I read today that Tesco are "clamping down" on people taking time off sick by not paying them the first 3 days. I think this is quite outrageous. It punishes the majority who will only take time off when they are genuinely ill and need to be off work. As a result, staff will be forced into working when they shouldn't be, spreading any bugs they may have and making the workforce ill and unhappy at having to work when they should be in bed. I don't fancy having groceries being put out by someones snot-infested hands either. People taking 'sickies' are a problem for businesses, but this is not the solution to it.

I propose as an alternative that staff are given, say, 4 extra paid holiday days per year, but ZERO sick leave unless in severe circumstances, i.e. longer term illnesses. That way, staff can use their extra holiday for when they are ill, or have a hangover, but if they use it all up and get sick they have no one to blame but themselves. Also, people who never or rarely get sick wouldn't have to work more than their unhealthy counterparts, which is a bit unfair.

The moment I heard of this I tried immediately to contact TESCO via there website to tell them to shove my future business up their a**e, so strong were my feeling over it. However, I couldn't find the bit that says contact us.
TESCO can still shove my Business up their a**e as i'm not stuck for alternatives.
besides if I want some company thats made it's name with 9p cans of beans I can go to NETTO.
and If I want posh shopping I will continue with M&S and Waitrose when it arrives.
What next from them parking charges?
deposits on trolleys?
admission charges?
So long TESCO it was nice knowing you before you found yourself more important than the people that built up your business in the first place!

It's not that uncommon for businesses to do this.

Your post made me laugh though, T3P0.

Cheers.

you obviously didn't look further than radio 1 for your story either.

They are actually trialling 3 schemes, all of which have been suggested by staff, not management.

1 is as you say, no pay for the first 3 days off sick.
2 is as similar to your suggestion. Anyone taking 0 sick days in a year will get 3 bonus days of holiday next year.
3 i'm not sure.

apparently the initiatives are in response to complaints from staff who are left short handed by others calling in sick at the last minute (as if you can plan it in advance).
They have a particular problem during events such as euro 2k4 and the previous world cup.

Another point is that disciplining staff has little effect (firstly because it's hard to identify 100% scivers) and secondly because it's not a career, the people are obviously unconcerned with being sacked, but will be concerned with loosing 3 days pay.

Sorry,but i don't really see what the big deal is.:confused:

If i'm off work sick i dont get paid,simple as that.

Originally posted by t020
It punishes the majority who will only take time off when they are genuinely ill and need to be off work.

That was my first impression, but if you think about it, the reason this is being introduced is not just cost, but because as Cyclone pointed out the staff themselves are fed up with having to cover for lazy work shy collegues. The unions are behind it too.
That said, the option of bonuses for those with no sick pay is an interesting idea too.
It's sad that people are so lazy in this country that rules like this have to be brought in. I don't know if it's still true but a nationwide survey a few years back found that Sheffield was actually the worst place in the country for people skiving off work.

With regards to Euro 2004 I personally think that when situations like this come around, whenever England is involved in a game the staff should take a vote.

Obviously a skeleton crew minimum should apply, but first come first serve (or names out of a hat) that would be able to take the days as extra paid holiday on top of there normal allowance.

I would also BAN sick pay for the two week period.

Next, those who DO work those days, get an extra holiday day for each that they work, added on to their entitlement to take whenever they want.

That was, those who like footy, know they'll get to see it.
Those who dont care less, wont lose out either.

I'd also make St Georges Day a paid day off too.

But then I would be a great boss!

They did quite a good thing where I work during the World Cup. All staff were allowed out of work to go and watch the football if it was during working hours, so long as you didn't drink and made up the time at a later date. And because half the staff here are foreign (translation company) if you were of a nationality that didn't have a team in the world cup, you could pick a nation that was, to make it fairer. Worked well and everyone was happy.
Probably harder to arrange that at places like Tesco where a much greater percentage of staff are customer facing.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
With regards to Euro 2004 I personally think that when situations like this come around, whenever England is involved in a game the staff should take a vote.

Obviously a skeleton crew minimum should apply, but first come first serve (or names out of a hat) that would be able to take the days as extra paid holiday on top of there normal allowance.

I would also BAN sick pay for the two week period.

Next, those who DO work those days, get an extra holiday day for each that they work, added on to their entitlement to take whenever they want.

That was, those who like footy, know they'll get to see it.
Those who dont care less, wont lose out either.

I'd also make St Georges Day a paid day off too.

But then I would be a great boss!

why can't they take it out of their existing holiday?

Some people may be genuinely sick, in fact in an organisation that size, it's almost guaranteed that some will in a 2 week period. A bit harsh for them, particularly if they don't like football.

At my place, you are allowed 3.25% of your working hours a year off, before you get an official warning. However I only work 13 hours a week, so I have recieved every year i have worked there!! As it works out to be three days a year!

Originally posted by Cyclone
why can't they take it out of their existing holiday?

Some people may be genuinely sick, in fact in an organisation that size, it's almost guaranteed that some will in a 2 week period. A bit harsh for them, particularly if they don't like football.
Ok how about a compromise.
Sick days would be allowed (well paid at least) provided that during those two weeks a Doctors Note from the Company Registered Doctor was provided.

Originally posted by DaBouncer
With regards to Euro 2004 I personally think that when situations like this come around, whenever England is involved in a game the staff should take a vote.

Obviously a skeleton crew minimum should apply, but first come first serve (or names out of a hat) that would be able to take the days as extra paid holiday on top of there normal allowance.

I would also BAN sick pay for the two week period.

Next, those who DO work those days, get an extra holiday day for each that they work, added on to their entitlement to take whenever they want.

That was, those who like footy, know they'll get to see it.
Those who dont care less, wont lose out either.

I'd also make St Georges Day a paid day off too.

But then I would be a great boss!

DaB for Prime Minister! :D

Lol, well anybody would be be better than the muppet show that is the Labour government at the moment.

To be honest t020, it seems fairly obvious to me that you've never had a proper full time job before.

When I used to work full time there was one colleague who was off work more than she was there. It was very blatent that most of her days off were not genuine, but she always produced a sick note so there was not a lot anyone could do. She was caught out when I personally drove her home because she said she was not feeling well, then half an hour after that she was spotted in a bar by a colleague on the other shift.

But anyway, my point is that I think most people who have days off sick are either being petty, hung over or simply can't be arsed. As far as I can remember I only had one day off work, and that was because I had a hangover. I wouldn't complain if I was docked pay for that.

But what if you had a bad cold or a 24hr bug and really couldn't face work/ didn't want everyone else to catch it? I've no objection to stamping out skivers, but I don't think people should be forced into working when ill or face not being paid, which is why I think the solution I outlined in my initial post (or the one Cyclone mentions in his) are much fairer ideas all round.

I don't really see the objection though. If you're not at work then you shouldn't get paid, ill or not. If you are genuinely ill then you're hardly likely to miss a days pay.

We, like a lot of companies, operate the 3 day system as it's easier to operate along side SSP rules which have a 3 day waiting period. It deters ppl from abusing the company sick pay benefit. Genuine sickness is not an issue and after the waiting period full sick pay is usually awarded - subject to length of service.

Ppl "chucking a sickie" with a cold or a hangover cause no end of chaos for thier colleagues and I don't see why they should be paid to stay at home with the sniffles whilst someone else's work load gets doubled.

Because perhaps "the sniffles" are actually quite bad? You can't seriously expect people to go to work when they're sneazing/ nose blowing every few minutes and coughing and spluttering all over the place, can you? On top of that, bad colds usually involve headaches and general fatigue. People could drag themselves into work with a bad cold, but they won't be very productive or happy, and will spread the cold even more so more of the workforce are ill.

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't really see the objection though. If you're not at work then you shouldn't get paid, ill or not. If you are genuinely ill then you're hardly likely to miss a days pay.

Sick pay has been a standard perk of most jobs for decades. What you're saying is like saying people shouldn't get paid for going on holiday/ going to the dentist/ being called up for jury service, etc. Also, if you're genuinely ill and poor, a days pay is a lot of money and the result would be the worker being forced into working whilst ill just to pick up the pay. Bad for the worker - having to work when ill isn't pleasant. Bad for his/her colleagues - they are likely to catch the illness. Bad for the company - an unhappy workforce is an unmotivated and unproductive workforce.

Originally posted by beckb
We, like a lot of companies, operate the 3 day system as it's easier to operate along side SSP rules which have a 3 day waiting period. It deters ppl from abusing the company sick pay benefit. Genuine sickness is not an issue and after the waiting period full sick pay is usually awarded - subject to length of service.

Ppl "chucking a sickie" with a cold or a hangover cause no end of chaos for thier colleagues and I don't see why they should be paid to stay at home with the sniffles whilst someone else's work load gets doubled.

I totally agree:clap:
When I was an employee I had to be on deaths door to let my mates down.
Now as an employer, I expect the same loyalties.
I recently let a trainee go as he had taken what amounted to two weeks (10 days) off in a five week period.
I'm no national company by far, just a brickey who's taken the risk and gone on his own.
When someones letting you down in this manner, you loose money, hold up others and upset customers with delays.
Yeah everybody gets sick from time to time but if your gonna get paid every time you "chuck one", where's the incentive to go to work in the first place?:huh:

Originally posted by t020
Sick pay has been a standard perk of most jobs for decades. What you're saying is like saying people shouldn't get paid for going on holiday/ going to the dentist/ being called up for jury service, etc. Also, if you're genuinely ill and poor, a days pay is a lot of money and the result would be the worker being forced into working whilst ill just to pick up the pay. Bad for the worker - having to work when ill isn't pleasant. Bad for his/her colleagues - they are likely to catch the illness. Bad for the company - an unhappy workforce is an unmotivated and unproductive workforce.

I don't know where you have been working for decades T020 but sick pay is not a standard perk of most jobs - its tends to come with length of service, type of job etc and I don't get paid for going to the dentist - I am allowed a certain amount of time but this has to be made up at some point.

I'm sure you would have a different view of sick pay if you had to do the administration for it and the staff planning to cover those off sick. In the real world taking advantage or abusing sick pay and leave costs businesses extra time and money which is also unproductive and inefficient.

Originally posted by beckb
the real world taking advantage or abusing sick pay and leave costs businesses extra time and money which is also unproductive and inefficient.

In the real world though a bad cold is a bad cold, and people do get them from time to time. They should not be punished for this.

Originally posted by t020
In the real world though a bad cold is a bad cold, and people do get them from time to time. They should not be punished for this.

Achooo! I have had a bad cold for the last three days but I have been at work! We are extremely busy and I don't want to let my colleagues down.

Whether being paid or not, I would still go to work because we are busy and its only a cold.

Originally posted by t020
What you're saying is like saying people shouldn't get paid for going on holiday/ going to the dentist/ being called up for jury service, etc.
What a ridiculous argument!

1. You only get so much paid holiday in a year, which stops people taking the ****.
2. People should arrange to go to the dentist out of work hours or in a lunch break, and I'm sure not many people take a whole day off work for it. If they do take a whole day off work for it, then of course they shouldn't be paid.
3. If you're called up for jury service, the court should compensate you for the time you've missed at work.

Anyway, there's a simple answer if you disagree with what Tescos is doing; just don't work at Tescos. If I worked there then I'd be welcoming this because it would mean that my workload is less likely to double because some loser decided to go out on the lash the night before their shift.

Originally posted by t020
In the real world though a bad cold is a bad cold, and people do get them from time to time. They should not be punished for this.

That's not the point, though. This is about people taking days off work for no good reason (hangover, football match etc), and then ringing in claiming to be sick.

As I understand it, as things stand, companies are not legally obliged to pay employees for the first 3 days off sick, anyway, but most do so as a goodwill gesture.

Youve got to look at it form the employers perspective really. If someone is not there doing any work then why should they get paid - they are not contributing and are not doing the job they are paid to do. Having said that if i went to my work ill i could spread it to all the patients and if i went into somewhere like the ICU or the SCBU i could end up killing someone because of my cold - so i should have the day off - but i should use this as a holiday. Maybe we should have a few extra holiday days to compensate for possibility of illness?? Maybe getting ill should just be one of those unfortunate things that happen and we should just take it out of our existing holiday. Its just plain unfortunate if you get ill a lot. Maybe we should try changing our diets and boosting our immune systems up a bit, or maybe we should learn to cope with illness and get on with things, either way, not getting paid to lounge around at home ill would probably spur people on to do this.

I dont know ive just confused myself now i dont know whose side im on!

If I have a cold (which is the most common illness), I'm not normally ill enough to be unable to work. And I have two or maybe three colds a year. I'm hardly ever so ill that I can't face doing any work; unless I'm hung over, which is self inflicted so I don't feel I should be paid for it.

Originally posted by t020
Sick pay has been a standard perk of most jobs for decades.
Rubbish! Blimey – I wouldn’t have put t020 down as a hypochondriac! :roll: :D

Originally posted by t020
What you're saying is like saying people shouldn't get paid for going on holiday/ going to the dentist/ being called up for jury service, etc. Nope, they aren't things that your employer should pay you for either:shakes:


Anyway, for those of who actually have jobs and work, having people off sick for no good reason is a real pain in the bum.

Most sickies are in fact hangover recovery which makes me VERY angry.

I am quite happy for people to be genuinely sick providing they don’t mind being genuinely sacked when they skive.

Here’s a clue – when people get someone to call in sick for them – that’s all the proof that they should really be at work. I don’t remember ever knowing anyone so sick that they couldn’t use the phone, but somehow couldn’t provide a doctors certificate.:huh:

The people I employed were so predictable that I knew who was going to be off "sick" next and after the perk was stopped it improved their health, from almost 200 days lost through sickness in one year it went down to less than 40 the next year..coincidence ! no way. they used to work it so that they had day one on a Friday then off Saturday and Sunday then day two was Monday then a miraculous recovery on the Tuesday, nice long rest all with pay...good on Tesco for standing up to be counted and not penalising the honest workers

Originally posted by beckb
Achooo! I have had a bad cold for the last three days but I have been at work! We are extremely busy and I don't want to let my colleagues down.

Whether being paid or not, I would still go to work because we are busy and its only a cold.

Bet you go to work and think you're a real hero for being brave and working thru the cold. The truth is that it is damn annoying to have someone sick at work coughing, sneezing, spreading their disease so I get it then my partner gets it then the kids get it.
I'd rather that person just sod off home and get better.

Anyway, are you better now t020? Nah just kidding.

I personally wouldn't like to go shopping and see someone with a heavy cold working around food. I thought places where food was involved were pretty strict on hygiene and food-handling etc.
I've also read somewhere that the workers of the UK work longer hours than any other work-force on the continent so I'm not suprised people blag days off if they're work worn.

Maybe the EU should look into this instead of banning food flavours and other trifling things.

it's not difficult in most companies to deal with people skiving. Just compare the average number of periods off sick and average length of sickness for each employee to the norm. Too far off the average then you get a warning, carries on and you get sacked.

I think t020 is right in that almost all salaried jobs (not paid by the hour) have included sick pay as a standard benefit for quite a while.

Taking sickness out of your holiday is a ridiculous idea. What if I break my leg and spend 3 months in hospital. I'll have had a lovely holiday won't I!

The thing about letting colleagues down depends on the type of work. No-one gets any extra workload if I'm off ill for a few days, nor is it likely to cause anyone any inconvenience.

anyway, if the staff at tesco support these schemes then I've no objection.

The problem I see with the Tesco's idea is that people who are slightly ill / skiving will take more than 3 days off, when they would normally only take 1,2 e.g. 4 or 5 upto when they have to have a doctors note.

I also think it depends on the type of work you do to whether you are able to go to work with a bad cold. e.g. if you work in a supermaket, doing physical work, customer facing you should not have to go, but if you work sat in an office on your own, you should be able to go.

Unless you say you have diarrhoea. No boss can expect you to come in with that lol :D

Originally posted by Cyclone
Taking sickness out of your holiday is a ridiculous idea. What if I break my leg and spend 3 months in hospital. I'll have had a lovely holiday won't I! Ah, but THAT is genuine sick leave.

I've known people who have got a day off booked, and then get poorly so they try to cancel the day off so they can be sick in works time. Can you believe that!


Originally posted by Cyclone
The thing about letting colleagues down depends on the type of work. No-one gets any extra workload if I'm off ill for a few days, nor is it likely to cause anyone any inconvenience.
It certainly will in most firms, (unless you work for the Council where it often seems that the rest of the outside world can go hang if someone is on long term sick leave) because firms don't carry extra staff 'just in case'.

Firms have deadlines, machines to operate, reports to write, customers to serve, etc. If that person who should be doing that is off sick someone else has to do it - so who does their job?

When I used to work for Claire's Accessories, I never got any sick pay.... If I felt unwell and rang in sick, they'd try to get me to come in anyways, then if I refused they'd be all huffy with me about it (despite giving hours of notice) and then I wouldn't get any sick pay... Not on :(

Originally posted by wibbles
Bet you go to work and think you're a real hero for being brave and working thru the cold. The truth is that it is damn annoying to have someone sick at work coughing, sneezing, spreading their disease so I get it then my partner gets it then the kids get it.
I'd rather that person just sod off home and get better.
But the thing is, when there's a cold going around, it's highly likely that you'll catch it sooner or later. It doesn't really matter if the person with the cold comes into work or not, most colds are contagious before any symptoms are shown.

Originally posted by wibbles
Bet you go to work and think you're a real hero for being brave and working thru the cold. The truth is that it is damn annoying to have someone sick at work coughing, sneezing, spreading their disease so I get it then my partner gets it then the kids get it.
I'd rather that person just sod off home and get better.

No I don't think I am a real hero for going to work with a cold.
If any of my cold germs have infultrated your family I sincerely apologise.
:sad:

We get up to 10 days paid sick leave per year (beyond that you need a doctors note). Suffice to say that there are certain individuals who are always sick for exactly 10 days each year.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
We get up to 10 days paid sick leave per year (beyond that you need a doctors note). Suffice to say that there are certain individuals who are always sick for exactly 10 days each year.
The things is, that rule is unenforcable.
You are allowed legally to self certify for the first 7 days of any sick period.
Therfore if someone who had been sick for 10 days in any rolling year, then was off sick again wouldn't HAVE TO get a doctors note if they didn't want. Any sacking for not doing so can be taken to a tribunal. However it is down to the company if they decided to PAY after those 10 days are up!

Originally posted by Sidla
But the thing is, when there's a cold going around, it's highly likely that you'll catch it sooner or later. It doesn't really matter if the person with the cold comes into work or not, most colds are contagious before any symptoms are shown.

Staff snotting and sneezing all over apples is not an appealing sight for most customers. Each to their own though.

How often have you seen anyone doing that though?

I don't buy apples anyway, so I wouldn't care.

Maybe each branch should have a medical expert. If you feel ill then you go in and see the expert. If you genuinly are ill then he'll send you home and you'll recieve sick pay. If you don't go in at all, or you're simply hung over then you'll recieve no pay.

I've seen 'em do it Sidla on more than one occasion - I've also seen bar tenders sneezing far too close to a pint before. :rolleyes:

Oh, so you need someone at the company to decide whether it's 'genuine' or not.

Someone else suggested that tescos staff would just take longer off now. Even if they are off for 5 days, they still don't get pay for the first 3, so they gain nothing.

Re: sickness in holidays, yes I can believe it, I can reclaim holiday if I'm sick during it, although I suspect i would be expected to present a doctors note.

It's the nature of the work isn't it. When your deadline is 6 months away and the work is fluid as to who does what any company with a modicum of common sense will have worked out the time required taking into account holidays and average amounts of sickness. I think the average is 5 days in the UK, it's not difficult to factor it into your staffing equations.

The problem comes when you get hotspots in the year ie when the footie is on.

Originally posted by Tony
Ah, but THAT is genuine sick leave.

I've known people who have got a day off booked, and then get poorly so they try to cancel the day off so they can be sick in works time. Can you believe that!



It certainly will in most firms, (unless you work for the Council where it often seems that the rest of the outside world can go hang if someone is on long term sick leave) because firms don't carry extra staff 'just in case'.

Firms have deadlines, machines to operate, reports to write, customers to serve, etc. If that person who should be doing that is off sick someone else has to do it - so who does their job?

Originally posted by Cyclone
Oh, so you need someone at the company to decide whether it's 'genuine' or not.
Maybe, that was just something I came up with while thinking about it. It would certainly stop the moaners.

Originally posted by Sidla
How often have you seen anyone doing that though?


Exactly! You don't, because when the staff are ill they take the day(s) off, thus not snotting all over the apples/fruits/breads/ anything else. Once they are economically forced into working when ill though, I think it will become a regular (and disgusting) sight.

So to drag the thread back on topic, how do you stop people from abusing a the system because they have a hangover or fancy a lie in?

It's all well and good being off if you're ill, nobody is moaning really about that, its just that lots and lots of people treat work as a paid hobby.

In answer to your question Tony, there was a company a few years back where one of the managers would randomly visit those off sick with a box of chocs or bouquet of flowers with the message Get well soon. After a few occasions where he found people out or mowing the lawns the ad hoc sickie rate soon dropped off.

I like that! :thumbsup:

Any decent HR department should spot an abnormal pattern of illness a mile off. At which point you discipline the person. If it continues, you sack them.

Indicators include illness often being for only 1 or 2 days, greater than average incidence of illness, illness occuring at week-end or week-start consistently, etc...

That's fine if you have a HR department. What about those hundreds of thousands of small firms that don't? Remember that employees have more rights than employers these days.

if they're that small, then whoever does manage the place can easily stick together a spreadsheet of sick days and should be on the ball anyway as to who is taking the ****.

But i'm pretty sure that tescos has an HR department.

Originally posted by Tony
Remember that employees have more rights than employers these days.

Nice throw away line there Tony. Care to expand, give examples and explain what happened to employee rights throughout the 80s?

Well I couldn't comment on the 80's Max, but certainly now it is VERY difficult to sack someone unless they have been there less than a year. The rise of industrial tribunals is being abused by lots of employees (not all I hasten to add) as a quick way to get a payout and keep your job.

imo it's even easier now to sack someone. It's only companies who are blatant in their discrimination (or failure to prevent discrimination) or lax in their disciplinary procedures who find themselves in front of tribunals. The so-called rise in tribunals is in proportion to the decline in the power of the trades unions to protect employees, imo.

Well I have to disagree there. My firm was subject to 2 totally false tribunal claims, both of which cost around £5k without actually going to the tribunal.

I can see little evidence of it being difficult to sack people. And much evidence of this being a tesco's managment problem that they have inadequately failed to address.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I can see little evidence of it being difficult to sack people. And much evidence of this being a tesco's managment problem that they have inadequately failed to address. Ho hum, I just mentioned it through a little bit of actual real life bitter experience. Sorry if that doesn't suit. :(

As for Tesco, it looks like they are addressing it now doesn't it?

they are only addressing it after the people on the shop floor made a fuss. It should never have reached this stage.

I've seen people sacked at work and made redundant. As long as there is a genuine reason, backed up by documentary evidence it's not a problem.

At the end of the day I feel this particular system is sending a 'we don't trust/believe you' message out to the staff which I can't help feeling is a bad thing. I've read that this particular system was first been trialled in new stores which I feel will be see a reduction in the absense percentages. The problem will come when/if trying to incorporate this into more etablished areas of the business with more established staff. This will have a terrible affect on staff moral.

Stuff staff moral. If those who abused the system were shopped by those who didn't, everyone who deserved sick pay would get it and the scroungers would be kicked out for defrauding the company and their fellow employees.

Sharing around the pay that wasn't wasted would be great for rmoral don't you think?

Stand up and be counted!

Stuff staff moral? What kind of an attitude is that? :o

It's not as simple as that though. Genuine people who are off sick will feel the brunt of this policy. It's not going to address the sciving problem IMO, but yes it will save money but erode loyalty of the more dilligent workers who are probably not on the best of pay as it is.

as an EX employee of Tesco i thought i might tell you about my experience!
i had only worked at tesco for about a week and a half when i caught some sort of virus that was absolutely hideuous! i was at work at the time when i first felt the effects of this illness. won't go through all the symptoms but after trying to struggle on for about 2 hours i ended up vomiting for about 20 minutes in the toilet, had blurred vision and could hardly stand up without nearly falling over. my work mates all rallied round sat me down and called my line manager who said that i looked so bad she would take me home herself. my manger said however, that she didn't have the authority to send me home and that i would have to see the higher management for authorisation. so i did. the member of higher mangement was on their dinner break and would not come from the dining room to their office (next door!) to see me privately. instead they asked me in front of the entire staff canteen what was the matter with me and why did i want to go home. i explained that i had been sent up by my boss to ask if i could go home as i wasn't well. i'm not kidding i looked awful and i am not the type to wag it or go home with just the sniffles. i was then asked if i "was sure" i wanted to go home as they would not tolerate sickies!! i was almost sick on them at this point, through sheer disgust. anyway after much deliberation i was allowed home where i spent 4 days in bed not been able to move my legs or see properly! when i returned to work i had to have a meeitng called a "welcome back review" it was the most unwelcoming thing i have ever experienced, i was made to feel like a liar and a cheat, which i am not and so do not appreciate this type of behaviour. i was then told that if i had any more days off sick within the next 3 months i would be put on a report system where i would have to have meetings with them every week to ensure that i was not intending to have any more days off ill. as if you know!!they also told me that i would have to sign something to say that i wouldn't take anymore time off and if i did i would be in breach of contract!! i have to say that they are the worst company i have ever worked for, and the reason i left?! well no it wasn't actually because of this incident, it was the fact that i worked there for nearly 5 months with out being paid properly!! they they failed to pay me 2/3 of my wages each month and on the wages there it isn't a lot to start with! and yet they threatened me with breach of contract!! it took me another two months after i left before they paid me what they owed me! down with Tesco, thats what i say!!!!!! sorry to go on but it has made me really mad remembering what happened.

That's not the sort of thing I like to see from an employer. However, I still support the 'day off sick - no pay' policy simply because so many people do take the p***.

Workcare provides new ways to support people who are sick to get them back into work.

If you've been off 2-26 weeks
If you live in Sheffield and surrounding areas

Then they can help you with free advice and treatment

0800 0526528

email: workcaresheffield@callpoint.co.uk