Workers Walk Today

Wishbone Ash

jimmmy wrote: »

And people in the private sector - farmers, fishermen, construction workers, van drivers, security workers, doormen etc never get hurt or injured in the course of work ?

Of course but there is a difference. The vast majority of farmers and fishermen are self employed and therefore, aren't included in the figures. Doormen tend to be unofficial or 'double jobbing' and unlikely to be included either. Injuries suffered by construction workers, van drivers etc. are generally physically in nature. There's a big difference between being assaulted by a member of the public, prisoner/patient than physical injuries suffered by manual workers.

jimmmy wrote:

As everyone knows, go to your doctor with a cough or headache or backache + look for a cert for a day or two, and most doctors will feel they have to give you a cert.

I agreeing with you here as I said above. Doctor need to play their part and stop accepting €60 to furnish false certs which are unlikely to be challenged.

jimmmy wrote:

It does not explain why the rate of sick days claimed is far higher in the public service than the private sector, and why almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday.

If you see from a few post earlier, it's assessed differently which make the figures look different.

I agree totally that it is higher though and causes a lot of anger to those of us who work in essential frontline services where the remaining staff have to try to provide the same service without replacement of those out sick.

It's also very frustrating for those of us in the PS who are very rarely sick. I've only missed a few days in 22 years and my last day of absence was in 2005.

LoLth

jimmmy wrote: »

Absolutely nothing to do with Monday Morning blues or hangover ? :rolleyes:

and are these things unique to either the public or the private sector? If not, I dont see how they can be used as a demonstration of corruption without a more specific breakdown that shows the number of "monday morning blues" or "hangover" instances. to say that one sector or the other takes more without such evidence is speculation. you *may* be right but without evidence , its just an opinion.

wicklowmale

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well it happens to be the largest employer in the state!

The Public Sector! obviously

jimmmy

LoLth wrote: »

and are these things unique to either the public or the private sector?

Of course not, because you are talking about human beings and sectors numbering 350,000 and 1,800,000..... but that is not the point. I do not really care about how many days sickies the private sector takes, as my taxes are not paying for them. I can choose to support whatever firm or business I want to, and the market can decide if it stays in business. By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector. Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

peter_de_tool

The Irish people appear to be too stupid or cowardly or indifferent to stop it. . .

We heard the usual feminist whine when these figures came out that they were explained by the fact that working mothers had to take off time to mind sick children. Well, firstly, that is not sick leave, and secondly, absenteeism is highest amongst women over 55, who take 17 days sick leave a year -- men of that age take one day -- and who are well past the child-minding age. And what is not clear from the report is the absenteeism levels amongst female clerical officers, in which category the two main malingering cultures combine.

S.L.F

jimmmy wrote: »

By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector. Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

The problem with satistics is you can get them to say whatever you want them to say all you have to do is when presenting the results to leave out the things you don't want mentioned eg the public service works on a 7 day week then suddenly you straight away have an extra 3 days sick leave if someone is sick on a Mon or a Fri.

Does the info say anything about whether or not maternity leave is classified as sick leave?

From this http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/learningstats/

"There's this vague idea - which has been going around for the past few centuries - that statistics is quite difficult. But in reality the maths is often the least of your problems: the tricky bit comes way before the number crunching, when you are deciding what to measure, how to measure it, and what those measurements mean."

jimmmy

S.L.F wrote: »

The problem with satistics is you can get them to say whatever you want them to say all you have to do is when presenting the results to leave out the things you don't want mentioned eg the public service works on a 7 day week then suddenly you straight away have an extra 3 days sick leave if someone is sick on a Mon or a Fri.

I understand the statistics showing public sector sickies are treble that on a Monday compared to a Friday just show the 5 working days a week, because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week. People who only worked part time or who worked weekends were deliberately left out , as they could have distorted the result.

S.L.F

jimmmy wrote: »

I understand the statistics showing public sector sickies are treble that on a Monday compared to a Friday just show the 5 working days a week, because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week. People who only worked part time or who worked weekends were deliberately left out , as they could have distorted the result.

jimmmy in the PS a person might only work Mon to Fri every single week but when it comes to sickness on a Monday or a Friday they are expected to get a cert for Saturdays and Sundays as they are deemed to work a seven day week.

It probably seems crazy but that is the way it's done in the PS

TCP/IP_King

jimmmy wrote: »

...because the statistics were just taken from those public servants working the normal Monday-Friday 5 day week...

Its OK I found it

NewDubliner

jimmmy wrote: »

As everyone knows, go to your doctor with a cough or headache or backache + look for a cert for a day or two, and most doctors will feel they have to give you a cert.

If certs are being given out when they should not be, it's the fault of the private sector doctors who issue them.

jimmmy wrote: »

Not that all sick days are certified.

90% are certified.

jimmmy wrote: »

It does not explain why the rate of sick days claimed is far higher in the public service than the private sector, and why almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday.

Because people get too sick to be allowed work. Because they soldier on during the week hoping to recover from an illness over the weekend, then find they're still not well enought to return on the Monday.

Wishbone Ash

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

Well it happens to be the largest employer in the state!

wicklowmale wrote: »

The Public Sector! obviously

The Health Service Executive is the largest employer in the state.

Wishbone Ash

jimmmy wrote: »

I do not really care about how many days sickies the private sector takes, as my taxes are not paying for them

The private sector are not the only ones paying income taxes!! My income tax is also used and a significat portion of the income tax gathered comes from the PS.

jimmmy wrote:

I can choose to support whatever firm or business I want to, and the market can decide if it stays in business.

Of course you can and my money is good too.

I don't understand your point about staying in business. Do you expect your local Garda Station or dole office to make a profit? Do you pick and choose which fire station you would like to respond to your call or choose which A & E you would like to utilise?

jimmmy wrote:

By contrast the statistics show that far more sick days are taken in the public sector

They are compilied differently.

jimmmy wrote:

Also almost three times more sickies are taken on a Monday compared to a Friday....so methinks that is something of public interest as the public is paying for it.

Your obsessed with this Monday thing!

The graph you provided earlier shows the percentage of days where sick leave commenced. Some people may not fele well on Friday but they struggle on because the are off duty for the next 2 days and hope to recover by Monday and avoid taking 3 certified sick days.

If however, they are not fit to resume on Monday they will submit a cert for the duration of the illness begining on the Monday even though they have been sick since Friday. The figures are naturally going to be higher for commencment of sick leave on a Monday.

Suppose then that a particular group of employees work a Friday to Tuesday cycle with each Wednesday and Thursday off. The figures then would naturally show a higher commencement of sick leave on a Friday.

I would be interested in seeing a graph of shift workers who are rostered over 7 days/52 weeks (day and night). It would show no difference from one day to the next as a Cert would be required for any of the days off exceeding the first day regardless of which day the sick leave commences.

bbam

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

as a Cert would be required for any of the days off

No... I've worked for a major private company 5K+ employees and managed employees on many shift patterns, we were not interested in certs for days not rostered.

An employee could have a single day cert for their last rostered day and that would be fine...

Please don't attempt to suggest that working conditions/security are similar in public sector and private service..

I am a manager in the private sector and my partner is a department manager in the public sector, I have a decent understanding of how both sides work.

The major difference is that while 10% of the employees in my organisation have been made redundant, with the remainder taking pay cuts..... Well we know what the public sector have sacrificed..., their Friday afternoon's work which we had to borrow the money to fund !

Anyway, I think the whole certified/uincertified is besides the point..
A significant portion of public sector wages are out of control and I don't want "efficiencies", I want to see wages reduced...

Reverse benchmarking is the order of the day, serve it hot or cold, just bloody serve it in December..

TCP/IP_King

peter_de_tool wrote: »

We heard the usual feminist whine ...

The usual IBEC whine.
The fundamental truth here is that society is built on people and not on some principle from 19th century "organising of work" philosophy.
The sad reality is that, ignoring the corporate facade of "slogging" long hours and get back to the basics of child no 1 is sick, it's the mother that invariably ends up picking up the reality.
The "dad" is there slogging it with the rest of the corporate whores.
Been there, done that, and regretfully realised too late the fallicy of it all.

uncle_sam_ie

bbam wrote: »

Anyway, I think the whole certified/uincertified is besides the point..
A significant portion of public sector wages are out of control and I don't want "efficiencies", I want to see wages reduced...

Reverse benchmarking is the order of the day, serve it hot or cold, just bloody serve it in December..

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

thebman

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

-20 billion + whatever the government is out by in its calculations

And if the public sector isn't part of the economy axe it because its sucking money out of the economy. If it is part of the economy, it played its part to get us where we are today.

People arguing both ways in this thread. I'll be banned if I properly respond to the statement that the private sector did everything to the economy.

Makes me wonder do you even know what the private sector is :rolleyes:

uncle_sam_ie

thebman wrote: »

Makes me wonder do you even know what the private sector is :rolleyes:

Ya it's the sector were the banks and developers together got us into this mess . Sorry but, a nurse that works a 12 hour shift saving someones life like yours then goes out and spends his or her wage back into the economy did not get us into this mess.

Head The Wall

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

Maybe the reason the PS staff are saying they can't afford any more paycuts is because they got carried away and got large mortages, new cars etc and fuelled the boom themselves. The PS claim they get higher wages because they have are more educated etc but yet they are ignorant to the fact that everyone that borrowed and lived on credit is responsible. Builders only charged what the market would pay. Get real people

irish_bob

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000. The out of control portion would be hit then. Why should hard working nurse's, that earn less and end up taking care of people like you when your in desperate need of their help, carry the can for what the private sector has done to this economy. There seems to be plenty of billions to help bail them out.

ah , another drag up the sacred cows that are the nurses post , the average nurse earns 50 k per year btw , they earn more than many business which take in over 100k per year , the nurse has no costs , the business cost are usually half what they take in , right now , they are probably far more

enough of the pull at the heartstrings tactics from the so called FRONTLINE union

thebman

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Ya it's the sector were the banks and developers together got us into this mess .

Thats a crap and inaccurate definition, please try again. I'll even let you cheat and use Google.

Sorry but, a nurse that works a 12 hour shift saving someones life like yours then goes out

What has that got to do with anything. Thats their job, if they don't do their job then there is an issue. Shouldn't have signed the contract if the person wasn't happy with what was in it.

and spends his or her wage back into the economy did not get us into this mess.

lol so they somehow magically contributed to the economy but didn't contribute to where the economy ended up? Fantasy land, I'm sure some didn't but there are many people with mortgages that were only too happy to support those evil developers in the private sector :rolleyes:

uncle_sam_ie

irish_bob wrote: »

the average nurse earns 50 k per year btw , union

No, they don't BTW. You're the type that will come into casualty hat in hand wanting the best care or be calling for the fire service to help save your house. But then demand that they pay for what the private sector has done to this country.

murphaph

I'm fcuking sick of hearing about 'poor nurses'. :mad:

uncle_sam_ie

murphaph wrote: »

I'm fcuking sick of hearing about 'poor nurses'. :mad:

Wow, calm down you don't want to get a heart attack then have to have a nurse care for you. That would be distressful.

thebman

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

No, they don't BTW. You're the type that will come into casualty hat in hand wanting the best care or be calling for the fire service to help save your house. But then demand that they pay for what the private escort has done to this country.

Still haven't Googled that then, here's a link to make it easier:

Google

asdasd

maybe we should make all nurses private sector contractors so it removes one rung of the PS apologists argument.

That said the kind of guy who cant tell the difference between the banks, financial capitalists, and private sector workers isnt all that bright.

Even Karl Marx could tell the difference there, in fact it was the foundation of this philosophy.

asdasd

Because they[people who take monday off] soldier on during the week hoping to recover from an illness over the weekend, then find they're still not well enought to return on the Monday.

Or because they were on a bender all weekend.

murphaph

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

Wow, calm down you don't want to get a heart attack then have to have a nurse care for you. That would be distressful.

A german nurse and a german doctor on normal wages would be looking after me if I survived

My point is that "poor nurses" is such a tired line with no basis in reality. Nurses choose to be nurses. They make good money at it. End of story.

murphaph

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

No, they don't BTW. You're the type that will come into casualty hat in hand wanting the best care or be calling for the fire service to help save your house. But then demand that they pay for what the private escort has done to this country.

Freudian slip?

uncle_sam_ie

murphaph wrote: »

Freudian slip?

Lol , stupid Mac predictive spell checker.:p

bbam

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

So, tax anyone who earners over 50,000.

Hello !!!
We already tax folks earning €50K+ :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but Benchmarking was a bad process and was bad for the country, boom or bust in the economy. Why isn't it rolled out now to drive back public sector wages in line with private..
We have to shed the notion that public sector wages/conditions can only be brought up, there has to be some scope to reduce costs when times are hard, any reasonable person would see this...

Also, there is nothing special about nurses, guards or anyone else in the public sector, they're workers doing a job, some do it well and plenty do it crap, just like private sector workers....

I can't wait to see these same folks loosing their jobs because they wouldn't take a pay cut, they might see what it's like in the real world similar to the 165K private sector workers who are out of work in the last 12 months.

When the idiots start talking about what the private sector did to the country we always have FAS to remind us of what a well run institution is like