Fit Note, not Sick Note

#1
As of today, when one goes to a GP, one receives a Fit Note, not a Sick Note.

I'm wondering how this will impact on the chronically sick who may be able to do some tasks (thinking Whet). Apparently, under the new system, the GP can write in any tasks that he thinks the patient may be able to do short of a full-time job, unlike the old system where it's all or nothing.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/fitnote/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8599354.stm

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fit-note-employee-guide.pdf

Will it result in the sick lame and lazy being victimised, or no-good loafers being turfed out to do some work?

(To declare an interest, I just received one of them today saying I was still unfit for work, so another fortnight of looking at ARRSE and losing the will to live :x )
 
#5
flamingo said:
As of today, when one goes to a GP, one receives a Fit Note, not a Sick Note.

I'm wondering how this will impact on the chronically sick who may be able to do some tasks (thinking Whet).
Phew he's only been mentioned on two threads today 8O
 
#6
Whilst I think that the basic idea behind this scheme is good, and I hope it will benefit the country, it could lead to a rise in problems with compensation and industrial tribunals. This scheme was brought in to tackle the damage that lost productivity does to the economy, and to tackle those disability benefit fraudsters who end up costing the taxpayers. In the event that a doctor states that a person is able to carry out light duties, it is then up to the person's line manager to interpret that in his/her own way. In the event that the manager gives the person a task that aggrevates the illness/injury to the extent that permanent damage is done, the company then leaves itself open to a tribunal or compensation claim, which in turn boosts insurance premiums for all of us. Companies then becomes risk averse and you have a situation where the managers will just send the people home without trying to find work for the injured/ill person. Bear in mind you can only have so many people doing clerical work, or possibly doing jobs for which they have no training or aptitude. In the worst case scenario, the company could end up losing more money in lost productivity than if they just sent the sick/injured person home in the first place.

At least in the military the light duties proforma are very specific about what you can and can't do, and the doctors have a fair idea of what you may have to do as part of the your daily routine. The chain of command also has an understanding of the proforma and how it can be applied to our specific jobs. I just don't think that this kind of knowledge will be available to doctors and line managers in civvi street.

My other thought is how this will be applied to those on Disability Allowance. I know there are many disabled people out there who still retain pride in the fact that they are able be a productive member of society. However, those who cheat the system and try to take it for everything that they can get out of it, will still malinger, claiming that the work that they are able to do has exacerbated their injury/illness and all this will do is take up the doctor's time when it could be used to treat those people who are genuinely ill. They will still continue to be a drain on our society.

Please don't get me wrong, I think that anything that helps is a step in the right direction, however the scheme needs to be a little more carefully thought out and implemented.

Ish
 
#9
I do remember a mate of mine who was the occ health nurse in a factory doing this, he got the GP's to agree what they could do. Even if it was just a little light filling for two hours two days a week, or counting screws into jars he'd get them to come in and do it. Usually, they decided after a week or two (two on average), they were bored and went back to their own job.
 
#10
Spanny said:
flamingo said:
As of today, when one goes to a GP, one receives a Fit Note, not a Sick Note.

I'm wondering how this will impact on the chronically sick who may be able to do some tasks (thinking Whet).
Phew he's only been mentioned on two threads today 8O
The chronically ill do not go to GPs for sick chits, and so will not be asked to work.
 
#11
flamingo said:
I do remember a mate of mine who was the occ health nurse in a factory doing this, he got the GP's to agree what they could do. Even if it was just a little light filling for two hours two days a week, or counting screws into jars he'd get them to come in and do it. Usually, they decided after a week or two (two on average), they were bored and went back to their own job.
Did they get full wage for this, did they do 40 hour weeks?
 
#12
Whet said:
Spanny said:
flamingo said:
As of today, when one goes to a GP, one receives a Fit Note, not a Sick Note.

I'm wondering how this will impact on the chronically sick who may be able to do some tasks (thinking Whet).
Phew he's only been mentioned on two threads today 8O
The chronically ill do not go to GPs for sick chits, and so will not be asked to work.
Are you?
 
#13
bossyboots said:
Whet said:
Spanny said:
flamingo said:
As of today, when one goes to a GP, one receives a Fit Note, not a Sick Note.

I'm wondering how this will impact on the chronically sick who may be able to do some tasks (thinking Whet).
Phew he's only been mentioned on two threads today 8O
The chronically ill do not go to GPs for sick chits, and so will not be asked to work.
Are you?
That is how my illness has been diagnosed, yes
 
#15
ishinryu said:
Whilst I think that the basic idea behind this scheme is good, and I hope it will benefit the country, it could lead to a rise in problems with compensation and industrial tribunals. This scheme was brought in to tackle the damage that lost productivity does to the economy, and to tackle those disability benefit fraudsters who end up costing the taxpayers. In the event that a doctor states that a person is able to carry out light duties, it is then up to the person's line manager to interpret that in his/her own way. In the event that the manager gives the person a task that aggrevates the illness/injury to the extent that permanent damage is done, the company then leaves itself open to a tribunal or compensation claim, which in turn boosts insurance premiums for all of us. Companies then becomes risk averse and you have a situation where the managers will just send the people home without trying to find work for the injured/ill person. Bear in mind you can only have so many people doing clerical work, or possibly doing jobs for which they have no training or aptitude. In the worst case scenario, the company could end up losing more money in lost productivity than if they just sent the sick/injured person home in the first place.
<Snip>
I suspect that following this new rule the insurance companies will be tailoring their cover accordingly, and with the usual slimy bunch of 'consultants' advising all the HR managers how to handle this situation properly, it should be covered. There's nothing worse than hearing of a badly handled disciplinary case where the HR dept balls it up, so allowing a blagger to blag some more. I know it doesn't happen so much as it used to as HR managers are becoming more meticulous with procedures (The one's I work with are) and pro-actively 'manage' repeating offenders.

I had to manage a guy who got some type of Dermatitis on his hands and managed to blag his GP into a weeks sick leave (Obvioulsy we never found out what he exactly told his GP to grant a week off work, although he worked in a warehouse and drove MHE, there was no contact with anything that could be construed as being toxic, wet, oily etc. ) but I decided (with HR) that there was other things he could do, so I got him filing paperwork and other office work. Anyway he skulked back to his GP and told him how nasty we were for making him file paperwork and his GP fucked him off being a malingerer (Source: He blabbed off to the rest of the warehouse :D ).
 
#16
bossyboots said:
Considering you can spend time at a computer, you could work in a call centre or similar.
This thread is not about me.

However, you are right and I have applied to several as I think that I could (and indeed have) carry out useful work for any employer who takes my disablility into account. So, for instance, if an employer doesn't mind my falling asleep for 15 minutes or so when my medications fades, then I would be able to do so many things.

What many on here refuse to acknowledge is that I do apply for employment - not as much as I used to, but I still apply.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#17
I think that this is a good idea. From personal experience; I was off sick for a fairly lengthy period of time. I discussed with my GP who agreed that I could do some work from home on the 'pooter, in fact she felt it would be ideal as it would keep the brain ticking over (I did not mention that I used Arrse for this as I would probably have been Sectioned there and then!). However, when I approached my boss he said No Way - if I was off sick then I was off sick, there was no in-between. He was scared he could be done for harassment by asking me to work while signed off sick. Even when I asked for work and explained my discussions with the GP it was still No. So I sat at home giving nothing back to the employer when I could have done "Light Duties".

Who was my employer? NHS. :x
 
#18
Fat_Cav said:
ishinryu said:
Whilst I think that the basic idea behind this scheme is good, and I hope it will benefit the country, it could lead to a rise in problems with compensation and industrial tribunals. This scheme was brought in to tackle the damage that lost productivity does to the economy, and to tackle those disability benefit fraudsters who end up costing the taxpayers. In the event that a doctor states that a person is able to carry out light duties, it is then up to the person's line manager to interpret that in his/her own way. In the event that the manager gives the person a task that aggrevates the illness/injury to the extent that permanent damage is done, the company then leaves itself open to a tribunal or compensation claim, which in turn boosts insurance premiums for all of us. Companies then becomes risk averse and you have a situation where the managers will just send the people home without trying to find work for the injured/ill person. Bear in mind you can only have so many people doing clerical work, or possibly doing jobs for which they have no training or aptitude. In the worst case scenario, the company could end up losing more money in lost productivity than if they just sent the sick/injured person home in the first place.
<Snip>
I suspect that following this new rule the insurance companies will be tailoring their cover accordingly, and with the usual slimy bunch of 'consultants' advising all the HR managers how to handle this situation properly, it should be covered. There's nothing worse than hearing of a badly handled disciplinary case where the HR dept balls it up, so allowing a blagger to blag some more. I know it doesn't happen so much as it used to as HR managers are becoming more meticulous with procedures (The one's I work with are) and pro-actively 'manage' repeating offenders.

I had to manage a guy who got some type of Dermatitis on his hands and managed to blag his GP into a weeks sick leave (Obvioulsy we never found out what he exactly told his GP to grant a week off work, although he worked in a warehouse and drove MHE, there was no contact with anything that could be construed as being toxic, wet, oily etc. ) but I decided (with HR) that there was other things he could do, so I got him filing paperwork and other office work. Anyway he skulked back to his GP and told him how nasty we were for making him file paperwork and his GP fucked him off being a malingerer (Source: He blabbed off to the rest of the warehouse :D ).
So, when all your filing is fcuked up and computers crashed, are you going to sack him/her for doing a job he/she isn't trained for?
 
#19
Recce19 said:
Fat_Cav said:
ishinryu said:
Whilst I think that the basic idea behind this scheme is good, and I hope it will benefit the country, it could lead to a rise in problems with compensation and industrial tribunals. This scheme was brought in to tackle the damage that lost productivity does to the economy, and to tackle those disability benefit fraudsters who end up costing the taxpayers. In the event that a doctor states that a person is able to carry out light duties, it is then up to the person's line manager to interpret that in his/her own way. In the event that the manager gives the person a task that aggrevates the illness/injury to the extent that permanent damage is done, the company then leaves itself open to a tribunal or compensation claim, which in turn boosts insurance premiums for all of us. Companies then becomes risk averse and you have a situation where the managers will just send the people home without trying to find work for the injured/ill person. Bear in mind you can only have so many people doing clerical work, or possibly doing jobs for which they have no training or aptitude. In the worst case scenario, the company could end up losing more money in lost productivity than if they just sent the sick/injured person home in the first place.
<Snip>
I suspect that following this new rule the insurance companies will be tailoring their cover accordingly, and with the usual slimy bunch of 'consultants' advising all the HR managers how to handle this situation properly, it should be covered. There's nothing worse than hearing of a badly handled disciplinary case where the HR dept balls it up, so allowing a blagger to blag some more. I know it doesn't happen so much as it used to as HR managers are becoming more meticulous with procedures (The one's I work with are) and pro-actively 'manage' repeating offenders.

I had to manage a guy who got some type of Dermatitis on his hands and managed to blag his GP into a weeks sick leave (Obvioulsy we never found out what he exactly told his GP to grant a week off work, although he worked in a warehouse and drove MHE, there was no contact with anything that could be construed as being toxic, wet, oily etc. ) but I decided (with HR) that there was other things he could do, so I got him filing paperwork and other office work. Anyway he skulked back to his GP and told him how nasty we were for making him file paperwork and his GP fucked him off being a malingerer (Source: He blabbed off to the rest of the warehouse :D ).
So, when all your filing is fcuked up and computers crashed, are you going to sack him/her for doing a job he/she isn't trained for?
filing is not exactly rocket science is it!
 
#20
pacestick said:
Recce19 said:
Fat_Cav said:
ishinryu said:
Whilst I think that the basic idea behind this scheme is good, and I hope it will benefit the country, it could lead to a rise in problems with compensation and industrial tribunals. This scheme was brought in to tackle the damage that lost productivity does to the economy, and to tackle those disability benefit fraudsters who end up costing the taxpayers. In the event that a doctor states that a person is able to carry out light duties, it is then up to the person's line manager to interpret that in his/her own way. In the event that the manager gives the person a task that aggrevates the illness/injury to the extent that permanent damage is done, the company then leaves itself open to a tribunal or compensation claim, which in turn boosts insurance premiums for all of us. Companies then becomes risk averse and you have a situation where the managers will just send the people home without trying to find work for the injured/ill person. Bear in mind you can only have so many people doing clerical work, or possibly doing jobs for which they have no training or aptitude. In the worst case scenario, the company could end up losing more money in lost productivity than if they just sent the sick/injured person home in the first place.
<Snip>
I suspect that following this new rule the insurance companies will be tailoring their cover accordingly, and with the usual slimy bunch of 'consultants' advising all the HR managers how to handle this situation properly, it should be covered. There's nothing worse than hearing of a badly handled disciplinary case where the HR dept balls it up, so allowing a blagger to blag some more. I know it doesn't happen so much as it used to as HR managers are becoming more meticulous with procedures (The one's I work with are) and pro-actively 'manage' repeating offenders.

I had to manage a guy who got some type of Dermatitis on his hands and managed to blag his GP into a weeks sick leave (Obvioulsy we never found out what he exactly told his GP to grant a week off work, although he worked in a warehouse and drove MHE, there was no contact with anything that could be construed as being toxic, wet, oily etc. ) but I decided (with HR) that there was other things he could do, so I got him filing paperwork and other office work. Anyway he skulked back to his GP and told him how nasty we were for making him file paperwork and his GP fucked him off being a malingerer (Source: He blabbed off to the rest of the warehouse :D ).
So, when all your filing is fcuked up and computers crashed, are you going to sack him/her for doing a job he/she isn't trained for?
filing is not exactly rocket science is it!
Depends if it's paper or computer filing. Will the individual have the neccessary computer skills ie Excell, Data bases etc? Also would you really want someone who is a tad disgruntled with you playing with your company's paperwork?

The idea is good, but needs a bit of thinking.
 

Latest Threads