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

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

but how does one know?

It can be difficult to prove someone is not ill : that is why a sick cert is relatively easy to obtain for a day or two - not that all absenteeism is validated by sick certs. A doctor would find it difficult to refuse a cert to a customer for a day or two who had a bad cold , bachache, whatever and who wanted a cert. The question is : why do public servants claim far more sick days than those in the private sector ? Nothing to do with the fact of secure , pensionable employment + the fact they cannot really be fired....and sickies are there to be taken / used up, a bit like the FAS budget of 1 billion a year during the Celtic tiger ?

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Nobody said it was " wrong that others (public and private) do take leave when sick "

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Nothing to do with the fact of secure , pensionable employment + the fact they cannot really be fired

I have already said that these circumstances would allow someone to decide to take sick leave more readily than in "some" areas of the private sector where there seems to be a view that being sick could lead to some sort of punishment which I believe to be a much worse issue

I also believe that the higher proportion of women would result in more pregnancy related issues...this seems to be borne out by the difference in averages for men and women and also that the rate is highest at clerical level (which is predominantly women)

....and sickies are there to be taken / used up

I disagree

such an idea does exist in one state company I know of and is unexcusable but I have not encountered a state of mind of "I must take some sick leave as its there to be used" in my public sector experience

, a bit like the FAS budget of 1 billion a year during the Celtic tiger ?

I am not surprised that you throw in something so utterly unconnected to the debate in hand in order to be provocative

Nobody said it was " wrong that others (public and private) do take leave when sick "

see above, there have been some comments and I know of some people who are almost afraid to be sick for fear of "reprisal"

tallaght01

I'll tell you something. Poeple have a very romantic view of the private sector, in it's lean, efficient glory. But the private sector treats it's employees like crap in a lot of cases. It's not what we should aspire to, and I always treat the people below me in wrk with a lot more respect and humanity than I've seen in most private sector jobs.

This thread is about sickness. Ask any GP about the difficulties people with real genuine illness have with getting time off work in the private sector at times. It's truly criminal.

Also, let's face it, half the posts on boards come from people working in offices between 9-5.

The romantic notion of the private sector is fundamentally flawed, as far as I can see, having worked in both sectors in Ireland. In the list of crappy private sector jobs I've had, I've seen one person get the sack, for repeated theft. And I've worked with far more incompetent people in the private sector than in the public sector.

I've no axe to grind, and no loyalties. My job will always be safe, so none of this affects me. But the glorification of the private sector does make me chuckle.

jimmmy

tallaght01 wrote: »

Poeple have a very romantic view of the private sector.

dunno about that. What has romantic notions got to do with work ? Do you think that people think the private sector is better paid, more secure, better pensioned, more sick days, less pressurised etc than the public sector in Ireland ? :rolleyes: Just because it collects and pays all the money to the government ( who then spend it , along with borrowed money ), does not make it romantic.;)

tallaght01 wrote: »

But the private sector treats it's employees like crap in a lot of cases.

There is legislation and employment laws.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Also, let's face it, half the posts on boards come from people working in offices between 9-5.

The p.s. mainly ?

tallaght01 wrote: »

In the list of crappy private sector jobs I've had, I've seen one person get the sack, for repeated theft.

Do you think he / she should not have "get the sack, for repeated theft"?
How would such a person be treated in the public sector. No, they would not get the sack. Its nearly impossible to get the sack there, is it not? See the main headline story in yesterdays Irish Independent. I did not buy the paper, but it concerned a government employee who was paid over a million since 2004 for literally doing nothing ( for whatever reason )....but who was not made redundant, for whatever reason.;)

BostonB

jimmmy wrote: »

.....See the main headline story in yesterdays Irish Independent. I did not buy the paper, but it concerned a government employee who was paid over a million since 2004 for literally doing nothing ( for whatever reason )....but who was not made redundant, for whatever reason.;)

Assuming the indo isn't doing it usual twisting of the truth to create a tabloid headline. I would be interested to find out what is the situation with this. As I would assume they only get full pay for a certain period after which it should fall to half pay, then unpaid. Thats usual in most contracts. So how they managed to say on full pay would be interesting. Be interesting to see if there was any political influence on this.

GeeNorm

A few years back I compiled the figures for a department within Bank of Ireland HQ. Just some quick figures for comparison.

Average sick leave p/a = 5
Average for females p/a = 11
Average for males p/a = 2

Any sick leave of 2 days or less did not require a Doctor's note and went in as 'certified' i.e. self-certified so most sick leave was classed as certified (do not remember exact %).

Some possible reasons for high PS/CS sick-rate.
1) Maybe a higher proportion of female staff.
2) They get paid for longer at full pay if they are sick so there is less incentive to return to work. These long-term sick employees would skew the average massively.

jimmmy

3) Plus working for the government is.....well as every former eastern block country government employee will testify....working for the government. You are not competing against AIB or Halifax, your bosses have no shareholders at their annual AGM to answer to.

BostonB

In the PS, theres a much older age group too. But if you start down that road, you'll start comparing like with like. You'd never get a job in the media doing that.

jimmmy

BostonB wrote: »

In the PS, theres a much older age group too.

Despite all the recruitment in the celtic tiger years ? And the fact that eg many Gardai retire ( on full pension ) in their early fifties, after only 30 years service ? I would say younger people are possibly more likely to pull a sickie on a Monday morning anyway ( after a good weekend ) than an older person...possibly helping to explain why Mondays are three times more popular for sick days in the civil service compared to Fridays .

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

possibly helping to explain why Mondays are three times more popular for sick days in the civil service compared to Fridays .

would you not expect something similar in the private sector?

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

would you not expect something similar in the private sector?

Not necessarily, considering when there is such a difference between the two sector in some many ways. "The average woman working in state departments was absent 14 days, while the average man was off for eight days, almost double the rate of absence in the private sector. By contrast the latest survey of absenteeism in the private sector shows an average rate of just six days per employee."



http://www.independent.ie/national-n...r-1922474.html

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Not necessarily,

so.....young (and not so young) people in the private sector act differently when it comes to such social habits?

Private sector workers actually love Monday mornings?

Monday would not be higher because?........

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

Private sector workers actually love Monday mornings?

No, but those with a Monday - Friday job usually go to work in order to make a living / not get the sack. And to support / not be a deadweight on their fellow workers. Why do you think "The average woman working in state departments was absent 14 days, while the average man was off for eight days, almost double the rate of absence in the private sector. By contrast the latest survey of absenteeism in the private sector shows an average rate of just six days per employee." ?http://www.independent.ie/national-n...r-1922474.html

Its a bit like asking would FAS management fly first class to Florida if they had to pay the extra ( for first class ) themselves ? Would the minister get a limousine between the terminals at Heathrow airport if he had to pay for it himself, or would he use the horizontal walking conveyors ( whatever they are called ) for the several minutes journey ?

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

No, but those with a Monday - Friday job usually go to work in order to make a living / not get the sack. And to support / not be a deadweight on their fellow workers.

once more you show your true colours

Why do you think "The average woman working in state departments was absent 14 days, while the average man was off for eight days, almost double the rate of absence in the private sector. By contrast the latest survey of absenteeism in the private sector shows an average rate of just six days per employee."

I presume you keep posting this as it has the figure of 14 and looks worse

the average is 11 in the civil service based on actual factual figures

the average is 6 in the private sector based on a survey,

with a standard margin of error the gap could be much closer


is 6 acceptable? is the private sector not also filled with deadweight based on your opinions

Its a bit like asking would FAS management fly first class to Florida if they had to pay the extra ( for first class ) themselves ?

Is it? more provocative stirring .....yaaawwwnnnnnn

jimmmy

You do not think those with a Monday - Friday job usually go to work in order to make a living / not get the sack ? Thats the primary reason people go to work. Not to play on computers, chat over long tea breaks or relax in the rest room.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Not to play on computers, chat over long tea breaks or relax in the rest room.

lol

I think anyone goes to work in order to do whats required in exchange for getting paid


Here's another one for you jimmmy

if the average is 6 in the private sector , lets say hypothetically that its 4 for men and 8 for women

therefore women in the private sector would be taking the same amount of sick leave (on average) as men in the public sector

where does all your reasoning about the differences go then?



in any event, men in the public sector take just 2 more days sick leave (on average) than the private sector average.....is this really a huge difference?

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

the average is 11 in the civil service based on actual factual figures
the average is 6 in the private sector based on a survey

so the difference is a week a year

Riskymove wrote: »

is 6 acceptable?

6 is more acceptable than 11, yes. Not as many people would have to be hired in the civil service if this weeks absenteeism each year was avoided.

Riskymove wrote: »

is the private sector not also filled with deadweight based on your opinions

There are some people in the private sector who are bound to take unjustified sickies now and again , but the figures suggest its not as big a problem as in the public sector, where on average - a week extra per year is taken "sick".

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

so the difference is a week a year

If we can trust 100% a survey, there is a margin of area involved

i wonder would you accept so readily any survey which was favourable to the public sector

6 is more acceptable than 11, yes.

that is not what i asked and you know it

Not as many people would have to be hired in the civil service if this weeks absenteeism each year was avoided.

no evidence for this in the figures...this is a conjecture of yours...its higghly unlikely that many extra people were required due to sick leave

There are some people in the private sector who are bound to take unjustified sickies now and again , but the figures suggest its not as big a problem as in the public sector, where on average - a week extra per year is taken "sick".

but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the "week extra" is "unjustified sickies" although no doubt, thats how you would like to portray it

indeed we know that 41% of civil servants did not take any sick leave at all, which is likely to mean that a majority of civil servants take little or no sick leave with a small percentage accounting for most of the long-term sick leave


I'd still like you to comment on my hypothesis that

if the average is 6 in the private sector , lets say hypothetically that its 4 for men and 8 for women

therefore women in the private sector would be taking the same amount of sick leave (on average) as men in the public sector

where does all your reasoning about the differences go then?

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

Here's another one for you jimmmy

if the average is 6 in the private sector , lets say hypothetically that its 4 for men and 8 for women

therefore women in the private sector would be taking the same amount of sick leave (on average) as men in the public sector

where does all your reasoning about the differences go then?

In the public service women statistically take more sickies than their male colleagues. Obviously they get sick more, for whatever reason. ( eg pregnancy , possibly children ?).
NB I am glad you say "hypothetically", as hypothetically speaking if my aunt had b**ls she would be my uncle. If the average civil servant took five fewer days as "sickies" during the year, they would take the same amount as the private sector.

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

its higghly unlikely that many extra people were required due to sick leave

So an organisation with staff taking 11 days sickies a year is going to be as productive / lean / efficient as an organisation with staff taking 6 days sickies a year ?

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Riskymove wrote: »

So an organisation with staff taking 11 days sickies a year is going to be as productive / lean / efficient as an organisation with staff taking 6 days sickies a year ?

jimmmy,

once more you are taking an average and implying its across the board

if there was an org where every employee took 11 days sick leave there would be consequences....but thats about as likely as your Aunt having B&*(s

if the org had 30 people with one person out for a year the consequences are far different

If the average civil servant took five fewer days as "sickies" during the year, they would take the same amount as the private sector.

once more you are trying to imply that all civil servants are taking 11 days leave...its rubbish


most civil servants are taking little or no sick leave as the figures demonstrate

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

once more you are taking an average and implying its across the board
if there was an org where every employee took 11 days sick leave there would be consequences....but thats about as likely as your Aunt having B&*(s
if the org had 30 people with one person out for a year the consequences are far different

once more you are trying to imply that all civil servants are taking 11 days leave...its rubbish

most civil servants are taking little or no sick leave as the figures demonstrate

Rubbish. As said before "The average woman working in state departments was absent 14 days, while the average man was off for eight days, almost double the rate of absence in the private sector. By contrast the latest survey of absenteeism in the private sector shows an average rate of just six days per employee." ?http://www.independent.ie/national-n...r-1922474.html Averages like there are in the public service - despite having so much holidays, a shorter working week etc - suggest there is indeed a problem with the amount of sick days claimed in the public sector. Not everyone can be tarred with the same brush of course ; but we are talking about the averages across a very large organisation.

Riskymove

jimmmy wrote: »

Rubbish.

no, its not rubbish, most civil servants are taking little or no sick leave as these figures show

1. 41% took no sick leave at all

2. of the remaining 59%, there are obviously going to be a certain percentage that took 1, took 2, took 3 etc

3. For example, therefore I dont think its beyond the realm of possibility that, lets say 10% took 3 days or less, therefore over 50% took 3 days or less

certainly I'd contend that a large proportion are taking less than the private sector rate

The average woman working in state departments was absent 14 days,

The indo really needs to be thought how to use english

The average woman?? rubbish, how can you define that?

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

There are some people in the private sector who are bound to take unjustified sickies now and again , but the figures suggest its not as big a problem as in the public sector, where on average - a week extra per year is taken "sick".

The sick leave taken in the public sector is justified. It's been certified as such by a member of the private sector. So, we should be looking at the the health problems in the public sector.

Arathorn

You can argue over figures untl the cows come home but at the end of the day most people know that people in the public sector take the piss on "sickies" more than the private sector. Thats not saying that the private sector are angels, but they don't get away with as much. Exceptions to this work both ways

BostonB

Its human nature not to take it if it means you don't get paid. Carrot and stick etc. As 50% of the private sector doesn't have paid sick leave, its always going to be less.

Also if you do a have problem with a serious illness, which means lots of sick days, you don't have the protection of the unions in most (I assume) of the private sector.

BostonB

jimmmy wrote: »

So an organisation with staff taking 11 days sickies a year is going to be as productive / lean / efficient as an organisation with staff taking 6 days sickies a year ?

The flip side is if you have sick people comming in medicated to the eyeballs making lots of mistakes, perhaps serious.

BostonB

Arathorn wrote: »

You can argue over figures untl the cows come home but at the end of the day most people know that people in the public sector take the piss on "sickies" more than the private sector. Thats not saying that the private sector are angels, but they don't get away with as much. Exceptions to this work both ways

If there is a problem its needs to be corrected. No argument.

However the problem is its hard to know whats true because the media reporting is very poor and perhaps bias, in that they give half facts rather than a balanced comparision.

P. Breathnach

BostonB wrote: »

If there is a problem its needs to be corrected. No argument.

Agreed. I suspect there is a problem, but that it is not nearly as large as some people suggest. In any areas that I experienced in my public service career, the peer expectation was that you turned up for work if you were able for it. The importance of peer pressure should not be overlooked.

I think it possible that there are pockets in the public service where the culture is different, but I don't actually know of any.

However the problem is its hard to know whats true because the media reporting is very poor and perhaps bias, in that they give half facts rather than a balanced comparision.

There are reasons why higher levels of absence might be expected in some areas of public service employment:
- Some work involves physical danger and there can be injuries (e.g. the gárdaí; the firefighting service).
- In some jobs, it is wrong to come to work with an infection that might normally not be considered too serious (e.g. healthcare; teaching children, especially at kindergarten age).
- There are some jobs where one needs to be fully fit to work, where there is no option of undertaking light duties for a day or two (e.g. teaching).

To make a proper judgement of whether there is abuse of sick leave in the public service would involve a major exercise.

MrMicra

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think it possible that there are pockets in the public service where the culture is different, but I don't actually know of any.

I've worked quite closely with Public service organisations in the past and there are certainly more than just pockets. In sections that are majority women within the public sector the work ethic has tended to be very poor.

Not all such sections have a poor work ethic but many do. This tendency is independent of academic qualifications and pay.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To make a proper judgement of whether there is abuse of sick leave in the public service would involve a major exercise.

And one which should be constantly ongoing! We clearly need a department of administrative affairs in this country.