The "worst of all possible worlds": The deal between Government and the unions

LoLth

amacachi wrote: »

It'll vary across departments and I doubt having sick days around leave days would be tolerated too much now. I know one department though that allows 2 days off sick without a doctor's note unless the days are either side of the weekend.

any company I have worked for has always had a policy of "sick note required for 3 days illness". same for any of my friends (that I have spoken about this to - its not a very common topic of discussion in the pub over the years) this isnt a policy limited to either sector.

amacachi

LoLth wrote: »

any company I have worked for has always had a policy of "sick note required for 3 days illness". same for any of my friends (that I have spoken about this to - its not a very common topic of discussion in the pub over the years) this isnt a policy limited to either sector.

I wasn't being critical, just mentioning how it is in another PS building/department that I know of.

BostonB

amacachi wrote: »

It'll vary across departments and I doubt having sick days around leave days would be tolerated too much now. I know one department though that allows 2 days off sick without a doctor's note unless the days are either side of the weekend.

Usually the similar rules in the private sector where there is paid sick leave.

97i9y3941

what might happen either since we banana republic,there could be lay offs,but like the fas fiasco there might be big lovely pay offs and top up pensions still for those who have years of services..

LoLth

amacachi wrote: »

I wasn't being critical, just mentioning how it is in another PS building/department that I know of.

sorry , I wasnt having a go at you. I was just making it clearer that the three day sick cert rule is not limited to either sector and is , from my experience, quite common.

Flamed Diving

Bring in Maggie Thatcher.

Idbatterim

What makes the situation even more ridiculous is the fact that we have virtually no military expenditure & a very small OAP population, which in other countries must consume alot of the budget!

The_Honeybadger

LoLth wrote: »

Certainly I would agree that there are some that would abuse sick leave and treat it as additional holiday leave but that would occur in BOTH sectors. (I worked with one engineer that would take sick days to pad out trips abroad to allow him a few extra days stay for sightseeing, this was Private sector). Similarly, I know one receptionist who hasnt taken a sick day in 14 years (private sector) and an IT engineer (public sector) that has only taken 1 sick day in the last three years (he broke a bone in his wrist on a sunday and took the monday off because he wanted to rest it).

Anecdotal evidence by itself is almost useless (no offense to your post intended). The story you tell above says more about your uncle's work ethic than it does about the public sector in general and it would be unfair to characterise an entire sector by the example of one member.

using sick days as leave is , as far as I know, frowned upon and punishable by organisations in both sectors. I have never heard of an organisation that actually allowed such actions. Now, whether or not the manager turns a blind eye to this behaviour is another question altogether and those that do should be targetted as part of the reforms mentioned (just like any private sector profit making ocmpany would tackle a manager that allows this behaviour in an effort to protect its own profits).

As far as I know that was the culture in that particular dept at the time and most employees took nearly their full entitlements in terms of sick leave. He also often worked way beyond the standard 9 to 5, as he was the top civil servant in that dept so maybe he felt entitled to a few extra days off when things were quiet. Either way I know that was very common practice at that time and I doubt anybody was disciplined for it. I'm not trying to generalise the PS or say they were all at it or anything because i don't know that they were.

ceret

LoLth wrote: »

Certainly I would agree that there are some that would abuse sick leave and treat it as additional holiday leave but that would occur in BOTH sectors ... Anecdotal evidence by itself is almost useless ... it would be unfair to characterise an entire sector by the example of one member.

Yes anecdotal evidence is not so helpful. However the Comptroller and Auditor General recently published a report of sick leave in the Public Sector and backed up most of the steryotypes people have, and that the rate of sick days was about double in the public sector as it was in the private sector.

The report from the C&AG - Irish Times - Irish Independent

jake59

westtip wrote: »

Too dam right there is:

There is public sector sick leave - "I am entitled to 16 days a sick leave a year and have a bit of a sniffly nose"

And there is Self employed sick leave - Self employed people are remarkably resilient and cannot afford to get sick

Ah thats great. I was actually referring to the "oh **** i just got stabbed while trying to arrest someone" or "oh balls i appear to have been stuck with a syringe while attempting to perform cpr on a herion addict who is in cardiac arrest" type of sick leave..... As I said there are plenty of malingerers but also plenty of genuine cases. As i am sure there are in the private sector.

BostonB

ceret wrote: »

Yes anecdotal evidence is not so helpful. However the Comptroller and Auditor General recently published a report of sick leave in the Public Sector and backed up most of the steryotypes people have, and that the rate of sick days was about double in the public sector as it was in the private sector.

Is that related to the fact that only half or less of (my guesstimate) the private sector has paid sick leave?

Sleepy

I'd imagine the fact that long term illness isn't as supported in private enterprise as in the public sector. AFAIR, our paid sick leave in my last company only extended to a maximum of 6 months and then your contract was terminated (or you were on unpaid leave or something similar) whereas you hear of public sector employees who've been on sick leave for years... that has to skew the figures...

My own annecdotal evidence would be purely hearsay but I remember my father being exasperated by a public servant who while interviewing for a position in the company he worked in asked how many paid sick days were allowed!

BostonB

Sleepy wrote: »

I'd imagine the fact that long term illness isn't as supported in private enterprise as in the public sector. AFAIR, our paid sick leave in my last company only extended to a maximum of 6 months and then your contract was terminated (or you were on unpaid leave or something similar) whereas you hear of public sector employees who've been on sick leave for years... that has to skew the figures......

I don't understand that. Anywhere I've been in the public sector had the same rules as where I've been in the private sector. Seems like everyone copies the same rules.

nesf

BostonB wrote: »

Is that related to the fact that only half or less of (my guesstimate) the private sector has paid sick leave?

It would be affected by it but such private companies wouldn't have as uniform a work culture as the public service in that while there is considerable difference between parts of the public service it is highly unlikely that workplaces would be as heterogeneous as the private sector in this regard.

The CAG report highlights a serious level of abuse of the system, it doesn't indicate uniform abuse or uniform work practices only that on average the level of sick leave being taken is far higher than is reasonable if sick leave isn't being abused. Anyone interpreting it as every public sector workplace has an endemic sick leave abuse problem doesn't understand what they're talking about though.

BostonB

nesf wrote: »

It would be affected by it but such private companies wouldn't have as uniform a work culture as the public service in that while there is considerable difference between parts of the public service it is highly unlikely that workplaces would be as heterogeneous as the private sector in this regard. .

So your saying, working as cop, fireman or nurse in a emergency room would quite similar to working as a teacher, or working as manager, clerk,. They'd all be exposed to the same same risk of illness, injury etc. Or that if you had a higher % of older people, or more people with families they wouldn't be exposed to more sickness or have a lower immune system etc. I don't agree.

Perhaps there are fair comparisions of similar jobs, age or family status, or public sector with the paid sick leave in the private. But the vast majority of these reports don't do that.

Thats not to say it isn't abused.

nesf wrote: »

The CAG report highlights a serious level of abuse of the system, it doesn't indicate uniform abuse or uniform work practices only that on average the level of sick leave being taken is far higher than is reasonable if sick leave isn't being abused. Anyone interpreting it as every public sector workplace has an endemic sick leave abuse problem doesn't understand what they're talking about though.

If you compared the private sector that has no paid sick, with the private sector that does, I'm sure the level would be higher in the latter. That would also indicate its abused there also.

lmimmfn

public sector are the only ones who complain about the goverenment and NAMA, yes indirectly want me to be taxed more to keep their inflated wage.


Hold on, i never asked PS to fight my Nama cause, i can do that myself, keep your selfish requirements to yourselves and dont try and propogate it as in the national interest.

BostonB

Are you like 2 pages back or something?

nesf

BostonB wrote: »

So your saying, working as cop, fireman or nurse in a emergency room would quite similar to working as a teacher, or working as manager, clerk,. They'd all be exposed to the same same risk of illness, injury etc. Or that if you had a higher % of older people, or more people with families they wouldn't be exposed to more sickness or have a lower immune system etc. I don't agree.

Read the report as linked above, they went into detail, including breakdowns by sex, age, Department etc. It's quite interesting reading actually.

Specifically:

It is about the Civil Service not Gardaí, Nurses, Firemen, Teachers and whatnot but Clerical Officers, Executive Officers etc that are directly attached to a Government Department or Government agency

BostonB

Its a 100 page document. I'll get back to you.

ei.sdraob

I just heard that they have to setup more beuracracies and management posts now

to manage this agreement in each section

crazy ****

BostonB

Theres been an agreement? When did that happen?

Flamed Diving

BostonB wrote: »

Its a 100 page document. I'll get back to you.

Most of these documents have some kind of summary.

BostonB

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Most of these documents have some kind of summary.

Quoting from them would be far more useful than everyone who reads the thread having to open the document, and read through it.

Knightfall

Some of the comments are amazing. Anyone, at any time, could have applied for a job in the public service. Most thought, "yeah right, I'll make more in the private sector." Now those people are crying because the public sector have jobs.

Tough!

The_Honeybadger

Knightfall wrote: »

Some of the comments are amazing. Anyone, at any time, could have applied for a job in the public service. Most thought, "yeah right, I'll make more in the private sector." Now those people are crying because the public sector have jobs.

Tough!

Don't really think that people begrudge the PS their jobs, you rightly say anybody could have applied, many are now sorry they didn't I'm sure. It is the level of remuneration and conditions they have that people are getting worked up over. Report after report shows their pay is out of line (see below for latest summary) and we have a structural deficit of well in excess of 10 billion, borrowing crazy amounts to pay for all this while we have record job losses and deflation in the economy. It is pretty clear what needs to be done and the PS unions are blocking every sensible solution to the problem. You also have PS employees moaning on national TV that 55k is not enough to live on, of course people are going to react. Our future taxes are expected to pay these wages and we are entitled to ask if we are getting value for money, surely you agree that in many cases we are not.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/analysis-overview/public-sector-not-carrying-its-share-of-our-burden-1963989.html

ceret

nesf wrote: »

It is about the Civil Service not Gardaí, Nurses, Firemen, Teachers and whatnot but Clerical Officers, Executive Officers etc that are directly attached to a Government Department or Government agency

Those paper cuts can give you a nasty wound.

Knightfall

I actually agree with you up to a point. I don't think that in alot of areas we get value for our buck. But, a very large number of the public service employees earn between 24k and 27k per annum. Do you agree that a member of the public service who is the sole earner for their family should readily agree to take a 6-15% cut (depending on what you read)? Or in other words, put their very familys in jeopardy to save the country?

Little thanks they'll get for it!

mickeyk wrote: »

Don't really think that people begrudge the PS their jobs, you rightly say anybody could have applied, many are now sorry they didn't I'm sure. It is the level of remuneration and conditions they have that people are getting worked up over. Report after report shows their pay is out of line (see below for latest summary) and we have a structural deficit of well in excess of 10 billion, borrowing crazy amounts to pay for all this while we have record job losses and deflation in the economy. It is pretty clear what needs to be done and the PS unions are blocking every sensible solution to the problem. You also have PS employees moaning on national TV that 55k is not enough to live on, of course people are going to react. Our future taxes are expected to pay these wages and we are entitled to ask if we are getting value for money, surely you agree that in many cases we are not.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/budget/analysis-overview/public-sector-not-carrying-its-share-of-our-burden-1963989.html

The_Honeybadger

Knightfall wrote: »

I actually agree with you up to a point. I don't think that in alot of areas we get value for our buck. But, a very large number of the public service employees earn between 24k and 27k per annum. Do you agree that a member of the public service who is the sole earner for their family should readily agree to take a 6-15% cut (depending on what you read)? Or in other words, put their very familys in jeopardy to save the country?

Little thanks they'll get for it!

Of course I agree and in fact Id go as far as to say anybody under 35k should not be touched at all, and nobody under any circumstances will be asked to take a cut of 15%, that would lead to an all out revolt in the PS. But we in the private sector are not bemoaning the fact that ye have jobs (well at least im not), for my part i am simply annoyed that so much money is wasted paying inflated wages negotiated by Bertie and his cronies, while the country falls apart. Even the most staunch PS supporter knows the gap needs to be closed but of course the low paid need to be kept out of any round of cuts.

Knightfall

mickyk, you are a voice of common sense. Unfortunately, the government spin machine, propogated by RTE has mananged to sway the general populace to an alternative opinion

Flamed Diving

BostonB wrote: »

Quoting from them would be far more useful than everyone who reads the thread having to open the document, and read through it.

But if one is to pass comment on said document, shouldn't it be standard practice that they have at least read the summary?