On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:22:06 -0000, Michael Hendry
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> if he declares he's recovered who am I to argue.
The certificate is potentially fulfilling two functions: confirming
that someone is unfit to work, and/or confirming that they are fit to
work (from a certain date).
Now that employers cannot claim back sick pay from the social security
system, they no longer have to have all the "I"s dotted and "T"s
crossed to get some money. Many employers simply want the sicknote to
satisfy themselves that their employee is not pulling a fast one. If
the employee wants to return to work early, they are delighted.
However there may be situations (e.g. a food worker with the squits)
where the responsible employer will want a certificate to prove that
the employee is now fit to return to work. And in our increasingly
politically correct, regulation-bound, anally-retentive society, more
and more companies will not want their employees to return to work
without a certificate that they are fit to do so, in case they are
later hauled over the coals for allowing an unfit employee on the
premises. This mostly applies to large companies with Occupational
Health departments and Policies For Everything at the moment, but the
effect will trickle down.
--
Michael Leuty
Nottingham, UK
|