excessive absenteeism
CarrieMP
21 Posts
I was wondering what other companies consider excessive abesteeism. We want to create a general policy across departments (currently every department has their own...its a nightmare!). Any info is appreciated.
Thanks
Carrie
Thanks
Carrie
Comments
Generally though, when you're out more than you're at work, it's excessive. Most employers seem to require a doctor's note if you're out more than 3 consecutive days for illness.
6 = 3 day suspension and 7 termination.
However, of course that is only one indicator and doesn't address the issue of someone who may have a catastrophic illness that could take several months to resolve.
So in addition at looking at the allocation v. actual days off, you need to put it in context -- the length of service of the employee and the attendance/absence history of the emplpyee; the cumulative detrimental impact, if any, of the absences on the operations of the employer, the delivery of services or product, the disruption and impairment of work, any poor service to the client or customer, increased costs,etc. That doesn't mean that each day of absence something negative must be happening but there should be sufficient documented instances to be representative of the problems the employee's absences are causing on the job.
For what it's worth, a general definition for excessive absences I've used is "an unreasonable number of absences over a significant period of time" when taking the various factors into account (length of service, detrimental impact, etc.).
Hopefully, the superivsor or manager prior to the issue coming to a head with a termiantion, informed the employee that there was an absence problem occuring that needed to be corrected so that the employee would not wind up being terminated.
I've backed out of this FMLA and ADA considerations as well as other legally protected absences (e.g., jury duty).
C'mon Hatchet! This analysis is waaaay to anal. And, what's excessive and what's unreasonable and what's significant and what's etc.?
So, you would consider a 20-year emplyee with docmented excellent attendance record to be excessively absent as soon as he hits 3 absences in a month merely on the fact that he was abent 3 times ina 30day period, ignoring all the previous 20 years and the lack of any impact on the ob?
If you're stopped going 85 down the interstate the cop doesn't give a hoot if it's your first ticket.
Also, if an employee fails to show up for a mandatory meeting and has not made arrangements in advance not to be there, they are charged with a tardy.
I hope this helps.
If your attendance/absence policy can't distinguish between an emplyee who has 20 years of service with an excellent attendance record and a one-year emplyee who has many absences, then I pity your workforce. There is no advantage to a long-term, good working employee in your company over a short problem employee because both are going to be treated exactly the same in all situations.
I think most HR professionals would take into account relelvant factors, such as of length of service, actual history, record with the company (attendance) emplyee's value to the company, the needs of the comapny, and the impact absences are having on the job.
Not every HR professional would make the same decision in the same situations -- reasonable people do differ -- but at least they would look at the individual cases and decide how to proceed using a consistency between SIMILARLY-SITUATED employees, not a blanket, "one-size fits all" approach, without regard to relevant factors.
Just thinking through it a bit, I am wondering if the application of Hatchetman's approach is limited to some fairly large employers. With our 65 EEs, it would be difficult to come up with meaningful groups of similarly-situated EEs. We have just 4 different departments, each has it's own attendance criteria based not only on the department's function, but on program functions within the departments. Then years of service differentials are peppered throughout. Add in exempt and non-exempt differentials and remoted office eccentricites and you start getting a complex equation.
Trying define the similarly situated EEs, distinguishing those differences within each program and department and then trying to track them and their different treatments would be quite difficult. I would think large employers would have an exponentially more difficult task. I think I am talking myself into sticking with the consistent application. Justifying different treatments seems like a quagmire.
Just some thoughts.
I would not want the task of supporting your idea in a union setting, an EEOC examination or a UI hearing. But, as is often said here, I support your right to have your opinion.
You discipline/term the 2 yr ee but not the 20 yr ee. I see an EEOC hearing in your future.
Length of service is important but your policies are there for ALL your ee's not just the lower senority ee's.
JMO,
Lisa
The mere fact that the employer treated each emplyee indvidually based upon specific facts that aren't based on race, relgion, national origina, sex, etc., doesn't give the basis for an EEOC investigation.
Even if one employee, the 2-year employee, was black and the other one, the 20 year employee, was white, for example, doesn't mean that the indivdual evaluation is based upon an illegal discirminatory act. While EEOC would probably look into it, given the apparent difference in races, if the employer proffers, with evidence (e.g., a record where such decisions were also favorable to blacks who had many years of service) a non-discriminatory basis for the decision, I'm sure EEOC would find no illegal discrimination occurring.
In my involvement over many years in union setting, reading court cases and arbitrator's decisions involving terminations and decisions on attendance/absences, I constantly have come across the factors I mentioned above as viable considerations for an employer.
Unexcused or unauthorized absence’s beyond six days per year will be considered excessive and can be grounds for disciplinary action, dismissal or status changed to part time status with no benefits. Additionally, absence beyond four days in a six month period may be noted in the employees personnel file and can also be grounds for disciplinary action, dismissal or a change in employment status.
We are a non-union shop. I find the argument for treating similarly situated employees compelling, but not practical. Our folks know the policy, have signed an acknowledgement & a long-term employee knows better than to not seek prior approval or at least give a heads up to either HR or their supervisor about the circumstances (not the details) of their absences. The direction the company takes in regards to deciding the necessary corrective action/termination all depends on the information the ee provides as an explanation for their absences - regardless of time on the job.
Does not go into race, age, sex that is irrelevant to this discussion and only adds more
factors. What is being discussed is your companies attendance policy and how you as an individual company wishes to enforce that policy.
I feel that while the company is grateful for the 20 yrs of service, the ee is also taking advantage of the company by not expecting to be disciplined for something that a lower senority ee would be receiving. You are setting yourself up for double standards and policies for the under 10 yr ee and the over 10 yr ee.
JMO,
Lisa x:D
Welcome back! Its been awhile.
Lisa
The employer sees a vluae in loyalty and the emplyee has value to the emplyer. Knowledged of the comapny, kthe time and effort the company has put into the emplyee over the years (e.g., traiing), the xpertiese of the emplyee in the comapny's service,s proucts, operations, etc.
The comapny isn't going to throw away that resoruce so quickly. So, it will address that kind of emplyee, who has a good record, differently than short-termer.
I am not saying that a long term emplyee who has a good attendance record and begins to devleop an absence problme does't need to be talked to at some point. But the employer may want to take longer to consider that the emplyee is an attendnace problme than it would in considering a short-termer to be an attendance problem. After all, the history of the emplyee is a very good indicator, absent any other information, of how the employee will act over the long term. Since the employer has no information about a short termer to consider, it would be morel likely then to consider frequent absences to be indicative of the long term employment and therefore would take steps to address sooner than the employee who has long term service with a good attendnace record up to that point.
So, in practicality, an automatic "tripwire" for ALL circumstances, doesn't make sense.
I don't know what type of arbitrations or EEOC hearings you've been in, but I can tell you for sure none I've been in would allow an employer to have such a wishy-washy, subjective policy as you are proposing to the members of the Forum. But, please, using the four employees I exampled above, all with the same attendance issues, which ones get what..........and why? And to further complicate things with reality, remember that attendance issues continue to occur, as they always do, throughout each day and week while you decide and you have several others wanting to know what your policy is going to be so they can plan their behavior appropriately.
I think we as HR professionals have an obligation to use our knowledge and experience to make decisions. If it were a simple matter of flipping to page 1120 of the employee handbook or policy and reading what it says then there is no need for an HR professional as anyone who can read can make the call.
I believe that to make a proper and decent and defendable decision on disciplinary matters, one has to review ALL the facts associated with the situation including length of prior service and performance.
In the case of a 20 year good performer vs a 2 year poor performer, I have no problem whatsoever in giving a verbal to the 20 year and written to the 2 year.
If there is a problem, it's when people take this philosophy too far and fire the 2 year employee and no one even speaks with the 20 year person.
The fact that I don't have a bright line doesn't invalidate what I am and others are suggesting. Being arbitrary by setting attendance standards that aren't based on anything except an artificial number, is just as bad as being capricious. I'm not proposing either.
I am suggesting considered deliberations by those who need to make them with a view of the overall circumstances and determinations on relevantm, acceptable factors, such as work history and length of service.