Cut in PS sick leave

Boulevardier

It looks like the Labour Court has given the go-ahead for cuts in public servants' sick-leave entitlements, both long term and short term.

The self-certified sick days will be cut from 7 days per year to 7 days per 2 years. The unions have signalled they will accept this.

I would have supported a cut from 7 days a year to 5 days a year, but this effective 3.5 days per year will probably lead to people like me, who might previously have taken 1, 2 or 3 uncertified sick days, to go to the doc and get a cert for a week - why would I pay 60 Euro for a 1 or 2 days' cert?

My point is not about the rights and wrongs or about conditions in the public or private sectors - it is about what people like me will probably do whether others like it or not.

Agent_99

I am lucky enough that I don't get sick that often but if I'm sick enough that I have to take time off work it would usually require a trip to the GP anyway for medication. Maybe this will cut down on the 550M that it costs the taxpayer for a good percentage of duvet days that the PS take.

Delancey

I've worked in the Public Service and can say the abuse of sick pay is frightening and includes ' managed sickness ' to bolster overtime earnings. Anything that makes this less easy is overdue and to be welcomed.

mathepac

Boulevardier wrote: »

... I would have supported a cut from 7 days a year to 5 days a year, but this effective 3.5 days per year will probably lead to people like me, who might previously have taken 1, 2 or 3 uncertified sick days, to go to the doc and get a cert for a week - why would I pay 60 Euro for a 1 or 2 days' cert?

My point is not about the rights and wrongs or about conditions in the public or private sectors - it is about what people like me will probably do whether others like it or not.

Ah yes, the fabled "value for money" test, now evidenced as value for money "sickies". Unfortunately the Labour Court can't and won't change the dyed-in-the-wool "entitlements" mentality the poster displays, like the time off allowed in the PS for cashing non-existent cheques.

miju

mathepac wrote: »

like the time off allowed in the PS for cashing non-existent cheques.

bank time is long gone at this stage

Wanderer2010

Boulevardier wrote: »

It looks like the Labour Court has given the go-ahead for cuts in public servants' sick-leave entitlements, both long term and short term.

The self-certified sick days will be cut from 7 days per year to 7 days per 2 years. The unions have signalled they will accept this.

I would have supported a cut from 7 days a year to 5 days a year, but this effective 3.5 days per year will probably lead to people like me, who might previously have taken 1, 2 or 3 uncertified sick days, to go to the doc and get a cert for a week - why would I pay 60 Euro for a 1 or 2 days' cert?

My point is not about the rights and wrongs or about conditions in the public or private sectors - it is about what people like me will probably do whether others like it or not.

You are extremely lucky to have the entitlement of taking uncertified leave. I work in the private industry and we get 9 paid sick days a year and if you are out sick for even one day, you need a cert no exceptions. And this was the case in my previous job, too, and in my job before that you didnt even get paid for sick days. So you are just going to have to get on with it and pay for the cert like everyone else has to. To quote an old chestnut, you have a job and should be greateful for that. If i was in the public service and I had all the entitlements that comes with it, paying 55euro for a sick cert wouldnt concern me at all. It could be a lot lot worse, OP.

Extinction

You are not paying €60 for a cert, you are paying €60 to visit the doctor! You will be given a sick cert if you are unfit for work. Why would you get a cert to stay off work for a week if you are not sick for that long? Do you think people pay taxes so you can stay at home? If you are sick its your problem, go to the doctor and pay for it if you need it and return to work when you are well. Your post just shows the mentality of entitlement that exists in the public service. I cant afford to go to the doctor if I'm sick and I can't afford to stay at home from work either because I don't get paid for sick days so I go to work every day. A lot needs to change in the public service including the mentality of some of the people lucky enough to have such jobs.

mikemac1

Boulevardier wrote: »

why would I pay 60 Euro for a 1 or 2 days' cert?

Is that the mentality that exists in there still?



You are paying a GP to check you over and give their opinion

You are not paying for a cert to get you off work
You will probably get a cert but that's not what the 50 euro is for!

whatnext

Even the beards have gone to ground on this one. It would take a special type of individual to come out and counter argue this one

On a side note why was sick pay not done away with during benchmarking? Out of a group of my friends out during the week, only one of us were entitled to sick pay and he worked for an American MN, the rest 8, would have to take social welfare.

TheTurk1972

Extinction wrote: »

You are not paying €60 for a cert, you are paying €60 to visit the doctor! You will be given a sick cert if you are unfit for work. Why would you get a cert to stay off work for a week if you are not sick for that long? Do you think people pay taxes so you can stay at home? If you are sick its your problem, go to the doctor and pay for it if you need it and return to work when you are well. Your post just shows the mentality of entitlement that exists in the public service. I cant afford to go to the doctor if I'm sick and I can't afford to stay at home from work either because I don't get paid for sick days so I go to work every day. A lot needs to change in the public service including the mentality of some of the people lucky enough to have such jobs.

This happens in the private sector all the time.
I see it every week in every company i;ve ever worked in.

Person gets a cold and 2 days in bed would have them back to work, but still slightly sick, but functioning after it. They take the two days and sleep. No need to get out of bed and go to a doctor and pay for the privilege. And they are back even though they could probably need another day or two to recover fully. Still sick but at work.

Company implements policy where they must produce cert. they go to the doc. Doc says take the week off, because you'll need the rest. OK.

Only difference is that they are sick, but at home instead of trying to work through it at work. And its certified by a Doctor, whose opinion trumps everything.

mark_jmc

sick pay should not be seen as an 'entitlement', it is a benefit. To me there is a fundamental difference between the two.

Elessar

Where I work (semi-state) I am allowed 3 sick days a year, certified or not. If I go over that, I get a disciplinary, and put onto a second "phase". After two days sick I need to have a cert. And I don't get paid for the first day of sickness, ever. If it goes over a week, I am required to go see the company doctor. Thankfully I have been healthy since I started (touch wood).

Consider yourself lucky.

Wishbone Ash

Boulevardier wrote: »

My point is not about the rights and wrongs or about conditions in the public or private sectors - it is about what people like me will probably do whether others like it or not.

It's people like you who give the rest of us a bad name. I've been in the Public Service for 24 years and have only missed 6 days during that time yet I am constantly associated with those who have your mentality.

I would prefer if the government would go the whole hog and abolish sick leave altogether in the Public Service and allow those of us who do a decent job to get on with it and not be associated with the malingerers.

whatnext wrote: »

It would take a special type of individual to come out and counter argue this one

Presumably you mean it would take a special type of individual to agree with this one?

whatnext wrote:

the rest 8, would have to take social welfare.

Social Welfare is only applicaple to certain categories. I pay a D stamp and therefore am not entitled to any Social Welfare entitlements. AFAIK it changed around 1995 and employees from then on are entitled to it.

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

And its certified by a Doctor, whose opinion trumps everything.

An employer is not legally obliged to accept the opinion of a GP. They are perfectly entitled to refer the employee to a GP of their (the employer's ) choice.

TheTurk1972

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

It's people like you who give the rest of us a bad name. I've been in the Public Service for 24 years and have only missed 6 days during that time yet I am constantly associated with those who have your mentality.

I would prefer if the government would go the whole hog and abolish sick leave altogether in the Public Service and allow those of us who do a decent job to get on with it and not be associated with the malingerers.

Presumably you mean it would take a special type of individual to agree with this one?

Social Welfare is only applicaple to certain categories. I pay a D stamp and therefore am not entitled to any Social Welfare entitlements. AFAIK it changed around 1995 and employees from then on are entitled to it.

An employer is not legally obliged to accept the opinion of a GP. They are perfectly entitled to refer the employee to a GP of their (the employer's ) choice.

Good for you on not being sick.
I wasn't sick a day in my life until this year. 25 years working without a single sick day. Never even had a cold. So far I have needed 16 sick days this year alone and will most likely be sick a lot more. I hope it stays fine for you. But if it doesn't you might change your mind about banning sick leave.

Of course an employer can refer you to their GP. Let them do that then if they want. They never do this though. Too tight. But until they provide a GP for their staff when they are sick they must take the cert of the GP that the patient goes to.

Wishbone Ash

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

I hope it stays fine for you. But if it doesn't you might change your mind about banning sick leave.

I would prefer a system where employees take out a form of insurance to pay for sick leave. Suppose you employ a painter to paint your house. He paints half of it and then goes sick but bills you for the full amount. I don't think you would pay him in full for half a job. I don't see why an employer should have to pay staff when they are not there however genunine the absence is.

TheTurk1972 wrote:

Of course an employer can refer you to their GP. Let them do that then if they want. They never do this though. Too tight.

We do it all the time as we don't accept ordinary certs from many of our staff.

TheTurk1972

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I would prefer a system where employees take out a form of insurance to pay for sick leave. Suppose you employ a painter to paint your house. He paints half of it and then goes sick but bills you for the full amount. I don't think you would pay him in full for half a job. I don't see why an employer should have to pay staff when they are not there however genunine the absence is.

We do it all the time as we don't accept ordinary certs from many of our staff.

My company does takes out that insurance themselves. I don't have to pay for it. They organize it as part of their overall insurance. As far as I know it covers the employees wages minus what comes off social welfare, which the state pays for.

You have to accept a doctors cert from an employees own GP. They are entitled to see their own GP for treatment.
You can ask them to go see your GP at your expense if you don't believe them. But by the time they are well enough to get to your GP I don't see what your GP can do other than back up the GP who saw them when they were sick. Of course your employer could pay their GP to do a house call to them, but I don't think they'll be doing that either.

eclectichoney

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

I would prefer a system where employees take out a form of insurance to pay for sick leave.

Eh... it's called PRSI??

Wishbone Ash

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

You have to accept a doctors cert from an employees own GP. They are entitled to see their own GP for treatment

No employer is obliged to accept a GP's cert. Check out the leglislation yourself. I used to work in Staff Administration. We did not accept certs from certain "soft" GP's Several of our employees were required to attend our GP if submitting certified sick leave.

eclectichoney wrote: »

Eh... it's called PRSI??

"sighs"

Most younger employees are covered under PRSI. Those of us who have been in the workplace a lot longer and are classified as "officer" grade are not covered under PRSI- i.e. we have no entitlement to Social Welfare payment if ill.

TheTurk1972

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

No employer is obliged to accept a GP's cert. Check out the leglislation yourself. I used to work in Staff Administration. We did not accept certs from certain "soft" GP's Several of our employees were required to attend our GP if submitting certified sick leave.

"sighs"

Most younger employees are covered under PRSI. Those of us who have been in the workplace a lot longer and are classified as "officer" grade are not covered under PRSI- i.e. we have no entitlement to Social Welfare payment if ill.

And I do work in staff administration.
You have to accept a cert from a persons own GP.
I won't even go into the reasons why people are entitled to use their own GP. They should be obvious.

I don't know much about public sector, but couldn't you have paid a higher class of PRSI yourself to be covered. I could and did do this when I was self employed. It gave me all sorts of entitlements that my self employed PRSI class didn't give me. This would be the voluntary insurance you want to have.

Avatarr

What a slap in the face for all the unemployed out there reading this rubbish. :mad:

TheTurk1972

Avatarr wrote: »

What a slap in the face for all the unemployed out there reading this rubbish. :mad:

Why would that be? Because people get paid when not being able to work ? :rolleyes:

Avatarr

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

Why would that be? Because people get paid when not being able to work ? :rolleyes:

Not being able to work is one thing, taking a week just because you paid €60 To GP, come on, really, that's just nuts. :rolleyes:

Boulevardier

Folks, I did not say that going to the GP for a week's cert is right or wrong. It is simply what people are going to do whether you like it or not, and the result will be as many if not more sick days rather than fewer. My point therefore is that the reformed sick leave provisions may actually backfire.

A private sector friend tells me her firm is more flexible than the PS on short-term sick leave. They can and sometimes do give people sick days "on the nod." That would be impossible in any PS outfit that I know of.

tatli_lokma

Boulevardier wrote: »

Folks, I did not say that going to the GP for a week's cert is right or wrong. It is simply what people are going to do whether you like it or not, and the result will be as many if not more sick days rather than fewer. My point therefore is that the reformed sick leave provisions may actually backfire.

A private sector friend tells me her firm is more flexible than the PS on short-term sick leave. They can and sometimes do give people sick days "on the nod." That would be impossible in any PS outfit that I know of.

At least if you are going to take the P!ss and take more days off than you need, you will be forking out €50-60 for the priviledge and have to go to the bother of having to go to a doctor and basically fake being more sick than you are. I imagine the hope would be that reasonable, honest people will not behave like this. As for the others, well they are the sort of people who will always look for a chink in the system and exploit it anyway - they are probably the same people taking sick days when they are not sick because they are 'entitled' to them :rolleyes:

But they should be aware, that if you are out sick too often - certified or otherwise, your employer can question your ability to do your job. If you are unfit to work you can be moved to another position or let go. I would hope the PS will adopt this policy, just as most private sector companies do, but I won't hold my breath.

Extinction

Boulevardier wrote: »

Folks, I did not say that going to the GP for a week's cert is right or wrong. It is simply what people are going to do whether you like it or not, and the result will be as many if not more sick days rather than fewer. My point therefore is that the reformed sick leave provisions may actually backfire.

A private sector friend tells me her firm is more flexible than the PS on short-term sick leave. They can and sometimes do give people sick days "on the nod." That would be impossible in any PS outfit that I know of.

I think you don't understand what people are saying to you so I'll try to clarify it for you.

Although you did not say that going to the GP for a week's cert is right or wrong you did say ''this effective 3.5 days per year will probably lead to people like me, who might previously have taken 1, 2 or 3 uncertified sick days, to go to the doc and get a cert for a week - why would I pay 60 Euro for a 1 or 2 days' cert?''

Folks are telling you that it is wrong, folks noticed you saying that you would take more sick days than you need to recover, folks have noticed that you can pay for a sick cert to say you are are more ill than you actually are. Folks have noticed that you mentioned that not only you would do this but other people like you will also do this. Folks have also noticed that instead of accepting that you should only take the time you need to recover your response is to defraud.

The folks by the way are the public, the public you are supposed to be serving. You are surely too old to be pretending to be sick like a child who doesn't want to go to school. Excuse any of us who think you don't deserve the job you have and that you and the others like you should be replaced with people who are mature enough to do an honest days work.

mathepac

Extinction wrote: »

I think you don't understand what people are saying to you so I'll try to clarify it for you. ...

Excellent, articulate post. Thanks.