can afford more than others. A small business would find it very difficult to support longer term illness, even illnesses lasting more than a few weeks in some cases.

[ballaughbiker]

I appreciate the smaller the business the more difficult it is as you could have just one key employee who was off ill. However the law has evolved over the years to quite rightly protect the employee from the "mill-owner" in various respects and that mill owner might have to find someone temporary for long term illness or maternity leave.

 

The second situation is fairly conclusive and someone who is off on long term sick will likely have medical evidence to prove the necessary.

 

PS I've been in both situations. When I ran my own business, I had one key employee who decided to start a family and had the maximum time off allowed by the law and it made finding a temporary replacement very diificult. Decades later as an employee now, I was sacked for being ill.

[spook]

Because illness can't always be regarded as the employees fault no matter how much interested parties might want that to be seen to be the case.

 

Are you really saying that because someone is ill for > a few weeks they should be sacked?

That should be one option available. A business is about earning money, not a charity. Once an employee costs more than his added value then it's time to get rid. With certain caveats, with some form of recompense such as a payment to assist the ex employee adapt to their new position if having been a long term employee, but in essence when cost is greater than value - out the door.

[Albert Tatlock]

Isn't it still the case that some companies don't provide sick pay at all...you have to claim from govt?

[spook]

Isn't it still the case that some companies don't provide sick pay at all...you have to claim from govt?

Very true, but at the same time someone off sick means that the other costs associated with the post the person holds still have to be paid (the non renumeration portion of the loaded labour rate) and the value that the person was adding when 'at his bench' is being lost or is having to be maintained by taking a temp on.

[The Border Terrier]

 

 

 

 

But a person can be declared redundant if unfit for the job

No, redundancy means the job no longer exists in the short term.

 

 

 

In the UK a person may also be dismissed on medical grounds is found to be unfit to do the job for which he was employed

And in the IOM apparently even when under medical care trying to regain fitness.

 

Why should an employer be expected to pay for someone who has become incapable to execute the duties for which he was employed unless the disability is short term, i.e. a few weeks at most.

 

 

Chuckle, £11 million Daniel Sturridge sacked by Spook because he's rehabilitating (20+ weeks) from a hip operation.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3072655/Daniel-Sturridge-five-months-Liverpool-striker-dealt-fresh-injury-blow.html

 

Employment law (via unfair dismissal for terminating employment contract whilst the employee is signed off by the quack) disagrees with Spookie the Christian.

 

TBT.

[hillshepherd]

Because illness can't always be regarded as the employees fault no matter how much interested parties might want that to be seen to be the case.

 

Are you really saying that because someone is ill for > a few weeks they should be sacked?

 

 

 

 

why not?

[woolley]

Everything depends on the circumstances. It is perfectly possible to dismiss an employee fairly for persistent absenteeism due to sickness or anything else. Sometimes it is essential for the running of the business. Fairness turns on whether the employer has done its best to accommodate any long term capability issues in adapting the employee's work and/or whether reasonable time has been taken to assess the likelihood of the worker returning to full efficiency. It does not mean that the worker is being victimised for being ill. Often the fact of the illness is acknowledged by the employer. It just means that they can no longer do the job they are being paid for and the business has to make alternative arrangements. The law cannot compel an employer to provide long term funding to a person who is incapable of doing his job. That is what general taxation and NI is for.

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

Everything depends on the circumstances

Exactly and without knowing them it's hardly reasonable to make statements like "if you're ill for more than a few weeks you should be sacked".

 

In my case, the local company couldn't have been more helpful and supportive but their UK owners henchman was having none of it. I suppose it's always easy to sack someone you've never even met.