Average sick in the Irish Civil Service is comparable to other countries

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

If absenteeism was the same in the public sector as in the private sector then surely the taxpayer would save millions

how so? its a loss of productivity rather than a wage cost surely? People are paid (for short-term sick leave anyway) the same either way, its not an additional cost

for people who joined post-95 and are on Class A PRSI, there is some sort of refund to employers for sick pay

people who are on long-term sick leave lose pay anyway...half pay after 6 months I think and then on to a quarter at some stage

so monetary cost is not really the issue

the private sector rate is interesting though and raises some thoughts

I have no doubt there is less of a burden on a public sector worker in order to actually take sick leave.....by that I mean I know workers who in both sectors who would go to work even if they were sick for varying reasons...
however, I think its bad that there are private sector workers, who are actually sick, who would be almost afraid to take sick leave...should that really be the case

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

how so?

well, if there are 20 people in an organisation, and one of them is out sick un-necessarily at any one time ( hangover, dossing, just a sniffle or whatever ) ...its the same amount of work that gets done as if the organisation only paid for / employed 19 people.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

well, if there are 20 people in an organisation, and one of them is out sick un-necessarily at any one time ( hangover, dossing, just a sniffle or whatever ) ...its the same amount of work that gets done as if the organisation only paid for / employed 19 people.

indeed, a productivity issue

if that org costs €100k a day then thats what it costs, you wont SAVE any money by having sick leave reduced

the cost issue is a bit of a red herring to me and is being jumbled up with the ongoing debates about pay...this is really a reform issue...in that it something that should be more closely monitored

however, there are difficulties....if someone has a medical cert who are a Department to argue?

as i said above I am sure that the majority of workers would be those that take either zero or a couple of days a leave a year but there are abuses I am sure that need to be tackled

also the private sector rate is based on surveys so we cannot trust it 100%, it could be higher (or lower obviously)

Zzippy

As a public sector worker, I agree that some people in the PS do take far too many sick days. Its like everything else thats being thrown at us - some people take it handy, some people work hard, some people are overpaid, some people aren't. Generalisations about the whole PS based on averaged data are unfair to thousands of hard working people who don't take a lot of sick leave, who aren't overpaid, and who do work hard at their job.
Instead of directing your ire at public servants, direct it at the system that permits this abuse, at the ministers who tolerate it, or are too weak to challenge it, and the unions who facilitate it.
I haven't taken sick leave in 2 years, and in 11 years service I've probably taken 10 days total. Only once have I felt pressure to take sick leave - for a routine operation that kept me out of work for a week - I took a week's annual leave instead, as it was elective surgery. Most of my colleagues take less than the average 8 days quoted in that article, and certainly less than the 11 days civil service average (we are not civil service though).

spank_inferno

Zippy, The "system" are the people.
They are one and the same.

If the rank and file members of the public service union branches decided to implement real reform of work practices and a revision of renumeration, it would be done tomorrow.

No school would ever experience a leak if it the teachers waived any previous pay hikes in favour of a safer work environment.

But of course they are only human so thats not going to happen.

Politicians seem weak, but only because they are on the same side as the unions, taking as much as they feel they can get away with.

So, there is no "system" to blame, just people.
And those people include the workers, front & centre.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

if that org costs €100k a day then thats what it costs, you wont SAVE any money by having sick leave reduced

You would because you cut the costs of the organisation by the salary / costs of the dossing workers. In the example above, pay 19 instead of 19 plus 1.

synd

Hardly suprising.

The statistics clearly illustrate that people in the private sector are more inclined to go into work sick due to the higher likelihood of being laid off or threatened with reprisals. Those in the private sector are more inclined to attend work when suffering from an illness because they fear management and suffer from inadequate union protection. Unfortunately IBEC/Irelands capitalists - fight tooth and nail to prevent the hard working, under-represented masses within the private sector from enjoying the same rights and conditions as their public sector counterparts. I personally consider the right wing/neo liberal propaganda being perpetuated by the capitalist class within this country disgusting. Its about time that ordinary people woke up and realized the fact that they are being turned against each other by the very socio-economic elite who caused the current crisis.

ei.sdraob

synd wrote: »

Hardly suprising.

The statistics clearly illustrate that people in the private sector are more inclined to go into work sick due to the higher likelihood of being laid off or threatened with reprisals. Those in the private sector are more inclined to attend work when suffering from an illness because they fear management and suffer from inadequate union protection. Unfortunately IBEC/Irelands capitalists - fight tooth and nail to prevent the hard working, under-represented masses within the private sector from enjoying the same rights and conditions as their public sector counterparts. I personally consider the right wing/neo liberal propaganda being perpetuated by the capitalist class within this country disgusting. Its about time that ordinary people woke up and realized the fact that they are being turned against each other by the very socio-economic elite who caused the current crisis.

the private sector doesnt get paid by money that needs to be borrowed at high interest

money that would have to be paid back one way or another

synd

ei.sdraob wrote: »

the private sector doesnt get paid by money that needs to be borrowed at high interest - money that would have to be paid back one way or another

Public sector wages are payed through tax on the accumulated surplus of private capital, the fact that's its borrowed means nothing. The partial re-appropriation is then re-invested back into society in the form of social services and public wages. Facilitating the public sector wage will maintain aggregate demand and reduce the rate of economic decline by sustaining consumption, production and subsequently allowing revenue derived from investment to eventually cover any short term increase in debt.

Back on topic though, the reason that people often attend work sick in the private sector is due to the blatent lack of representation that private sector workers are subjected to thanks to the efforts of IBEC and their neo-liberal lapdogs.

ei.sdraob

synd wrote: »

Public sector wages are payed through tax on the accumulated surplus of private capital, the fact that's its borrowed means nothing. The partial re-appropriation is then re-invested back into society in the form of social services and public wages. Facilitating the public sector wage will maintain aggregate demand and reduce the rate of economic decline by sustaining consumption, production and subsequently allowing revenue derived from investment to eventually cover any short term increase in debt.

Back on topic though - the reason that people often attend work sick in the private sector is due to the blatent lack of representation that private sector workers are subjected to thanks to the efforts of IBEC.

erm :rolleyes: what planet are you living on?

governments income from tax etc is close to €28 billion (thats 000,000,000 zeros) less than expenditure so far, thats a ginormous hole, to put into perspective thats the same hole as California which is the worlds 7th largest economy

the rest has to be borrowed

you want to create "consumption" by continuing to borrow money from outside at high rates

money that will have to be paid back, in short few years almost all of the taxed income would have to go to pay interest on this borrowing

synd

erm what planet are you living on?

I pose the same question to you, what planet are you living on ? - because its not earth from what I can tell. Your clearly an economic illiterate, no small country has (ever) recovered successfully from debt deflation by cutting spending and sticking with a hard currency.This is an uncomfortable fact that you will just have to get used to.

the rest has to be borrowed you want to create "consumption" by continuing to borrow money from outside at high rates

More will need to be borrowed to cover welfare in the long run if stimulus is not enacted now. Its not a question of whether to borrow or not - its either borrow enough now to soften the contraction or borrow more over a longer period to cover dead weight.

money that will have to be paid back, in short few years almost all of the taxed income would have to go to pay interest on this borrowing

I cant understand the neo-liberal obsession with achieving clear balance sheets - Ireland's national debt is huge it has been for a long time, its virtually a non issue. Moreover it was largely infrastructure/development driven by this debt that facilitated the latest wave of investment. Regardless, your above comment is an unwarranted assumption/neo-liberal lie. The exact same argument was made in both the cases of Sweden and Finland, they chose to ignore it and proceeded to re-inflate the economy, the subsoquent revenue derived from the upturn more than covered the increased debt service.

thebman

synd wrote: »

Hardly suprising.

The statistics clearly illustrate that people in the private sector are more inclined to go into work sick due to the higher likelihood of being laid off or threatened with reprisals. Those in the private sector are more inclined to attend work when suffering from an illness because they fear management and suffer from inadequate union protection. Unfortunately IBEC/Irelands capitalists - fight tooth and nail to prevent the hard working, under-represented masses within the private sector from enjoying the same rights and conditions as their public sector counterparts. I personally consider the right wing/neo liberal propaganda being perpetuated by the capitalist class within this country disgusting. Its about time that ordinary people woke up and realized the fact that they are being turned against each other by the very socio-economic elite who caused the current crisis.

You can't say it shows that.

It could equally show that public sector workers consider Mondays a sickness.

Realistically the average shouldn't be as high as it is IMO for public service and I think most public sector workers know this.

_Kooli_

Where i work the company pay for a Doctor. So to see the doctor you have to come into work that day. That Doctor will hardly ever give you a sick cert.
So you take the day off and pay for your own doctor yourself if you want a cert for that day. I would say that most people in my company take at least a weeks worth of wick days a year. About half take about 2 weeks. Some need them. Some dont.
Hi Jimmmy, Do you need a sick cert when you dont turn up to collect your dole? And remember, i know you, so dont pretend you arent on the dole.

synd

You can't say it shows that. It could equally show that public sector workers consider Mondays a sickness. Realistically the average shouldn't be as high as it is IMO for public service and I think most public sector workers know this.

Depends on perspective I suppose, personally being a socialist I prefer to give the working class the benefit of the doubt. I have worked in the private sector and people attending work while sick due to fear of management is quite commonplace. Had people the assurence of reliable union representation they would be more inclined to stay at home when ill.

thebman

synd wrote: »

Depends on perspective I suppose, personally being a socialist I prefer to give the working class the benefit of the doubt. I have worked in the private sector and people attending work while sick due to fear of management is quite commonplace. Had people the assurence of reliable union representation they would be more inclined to stay at home when ill.

Well personally I go to work when ill because I don't usually consider that I'm not sick enough to stay home.

I just take my lemsip and do what I can. The only times I've felt it was wrong to do so was when my manager had a go at me for not doing something that I was too sick to do which is when I told him I was sick and couldn't do it and could he not see the lemsip on the desk and pile of tissues in the bin and he apologised.

I work in an office so it doesn't make much difference if I have a cold or not for a lot of the work. I can still be sick and productive rather than sick and at home and getting paid for it.

No employer I've worked for has ever asked for a doctors note either. Last time I took days off was about a year ago at christmas when I got the winter vomiting bug which is contagious and so I stayed home and took my doctors medication. Again no hassle from employer despite contract saying a cert would be needed which I had but employer said not to worry.

Not all employers are out to screw their workers. Most are decent people that I have worked with/for and just want to get on with the job.

synd

thebman wrote: »

Well personally I go to work when ill because I don't usually consider that I'm not sick enough to stay home. I just take my lemsip and do what I can. The only times I've felt it was wrong to do so was when my manager had a go at me for not doing something that I was too sick to do which is when I told him I was sick and couldn't do it and could he not see the lemsip on the desk and pile of tissues in the bin and he apologised. I work in an office so it doesn't make much difference if I have a cold or not for a lot of the work. I can still be sick and productive rather than sick and at home and getting paid for it. No employer I've worked for has ever asked for a doctors note either. Last time I took days off was about a year ago at christmas when I got the winter vomiting bug which is contagious and so I stayed home and took my doctors medication. Again no hassle from employer despite contract saying a cert would be needed which I had but employer said not to worry. Not all employers are out to screw their workers. Most are decent people that I have worked with/for and just want to get on with the job.

Employers are required in their pathalogical pursuit to increase the rate of profit to appropriate as much productive value from their workforce as possible. If this means firing a pregnant woman - then thats what they will do, so long as any potential repiration in terms of legal action is assumed to be of less risk to the company. While capitalists may be humane - this can only ensue to the extent that they will not be pushed out of competitition. Anyone prone to illness or suffering from a disability is generally seen as a liability on a balence sheet. The only thing that prevents capital from enacting abuse where it would otherwise prevail is the fact that it would result in a law suit or industrial action - both would see a decrease in net profit.

Workers want more time off, higher wages, more control over their workplace and better conditions. Capitalists want to drive wages down, increase the rate of exploitation and subject labor to a greater degree of supervsion/dicispline. Our class interests are diametricly opposed.

thebman

synd wrote: »

Employers are required in their pathalogical pursuit to increase the rate of profit to appropriate as much productive value from their workforce as possible. If this means firing a pregnant woman - then thats what they will do, so long as any potential repiration in terms of legal action is assumed to be of less risk to the company. While capitalists may be humane - this can only ensue to the extent that they will not be pushed out of competitition. Anyone prone to illness or suffering from a disability is generally seen as a liability on a balence sheet. The only thing that prevents capital from enacting abuse where it would otherwise prevail is the fact that it would result in a law suit or industrial action - both would see a decrease in net profit.

Workers want more time off, higher wages, more control over their workplace and better conditions. Capitalists want to drive wages down, increase the rate of exploitation and subject labor to a greater degree of supervsion/dicispline. Our class interests are diametricly opposed.

That isn't how it works in the real world where most people are hired by small companies where the CEO knows most of the people in the company by name.

irish_bob

thebman wrote: »

That isn't how it works in the real world where most people are hired by small companies where the CEO knows most of the people in the company by name.

its what marx or some left wing university lecturer told him , will eventually grow up when he enters the real world

uriah

irish_bob wrote: »

indeed , plenty of engaging in semantics in here to try and excuse the fact that many clerical officers take off a month ( 16 work days ) each year through ( SICKNESS)

it would explain why whenever my brother rings the local dept of agri office , brigid or mary are hardly ever in

Surely the minimum number of work days in a month is 20?

NewDubliner

uriah wrote: »

Surely the minimum number of work days in a month is 20?

In the private sector, they have 32-day months & work them all.

Paulzx

NewDubliner wrote: »

In the private sector, they have 32-day months & work them all.

Don't forget the nights ( without shift allowance of course ):D:D

irish_bob

uriah wrote: »

Surely the minimum number of work days in a month is 20?

more semantics

BostonB

thebman wrote: »

That isn't how it works in the real world where most people are hired by small companies where the CEO knows most of the people in the company by name.

Paid sick leave is a perk. Its done to attract staff. Either a role warrants it, and the company can afford it or they can't. Just because the guy doing a paper round doesn't get any perks doesn't mean a manager in another company shouldn't. Comparing disimilar roles in disimilar organisations makes no sense.

I think some have an issue with any perks like sick leave in the public sector. Regardless of the benefits of sick leave to an employer. You'd think theres no paid sick leave in the private sector going by some comments. Wikipedia reckons about 52% do.

But it must be great comfort to that small companies that someone who is sick with a vomiting bug, or a bad flu, will drag themselves in to spread the love around and wipe out the whole shop or office. Nice. They'll send the kids to school too, (because they are at work) which will pass it on to the other kids, who'll bring it home to babies and older folk. How abut sick people going into to hospitals to work. No problem there either.

If you can't afford it, then you've no choice. But if you are giving people golden handshakes, and bonuses for no obvious reason, thats not really sending out that message is it.

thebman

BostonB wrote: »

Paid sick leave is a perk. Its done to attract staff. Either a role warrants it, and the company can afford it or they can't. Just because the guy doing a paper round doesn't get any perks doesn't mean a manager in another company shouldn't. Comparing disimilar roles in disimilar organisations makes no sense.

I think some have an issue with any perks like sick leave in the public sector. Regardless of the benefits of sick leave to an employer. You'd think theres no paid sick leave in the private sector going by some comments. Wikipedia reckons about 52% do.

Most companies will offer paid sick leave. I'd say almost all to permanent employees.

But it must be great comfort to that small companies that someone who is sick with a vomiting bug, or a bad flu, will drag themselves in to spread the love around and wipe out the whole shop or office. Nice. They'll send the kids to school too, (because they are at work) which will pass it on to the other kids, who'll bring it home to babies and older folk. How abut sick people going into to hospitals to work. No problem there either.

If you can't afford it, then you've no choice. But if you are giving people golden handshakes, and bonuses for no obvious reason, thats not really sending out that message is it.

But small offices are more likely to give paid leave or demand someone sick go home since its easier to spot the sick person and they generally treat workers better IMO. I've yet to work in an office where someone was forced to work sick big or small TBH.

BostonB

thebman wrote: »

...But small offices are more likely to give paid leave or demand someone sick go home since its easier to spot the sick person and they generally treat workers better IMO. I've yet to work in an office where someone was forced to work sick big or small TBH.

I'd agree with you. I was just commenting on the, "I never taken a sick day even when my leg was hanging off, or that day I had black death" etc. The suggestion is that people drag themselves in, rather than are forced in by pressure. The latter may also happen, but I wasn't commenting on that.

Having said that, I've certainly working in places where people had huge pressure on them to come in sick regardless. Sometimes that pressue was from their immediate manager and not company policy, or where they felt some personal pressure to do it, for varied reasons. But I agree its the minority of places.

ei.sdraob

synd wrote: »

I cant understand the neo-liberal obsession with achieving clear balance sheets - Ireland's national debt is huge it has been for a long time, its virtually a non issue..

a yes what we need is more debt

because it wasnt debt that got us into this hole

oh wait :rolleyes:

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

You would because you cut the costs of the organisation by the salary / costs of the dossing workers. In the example above, pay 19 instead of 19 plus 1.

you are changing the focus again, we are talking about the impact of someone being on sick leave or the impact if there was less sick leave taken

you are simply implying anyone taking some sick leave is a dosser and should be just fired and hey presto a saving

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

you are changing the focus again, we are talking about the impact of someone being on sick leave or the impact if there was less sick leave taken

you are simply implying anyone taking some sick leave is a dosser and should be just fired and hey presto a saving

No, read what I wrote again :

"well, if there are 20 people in an organisation, and one of them is out sick un-necessarily at any one time ( hangover, dossing, just a sniffle or whatever ) ...its the same amount of work that gets done as if the organisation only paid for / employed 19 people."

I never said or implied " anyone taking some sick leave is a dosser ".!
We are talking about those people who take "sickies" when they should not....the people who would not take the day off if they were working for themselves or their family, for example.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

We are talking about those people who take "sickies" when they should not....the people who would not take the day off if they were working for themselves or their family, for example.

but how does one know?

and anyway if you have an org with 20 people and one takes a few days sick over the course of the year but otherwise does the job, even if you fire him surely you need to replace?

thirdly, the spin being played here is that this sick leave is all about people pulling sickies when not ill....there is nothing in the information published to show this...its simply playing to certain prejudices

lastly, there may well be people who work even when ill, especially among self-employed, but that does not make it right or indeed make it wrong that others (public and private) do take leave when sick

P. Breathnach

jimmmy wrote: »

No, read what I wrote again :

"well, if there are 20 people in an organisation, and one of them is out sick un-necessarily at any one time ( hangover, dossing, just a sniffle or whatever ) ...its the same amount of work that gets done as if the organisation only paid for / employed 19 people."

I never said or implied " anyone taking some sick leave is a dosser ".!
We are talking about those people who take "sickies" when they should not....the people who would not take the day off if they were working for themselves or their family, for example.

So is it different is somebody is out sick necessarily?

I used to refer to sick leave as permission to postpone work. The post and the messages on my caseload came in and were stacked on my desk until I came back. Same with annual leave.