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, try to consolidate your policies if at all possible.
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
So, in that scenario, I will take the liberty of assuming you will not go with your policy of treating the longer-termed employee(s) differently and specially. Which further crumbles the theory you support. So we have moved from 'selective discipline based on tenure' to 'selective discipline on selective occasion, according to circumstance and repercussion'".
By the way, the original post that started this thread was just asking for what emplyers did in regard to policy on excessive absences. You now assume that she was asking about "no-fault" situaitons.
I know I said I think the debate needs to be over, but in your last post above you seem to make some assumptions about what Gilliam is saying (I agree that EEOC won't look at seniority unless it is a cover for illegal discrimination) and then trying to conclude that Gilliam's basic point Giliam makes in the series of the posts is wrong. I felt that I needed to point that out.
>06-20-04 AT 05:35 PM (CST)[/font]
>
>So, Don are you saying that EEOC would find
>Title VIIdiscirmination if the emplyer took into
>account the 20 year excellent work record of a
>black emplyee in deciding what to do with his
>pattern of many tardinesses as compared to the
>same number of absences of a 2-year problem
>black employee?
Indeed a foolish question. Of course they would not find Title VII discrimination in the case of two minorities if race were the only charge. And for the life of me I can't understand why you have interjected the scenario of one employee being an excellent one and one of them being a bad one. My sole theory is based on no fault attendance, nothing about one ee being a better employee in other regards. Let's stick to one argument at a time, if you will. My experience in this arena tells me that the EEOC would have you roll out all of your terminations over, say, a 3 year period and they would look at which were of protected group status, not which black had how much time over other blacks. Rather they would concern the investigation with why a white employee was retained under the absenteeism policy and three blacks, of less tenure, were not when the policy as written address attendance infractions and disciplinary measures for them.
If all of the players were black, the EEOC would not be involved, unless the one terminated were female or 40 years of age, or claimed violation of some other protected status. As I have said earlier, if all of the players are of like demographics, the theory you and Gillian3 support would work, to the degree that there would be no cause of action upon which to complain, in most states. But that will never be the case, will it?
>By the way, the original post that started this
>thread was just asking for what emplyers did in
>regard to policy on excessive absences. You now
>assume that she was asking about "no-fault"
>situaitons.
>
No, I don't assume that at all. I think that most of the responders spoke of their policy as no fault or similar to no fault. All of MY remarks address those policies and your arguments to me are based, I assume, on the same. The discussion took the fork of no fault attendance policies about halfway through. I only followed it along when the debate took that path.
>I know I said I think the debate needs to be
>over, but in your last post above you seem to
>make some assumptions about what Gilliam is
>saying (I agree that EEOC won't look at
>seniority unless it is a cover for illegal
>discrimination) and then trying to conclude that
>Gilliam's basic point Giliam makes in the series
>of the posts is wrong. I felt that I needed to
>point that out.
I am certain that Gillian3 will thank you for assuming what he and I meant and straightening it out for us. I note that you have not at all dealt with the fact that the practice you support will not ever be found acceptable by the EEOC in any situation of diverse demographics involving any charge(s) where one or more of the players are of protected status and some more favorably 'outcomed' are not. The reality of today's work environment certainly will match what I suggest in the above scenario every time. So, in that final analysis the corner you and Gillian3 will find yourselves in is 'which practice do we go with today since this one boxes us in on this occasion'.
Even in California, it is not good practice to change multiple policy horses in the middle of streams.
And Jake has pointed out that arbitrators acknwledge the properity of emplyers looking a length of service and work history, as well as the nature of the wrongdoing, the impact, etc., in deciding what if any disciplinary action to take.
I pointed out that even at least one civil rights law, the Equal Pay Act, does allow seniority (legth of service) to be used to determine pay. And no civil rights law as they address employment issues prohibits it.
From your posts you seem to be conceptually against using seniority and length of service.
All we are saying is that it is an appropriate consideration. The evidence is there. Whether you want to take it or not, is up to you.
As I said, there is nothing wrong with going with one-size-fits-all apporach if thet's the way you and your employer want it done, but I think that is not beneficial to the employer as well as to the long term employee.
Actually, I HAVE SAID WHAT, at least 5 or 6 times as has almost everybody who has responded herein. Violative of something? Yes, CONSISTENCY IN THE APPLICATION OF A CUT AND DRIED NO FAULT ATTENDANCE POLICY. You now go off into an analysis of considering tenure in the application of all disciplinary policies. I don't argue with that and do that myself on a daily basis. This thread is restricted by the author to one thing, attendance. That is the subject under discussion. This is not about equal pay, nor is it about what Title VII may prohibit. When an employer has a written policy regarding the charging of points or application of discipline relative to specific attendance issues, he simply does not filter it through the prism of multiple other 'what ifs' and 'wherefores' when administering it. If he does, he will certainly lose, when challenged. But, I do appreciate your argument and I have a slogan for it: "The longer you work here, the less attention you have to pay to our policies." x:-). Hatchetman; I'm tired of hearing you and me talk about this, so I can imagine the effect it might have on other casual observers.
Don, you're right. But the post did not limit it to "no-fault attendance" policies. And some of us do consider the emplyee's value to the company as demonstrated through length of service and work record to be important considerations in attendance. Remember, not everyone uses "no-fault" attendace policies.
An employer may have a policy that identifies poor attendance is not acceptable and can result in disciplinary action including discharge. The policy can identify the factors management will consider in deciding the issue. We use the allocated days for each year as an indicator but then also look at frequency, length of serivce, etc. to decide at what point management needs to start taking disciplinary action. I tneed not provide a hard a fast number. Such a policy is quite helpful, I believe, for larger employers, certainly with a couple of hundred employees.
Go back to the original post and lok at the question. And then see how some of us responded.
The issue of whether consideration of length of service and other factors are appropriate started when an individual raised arguments that such considerations would be violative of CRA, which some of your posts also subsequently argued. My responses involving CRA deal with whether such decision making would be violative of the cvil rights laws was in response to that issue.
You're probably right. We've chosen a consistent discipline approach. We only have 44,000.
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.