Public Workers take more sick leave - Shocker!!

partyguinness

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/local-authority-sick-leave-twice-that-in-the-private-sector-1.1616147

Basically equates to around 1 day per month off sick....let the fun begin

Tzardine

I dont think the problem is the workers as such. There is a culture and an acceptance of this sick leave policy. They are doing it simply because they can.

Change in policy = Change in practice.

Shelflife

Simple to sort, uncertified sick is unpaid. Lose the first three days pay then onto social welfare payments like most of the country,

That would sort it out.

partyguinness

Strituck wrote: »

I dont think the problem is the workers as such. There is a culture and an acceptance of this sick leave policy. They are doing it simply because they can.

Change in policy = Change in practice.

That's true. I have several good friends working in LA and there is a general "Sure just phone in sick" attitude. There is no loss of wages etc.

Shelflife

Being honest if there's no consequences of taking a sickie then most people will "avail of the bonus".

After a while they are treated as a holiday entitlement.

seamus

The issue here is that there is a sick leave "entitlement". Sick leave is seen as part of the core holidays, so naturally people take it.

Remove the sick leave entitlement, still pay people for sick leave but monitor what people are doing and fire people who are taking the piss. That's what practically every other large company does.

Also since pay and promotion is not linked to performance, people have no reason to fear ringing in sick. They don't care if they're seen as a slacker, they'll still get pay rises and promotions so long as they stay there.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

The issue here is that there is a sick leave "entitlement". Sick leave is seen as part of the core holidays, so naturally people take it.

Remove the sick leave entitlement, still pay people for sick leave but monitor what people are doing and fire people who are taking the piss. That's what practically every other large company does.

Yup, I've actually heard people saying things like, "I'm booking Portugal in December, i haven't taken any sick days so far" It's not exactly a goal is it?

martingriff

Shelflife wrote: »

Simple to sort, uncertified sick is unpaid. Lose the first three days pay then onto social welfare payments like most of the country,

That would sort it out.

True that would work.

They can only take 3 days off now a year uncertified though. The problem is that people who do abuse the system take a lot of time off. Also you may have some people who have serious illnessess who have to take massive amount of time

Leroy42

Just because there is a culture doesn't mean one has to go aong with it. Trying to say it is not the staffs fault is absolving them of any responsility.

And as simple as it may sound to get a new process in, do you not think that this has already been tried? Unions won't even discuss it. So again, the staff take advantage or a system which they know is morally questionable, will fight if someone tries to change it.

Jebus, the ASTI won't even do an extra hour a week, imagine telling them they were losing sick pay!

partyguinness

Since Feb 2002, when I started my proper professional career, I have taken the following sick days:

2002- 1 day (24 hour vomiting bug)
2003- 0
2004- 1 (massive celebratory hangover)
2005- 1 (hangover)
2006- 1.5 (knee operation)
2007- 1 (toe operation)
2008- 0
2009- 0
2010- 2 (caught an horrendous virus- doctor involved)
2011- 0
2012- 0
2013- 0

Grand Total = 7.5 days in nearly 12 years.

Of course I am private sector and any days off were taken from holiday entitlement of 20 days per annum.

Sorry I forget 3 days in 2012 when my son was born.

Lucena

In France, here's how it works:

If you're off sick, you need a doctor's certificate to prove you're ill, even for one day. Ok, it's possible if you're on good terms with the doctor for him/her to give you a certificate, but it's a risk for the doctor if they're found out. Can be very inconvenient sometimes, like one time I had a tummy bug so had to stay as near to a toilet as possible, but still had to drive down to the doctor's to get the certificate.

Your first sick day, you don't get paid. You either take a day's holiday, or lose a day's pay. It's a bit hard on someone who's genuinely ill and doesn't make a huge wage, but probably stops a lot of abuse.

Confession: I'm a public worker.

Godge

Another ill-informed rant against the public sector. Just because it is the Irish Times with the ignorant journalism this time doesn't make it any more true. Another bandwagon for all the regulars to jump on.

There is a simple explanation for the difference in averages.

In the public sector, there are better arrangements for long-term illnesses.

So if your employee has a heart attack or needs chemotherapy, they get full pay for six months and half-pay for six months, a total of a year in the public sector.

In the private sector, you will be lucky if you continue to get paid at all after three months.

As a result, no matter what way you measure it, the public sector will always have a higher average because it looks after the seriously ill employee better than the private sector. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Nothing to do with sickies or anything like that.

eigrod

Godge wrote: »

There is a simple explanation for the difference in averages.

And, I have never once seen a report such as this quote what private sector organisations, and how many private sector organisations, were surveyed to establish their sick leave levels. In the Public Sector they are 100% accurate as they are recorded and reported on by each office/department. Apples and oranges.

Tzardine

Godge wrote: »

Nothing to do with sickies or anything like that.

I wish I could believe that.

partyguinness

Godge wrote: »

Another ill-informed rant against the public sector. Just because it is the Irish Times with the ignorant journalism this time doesn't make it any more true. Another bandwagon for all the regulars to jump on.

There is a simple explanation for the difference in averages.

In the public sector, there are better arrangements for long-term illnesses.

So if your employee has a heart attack or needs chemotherapy, they get full pay for six months and half-pay for six months, a total of a year in the public sector.

In the private sector, you will be lucky if you continue to get paid at all after three months.

As a result, no matter what way you measure it, the public sector will always have a higher average because it looks after the seriously ill employee better than the private sector. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Nothing to do with sickies or anything like that.

I wouldnt go so far as to call the article a rant. It was quite measured and fact based.

To say sickies have nothing to do with it is stretching it a little. I think most people know public sector workers who do take "sick days2 as they are "entitled to it".

So a lot of very "sick" public sector workers out long term messing up the figures then...right.

Actually, I have a friend of mine just now who works for a large LA agreeing with the ridiculous amount of sick days his colleagues take off although he is surprised that the LA is higher than the HSE.

Tabnabs

partyguinness wrote: »

Of course I am private sector and any days off were taken from holiday entitlement of 20 days per annum.

That's illegal, statutory minimum leave is 20 days per annum for a full time employee.

chopper6

Public Sector uncertified leave is three days per year.

If you go over that alowance you need a doctor's note for every day you take.

Every doctor's visit costs 50 euros so this reduced sick leave is actually good for therivate sector.

Scofflaw

I'm actually going to close this, because apparently nobody has bothered to read the article, which quite specifically refers to local authority workers, not public sector in general - yet pretty much everybody has just started banging on about the public sector in general.

If you can't be bothered reading the article the thread is about, what do you think you're contributing apart from things you've already decided without reference to it?

Yellow card for the OP for his title, which misrepresents the article. Most of the rest of you should get one too.

moderately irritated,
Scofflaw