Company has given a premium number to phone in when sick

[Allwood]

Well generalised and discriminated against us "young people". :-|

 

People that are retired and choose to work instead of claiming of the state because we are of a generation that worked all their lives and and paid for a good state pension but instead the government does not want to know as they only give out pittance as state pension.

 

Look at for instance woman that brought up a family and stayed at home to bring their children up and give them a good start in life these very same woman were told by governments that they did not have to worry as they could claim on their husbands pension. What a joke that was, I know plenty of widows that are working to make ends meet. They know they could claim tax credits but would have fill-in reams of forms to get probably get pittance but choose not to do so because they believe in the work ethics.

 

As for discrimination against younger people, that is a joke, look at what is available for younger people nowadays. They do not have to work and live in a mansion at the tax payers expense. Now how can that be right.

 

Pictures from inside the luxury £1.2 million mansion in west London rented by Afghan mum-of-seven Toorpakai Saiedi on benefits | News | News Of The World

Edited October 17, 2008 by Allwood

[MrShed]

One person - not young people.

 

Stop generalising.

[Allwood]

You can confirm that there is no more people like this can you???

 

If that is the case then let us have the evidence of it ie where can I find it.... you know there is plenty of people doing it but you as a council's employee do not have the political will to do anything about it.

 

Brown taxed the poorest people in the country recently so you will say that did not happen either. That 10p in the pound did a lot of damage to people on the breadline. However some others cannot do anything wrong.

[MrShed]

I'm backing out of this -EDIT . please refrain from personal attacks

Edited October 18, 2008 by pt2537
see above message

[Allwood]

Edit Please Refrain From Personal Attacks:-|

Edited October 18, 2008 by pt2537
see message above

[patdavies]

No, but I will.

 

You, Allwood, are making sweeping generalisations about the young and trying to score political points about how hard it is being old.

 

Mr Shed has, obviously to your displeasure, pointed out that not everybody can be tarred with the same brush.

 

You quote one case and claim it is not the only one; when, in truth, to back-up your generalisation, you need to prove it is true in every young person's case.

 

I have reported your last post because

 

a) I don't feel that Mr Shed deserves to be vilified by your apparently bigoted and blinkered views, and

b) I think it breaches site guidelines.

[pt2537]

I have edited two posts on this thread, please do not resort to personal attacks

 

just because someone has a different view to that which you hold , it does not mean they should then be personally attacked for holding that view

[Zamzara]

You quote one case and claim it is not the only one; when, in truth, to back-up your generalisation, you need to prove it is true in every young person's case.

 

And let's examine the one case quoted:-

 

- It's an exceptionally unusual situation

- It emphasizes the person's race rather non-subtely

- The higher figures quoted are the amount going to the private landlord, not to the claimant

- The council chose to rehouse her there as an emergency measure, it wasn't her choice and if she had chosen to live there herself housing benefit wouldn't have covered 1/10 of the rent.

- Three people were sacked so the councils decision was probably unlawful anyway

 

If they had chosen to report on the last two points and focus on the incompetence, fair enough, but instead it's a pseudo-racist, ignorant attack on all benefit claimants.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Zamzara

[Jimbo44]

The vast majority of this Thread has moved far away from the original issue highlighted by the OP; namely employers using third party companies/organisations to "manage sickness in the workforce". May I be permitted to return to the subject?

 

I do have some experience in this from an employee's point of view. My employer, a large local company with a payroll in excess of 1,000, contracted a thrid party cpompany to do just this about two years ago. Employees reporting sick had to ring this company and the details of their illness and expected return-to-work-date were recorded. Once the details were recorded the company would email the appropriate manager at the employer and the employee was then officially "off sick". A further 'phone call had to be made to report the employee's intention to return to work and a further email was sent to the manager.

 

It was a complete and utter shambles!! The wrong managers at the wrong depots were informed Joe Bloggs had reported sick....and had no idea who Joe Bloggs was. The same happened after the return-to-work 'phone calls from the employee too!

 

The "sickness management company" always offered to put the employee through to a "qualified nurse" when a report of absence was made by the employee. From personal experience I seriously doubted the "qualifications" of the so-called "nurse" and I know of at least one instance where an employee was told to take aspirin when the medication prescribed by his GP (which the "qualifed nurse" was aware of) had specific, well known contra-indications with aspirin!! According to his GP he could have died if he had taken the "advice" given!!

 

The employer was told by the trade union before the scheme's inception that it would not work in practice but, as with many employers, "they knew better"! It lasted six months before the company extricated themselves from the contract and reverted to the status quo! The cost to them in actual running and administration costs was, I believe, colossal!

 

My advice, from personal experience, to anyone who's employer adopts a scheme like this is to go along with it (obviously, they have no choice), but only do the absolute minimum as far as talking to the "reporting company" is concerned. In essence, be very, very wary, especially of any "medical advice" given!!!!!!

[jbabf1]

Hi it is a mobile number not a chargeable number like 0870 & 0845

but if you do come across those type of numbers i have found a very useful sight SAYNOTO0870.COM - Non-Geographical Alternative Telephone Numbers