Civil Service Sick Leave Costs State Over €300m Extra P/A Compared To Private Sector

[Jackass]

http://irishindependent.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx (Article at bottom of front page)

It has been revealed in today’s Sunday Independent that the extra sick leave in the public sector, compared to the private sector, is costing the Government over €300,000,000 per year to pay for.

The figures state that the average amount of sick leave in the private sector is about 2.5% of working days, well below the European average of 3.8% and below 2% in small firms.

However, in the public sector sick leave runs at up to three times that of the private sector and the average amount of sick leave is 11.3 days (versus 6.3 in the private sector) and those additional five days above the average cost the exchequer over €300,000,000 per year.

Richard Bruton has demanded a crackdown on public sector ‘sickies’ and described it as an "epidemic" and said that if the public sector could come to work as much as the private sector, there would be "significant benefits" to the country.

The report also states that the current weekly wage for these people is €1,000 and if they weren't taking this extra sick leave, we would also save a further €40,000,000 on top of the above figure on social welfare costs.

All of this, in an environment where the government is currently trying to get rid of a further 4,000 public sector workers, as the wage bill continues to cripple the country.

This also comes just 3 months after Public Sector unions rejected a proposal to cut sick pay entitlements by half (less than the current rate above the private sector), despite Brendan Howlen warning about the €500,000,000 (half a billion) annual sick pay bill for the public sector as being "unsustainable". (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0503/1224315512677.html)

Just a 29 days after their rejection of the cut in sick leave, Eoin Ronayne, the head of the public sector union stated that “It is difficult for our members to cope when they see high-level promotions just after an early retirement package came on stream. Very little resources appear to be being placed into frontline resources.” in response to promotions within the civil service following redundancies, and he looked for MORE resources to be made available (i.e. overtime and additional staff) due to their inability to cope... (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0430/1224315362636.html)

And as if further evidence was needed that public sector workers aren't living in the real world, despite all of the above, Senior Civil Servants, just 10 days after the above statement, were reprimanded by the Government for their inability to manage their staff and inability to apply correct performance reviews, awarding 65% of all public sector staff a rating of "outstanding" or “exceeds the required standard” on the Governments 5 point rating plan, where only the bottom point of the five is a negative review, at merely "“unacceptable”, despite the "expert group" that drew up the evaluation plan anticipating that only between 10% - 20% of staff would achieve the top ratings...

It's also worth noting that private sector workers can take up to 7 consecutive sick days before being required to produce a medical certificate and can be on full pay for up to 6 months once they produce a doctor’s note.

The Comptroller and Auditor General commented that "effective management of the Civil Service was critical if the State was to maximise the value of its workforce".

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0411/1224314609624.html

This all really just seems appalling to me. I mean, it's blatantly obvious that they're just taking the piss, from Senior level all the way down.

Is it fair to say that this is an over staffed, under worked sector that's draining billions out of the exchequer every year with little value for money? I know on a personal level, any dealings I have with the public sector are an absolute nightmare and it seems like it's geared from the outset to be as unhelpful as possible, even down to working hours to make it as difficult as possible to contact them...

Is this a national disgrace that needs to be tackled, whereby we're being ripped off from the inside? Can anything be done under the current Government? Or is this just to be expected from a civil service and we should just shut up and put up and continue to work long hours with unpaid overtime and hope our companies don't go under and we lose our jobs so we can all continue to keep the gravy train afloat and hope to God we don't get sick?

I'm of the opinion that there was a boom time policy to get full-employment with little or no concern for a future down turn and the crippling bill this would impose, with substantial pay increases year on year to keep the 300,000 odd voters in the civil service happy and there needs to be a serious adjustment here, in line with the private sector, but the unions seem to be of the opinion that they're entitled to hold on to everything they got, despite all the hardship and cut backs everywhere else...Anybody else a bit miffed by all of this??

juan.kerr

I thought the Croke Park Agreement was supposed to stamp this out?

Delancey

As I mentioned in the Health Cutbacks thread on my first day as a HSE employee I was advised of my ' entitlement ' to 5 uncertified sick days a year and then further advised that my colleagues ' expected ' me to utilise this fully and thus create overtime opportunities for them.

Kinda sums up the Public Service attitude to sick leave .

Sarn

The problem is that those who take advantage of the system increase the pressure on their colleagues who don't. Over time I would imagine that the good employees end up doing it as well, to avoid being taken advantage of.

A review of an individuals sick leave should be conducted, where there is a pattern of the system being abused, any future sick leave should have to be certified or at least be reduced. Specific departments should be named and shamed, with sanctions applied to the department until the situation is rectified.

Now, how that could be accomplished with the unions and contracts is another matter.

tinner777

Delancey wrote: »

As I mentioned in the Health Cutbacks thread on my first day as a HSE employee I was advised of my ' entitlement ' to 5 uncertified sick days a year and then further advised that my colleagues ' expected ' me to utilise this fully and thus create overtime opportunities for them.

Kinda sums up the Public Service attitude to sick leave .

Not sure where your working but in my place every nurse is seen after any sick leave, 1 day or a week, by their manager. More than 3 episodes in a 3 month period they get passed up to the Adon. I can request to see a sick note for any period of sick. 4 nurses on my unit have to provide sick notes for every day they take sick. 2 of them are never sick anymore. The other two provide sick notes or are marked absent and risk not getting paid. I'm sure this is the case throughout the hospital.

ardmacha

The previous post illustrates the core point. Some parts of the PS have excessive overtime, others do not. As usual aggregate figures are not much use, you need to get at those that have much higher levels, even though they have exactly the same union agreements.

n97 mini

I think it's widely accepted there is room for improvement in the PS.

Ironically when I was in the PS I had no genuine sick days at all as I was completely unstressed. The only days I took off due to sickness were when one of the kids was sick, but my manager would usually put those down as working from home and not sick days.

Gumbo

[Jackass] wrote: »

The figures state that the average amount of sick leave in the private sector is about 2.5% of working days, well below the European average of 3.8% and below 2% in small firms.

However, in the public sector sick leave runs at up to three times that of the private sector and the average amount of sick leave is 11.3 days (versus 6.3 in the private sector) and those additional five days above the average cost the exchequer over €300,000,000 per year.

Can anybody explain why the OP/Reporter used % calculations for the private sector and a daily calculation for the PS? I find this confusing/misleading/strange?

[Jackass] wrote: »

The report also states that the current weekly wage for these people is €1,000 and if they weren't taking this extra sick leave, we would also save a further €40,000,000 on top of the above figure on social welfare costs.

Where did this figure come from? Did you survey everybody that took sick leave?

[Jackass] wrote: »

I know on a personal level, any dealings I have with the public sector are an absolute nightmare and it seems like it's geared from the outset to be as unhelpful as possible, even down to working hours to make it as difficult as possible to contact them...

OP, what Public Sector departments where you trying to deal with that you could not get to/contact because of their working hours? Be very interested to hear your responce on that one. thanks.

everdead.ie

One thing I would like to see is the seperation of the HSE from the rest of the figures as they are likely to be sicker more often given where they work.

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

Can anybody explain why the OP/Reporter used % calculations for the private sector and a daily calculation for the PS? I find this confusing/misleading/strange?

While I cannot give an answer to your question, I would say its not unusual or 'strange' to have less exact figures for the private sector than the public sector. The PS is one employer (the state) and thus getting exact figures is much simpler. The Private sector is a combination of large and small companies and independent traders and there is no one depository for the information. It is more likely that the private sector figure is a statistical determination based on the information available (thus the use of percentages) rather than an effort to 'mislead' the public.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

It is more likely that the private sector figure is a statistical determination based on the information available (thus the use of percentages) rather than an effort to 'mislead' the public.

In other words it is subject to the usual statistical tolerances and because it covers such a diversity of employments then it doesn't really reflect reality in many sectors. Oops just the same with the public sector figures .. as always why oh why can't we have more sector specific reporting of statistics so that the real problem areas can be targetted instead of the usual sweeping generalisations. Of couses this applies for all sectors.

Chris_5339762

I can proudly say I work in the health service and have only taken 1 day of sick leave in four years.

And if you're looking, I'm on my regular teabreak so I'm allowed to be online!

Glinda

There is an elephant in the room here. The vast, vast majority of sick leave in the public and sector is certified by doctors. I cannot comment very much because of my job, but it seems clear that nobody is talking about the fact that doctors will generally certify anyone, for anything, for as long as they like.

In the private sector, this has fewer consequences, because if your sick leave is horrendous (and you are not suffering from an obvious serious condition) you will simply be let go and no longer appear in the stats.

In the public sector, for as long as you have a medical cert, you are completely untouchable. You will eventually be on reduced or no pay, but it is amazing how many people make a miraculous recovery when they are about to have their pay reduced. This doesn't happen for six months, so you have a significant minority with very high sick leave, who can never be tackled because they hold their doctor's cert in front of them like a shining shield.

This is very frustrating for managers (who, can do absolutely nothing about it, once the doctor is involved) and for colleagues who are carrying these people on their backs day-in, day-out (and getting trashed in the press for having bad sick leave, when they very likely have none at all).

40% of staff in my organisation took zero sick leave in the past year. A very large further percentage took either or two days. There are a small minority with well over one hundred days (all certified, none for what you would describe as a concrete serious illness). Result: average sick-leave is 11 days.

So disheartening and frustrating for everyone else. Advice is that for as long as doctor will issue certs, we can do nothing.

Lumbo

I've worked in the Public Sector for the last 11 years. I've taken a total of 22 sick days in that time. 10 of those, were certified. There's a real need to come down hard on people who abuse the benefits of the sick pay scheme and the managers who don't implement it properly.

There's about 1600 people work in my organisation. If in any 12 month period, a person takes 4 uncertified sick leave days, they are sent to the company doctor. Since this was introduced the number of uncertified sick leave days taken has greatly reduduced. It's just one example of how this issue is being tackled by our organisation and how easy it would be for others to do the same.

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

While I cannot give an answer to your question, I would say its not unusual or 'strange' to have less exact figures for the private sector than the public sector. The PS is one employer (the state) and thus getting exact figures is much simpler. The Private sector is a combination of large and small companies and independent traders and there is no one depository for the information. It is more likely that the private sector figure is a statistical determination based on the information available (thus the use of percentages) rather than an effort to 'mislead' the public.

I agree with you completely on the stats and that they are harder to get in the private sector. This sort of data is generally very unreliable.
To me this article is lazy journalism and stinks of trying to start more Public V Private arguments rather than progress any useful debate on the topic.

1) from the figures the ps sick days are 4.48%. The article says "estimated at five percent" why is this being rounded up when no others percentages are?
2) If the european average is 3.5% what is the Irish, surely this is easy to work out? Turns out it is around 2.9% according to their figures (weighted average 4.48% of 300k workers, 2.5% of 1,450k workers)

There is no attempt to find any useful meaning in these figures apart from saying "Public bad, private good"
Questions that would be interesting to help address this are:
What is the trend in sick leave in the public and private sector, is sick leave going up or down? (turns out the private has dropped by near 50% in the last 3 years!)
What amount is certified in both sectors, again what is the trend?
What sectors of the public/private sectors have high absense, is higher justifiable (health workers?)?
Are the figures being compared from the same years?

Some useful links that took me two seconds to find, yet the journalist didn't even bother to look up it seems. Turns out our average in 2007 was 8 days (3.5% or below the european average) . Have a read of the discussion on comparing european numbers particularly this

Clearly, making any direct comparisons between different national statistics would be unwise. As the French national report points out, comparisons within one country are difficult, primarily because of differences of definition and of the characteristics of the relevant populations. Making international comparisons is even more dangerous.

[Jackass]

kceire wrote: »

Can anybody explain why the OP/Reporter used % calculations for the private sector and a daily calculation for the PS? I find this confusing/misleading/strange?

Sorry, just to clarify, the % figure is for private sector across the E.U., however I gave a daily total for both sectors in Ireland (6.3 days vs 11.3). Sorry if that wasn't clear, no intention to mislead.

kceire wrote: »

Where did this figure come from? Did you survey everybody that took sick leave?

The 1k per week figure is from the linked news story and is the current average weekly pay in the PS. I left out average, apologies for that.

kceire wrote: »

OP, what Public Sector departments where you trying to deal with that you could not get to/contact because of their working hours? Be very interested to hear your responce on that one. thanks.

I don't really want to make this a personal rant thread, but many PS administration offices don't open until after 9am (usually somewhere between 9.30-10.30am) and close before 5pm (usually around 4.30pm), essentially closed until everyone else is in work, and closed again before they leave, rather than a 8am - 6.30pm service as standard, meaning you need to take time off work if you need to go see them, such as the passport office. Many require you contact them by post and have no email address, some even close for lunch, ones that have phone numbers usually have an automated system and it takes several minutes to get transferred to a "person" and then when you do, there's usually a message stating "Please call on Tuesdays between 1.30pm and 2.30pm in order to speak to our customer service team..." as is the case in the tax office.

Madness..

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

In other words it is subject to the usual statistical tolerances and because it covers such a diversity of employments then it doesn't really reflect reality in many sectors. Oops just the same with the public sector figures .. as always why oh why can't we have more sector specific reporting of statistics so that the real problem areas can be targetted instead of the usual sweeping generalisations. Of couses this applies for all sectors.

Yes.

Although to argue that it "doesn't really reflect reality" is perhaps an overstatement as they are based on real data.

Even within normal statistical tolerances you are probably able to say its 2.5% +/- 0.1 to 0.05% which wouldn't change the outcome all too much. Furthermore, while certainly it isn't a specific figure, it does highlight that the government (as an employer) as higher levels of sick leave in some parts of its organisation than what is being experienced by other employers. At the very least, this should force the government to address the situation. Either some government workers suffer a greater number of health issues and/or they are taking advantage of the governments generous sick leave provisions. Neither situation is acceptable.

Dannyboy83

ardmacha wrote: »

The previous post illustrates the core point. Some parts of the PS have excessive overtime, others do not. As usual aggregate figures are not much use, you need to get at those that have much higher levels, even though they have exactly the same union agreements.

Agree.
There are some departments where this simply wouldn't be tolerated, I'm certain of that.
I don't think you'd last long in Revenue with this attitude, whereas it's apparently the norm in the HSE.

The flipside of course is that the figures are even more dramatic for those who do appearing to be abusing it.

skydish79

we would need to take out the HSE and teachers figures from this as they are more likely to pick up bugs etc,

Sleepy

As I posted on the Ah forum recently, I'd expect the public sector to have more sick days than the private for some valid reasons:

1. Due to prevalence of flexi-time, term-time, job-sharing contracts and family-friendly lack of overtime, they hire far more women who are primary care-givers than the private sector. Those ladies will not only need leave when they're sick, they'll also need it when their children are.

2. The gender balance being heavily female would also lead to more casual absence (i.e. PMT) in a culture where this is tolerated (as it is in many departments - see all the anecdotes about sick leave being treated as annual leave). It also means more pregnant women in the workforce which means more legitimate sick leave.

3. Parts of the public sector have a legal requirement to hire a certain percentage of staff with disabilities. Many of those hired could reasonably be expected to require more sick leave due to hospital appointments / complications to do with their conditions than the average person.

4. The Public Sector is far more heavily unionised than the Private Sector this means that the tiny percentage of workers who absolutely take the piss on sick leave are far harder to fire than their non-unionised private sector equivalents and, as Glinda pointed out, some doctors seem perfectly happy to certify that someone is incapable of work when they're simply going through a rough patch that the rest of us would just get on with.

5. The private sector includes many self-employed people or people who own a share of the company they're working for. This is a disincentive to them taking sick leave for a bad cold / minor virus that many of the rest of us would call in sick for.

6. Those same employers are far less likely to be tolerant of sick leave (or a culture of uncertified days allowances being treated as extra holidays) than a public sector manager who won't be losing money over it.

7. Absence figures are easily skewed where you have any member of staff out on long-term sick leave. Many private sector companies have it in their contracts that an individual's job is only held for a given period of time when they're on long-term sick leave. The public sector tend to treat workers far better in this regard and will often hold someone's job (whilst paying them) for over a year of long-term illness.

Sleepy

skydish79 wrote: »

we would need to take out the HSE and teachers figures from this as they are more likely to pick up bugs etc,

Less so than you'd think. Our immune systems get stronger when they're in environments that are full of contagions. Most doctors and nurses are actually very rarely ill with the bugs and doses the rest of us pick up more easily. I'd guess that the same holds true of teachers.

Chris_5339762

For what its worth, if you're in the PS and you have say, five certified sick days signed for you by a doctor and you get better after three, you cant go back to work until the end of the five due to insurance issues.

You genuinly cant go back to work early.

Lumbo

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

For what its worth, if you're in the PS and you have say, five certified sick days signed for you by a doctor and you get better after three, you cant go back to work until the end of the five due to insurance issues.

You genuinly cant go back to work early.

You can get a note from the doctor saying you are fit to return to work. A lot of doctors won't charge you a fee for doing this.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Yes.

Although to argue that it "doesn't really reflect reality" is perhaps an overstatement as they are based on real data.

Even within normal statistical tolerances you are probably able to say its 2.5% +/- 0.1 to 0.05% which wouldn't change the outcome all too much. Furthermore, while certainly it isn't a specific figure, it does highlight that the government (as an employer) as higher levels of sick leave in some parts of its organisation than what is being experienced by other employers. At the very least, this should force the government to address the situation. Either some government workers suffer a greater number of health issues and/or they are taking advantage of the governments generous sick leave provisions. Neither situation is acceptable.

Im guilty of a sweeping generalisation and two 'sweeping generalisations' don't make a right:)

I think the main point is that the focus should be on where the actual problem exists. The use of statistical averages is very useful in many ways, e.g. to observe trends and to highlight differences across sectors. However, these statistical differences should cause an investigation into why they exist and identify the cause of such differences rather than uses them as a final measure of a problem.

There is no doubt that there are serious misuses of the sick leave provisions in many organisations. Unfortuntely, these problems should have been routed out much earlier but as often said never waste a good recession to put right wrongs of the past.

donalg1

creedp wrote: »

Im guilty of a sweeping heneralisaiton and two 'sweeping generalisation' don't make a right:)

I think the main point is that the focus should be on where the actual problem exists. The use of statistical averages is very useful in many ways, e.g. to observe trends and to highlight differences across sectors. However, these statistical differences should cause an investigation into why they exist and identify the cause of such differences rather than uses them as a final measure of a problem.

There is no doubt that there are serious misuses of the sick leave provisions in many organisations. Unfortuntaly, these ptoblems should have been routed out much earlier but as often said never waste a good recession to put right wrongs of the past.

These reports are always a load of rubbish imo, they are never truly accurate and lead people to believe everyone abuses their sick leave. Like one poster has said the blame needs to fall on the doctors certifying sick leave basically over the phone. Some people seem to be able to get a cert at the drop of the hat, I for one have never had one thankfully and would only ask for one if I absolutely needed it and couldnt work

However, there is a fella in my workplace that was in a road traffic accident and has been out on sick leave for 9 months now and who has had countless operations more than 13 at this stage anyway. Now in the same period I had 1 sick day, but if the Sunday Paper does a report on my workplace then I have had 10 or 12 sick days and I would have customers saying how useless and lazy we are with all our sick days, and its for that reason I take these reports with a pinch of salt.

mitosis

OP, Civil Sevice and Public Service are not the same thing.

I would like to see the comparison include gender breakdown also. I suspect there is a greater ratio of Female to Male in the Public Service than Private and like it or not, females take more sick days.

eigrod

We know that the Public Sector figures are probably accurate as each Office/Department has to report them.

Anyone know how the private sector figures were arrived at ? How many companies reported their sick leave rates ? Where did the Independent get the figure from ? How recent the figure is ? Was every sector covered ? Were they verified ?

RacoonQueen

Delancey wrote: »

As I mentioned in the Health Cutbacks thread on my first day as a HSE employee I was advised of my ' entitlement ' to 5 uncertified sick days a year.

We had 9 days. The people in the same job as me used to call them 'duvet days' and many others in the dept used to call in or go home with hangovers - did my head in. As it happened I was quite sick in that job, without realising how sick I was at the time and always felt like I took a lot of days. Definitely above average and got a load of stick for it when I was ill (I've since had a heartfelt apology )

Our dept had one of the best, if not, the best sick leave record in the hospital because they made it very hard to call in sick unless you were literally plastered to the bed(for me anyway. I can't lie). The policy of the two hospitals I've worked in is that you have to attend a return to work meeting, even after one day. If you've been off 3 times in 6(?) months you have a meeting with the manager discussing the problem and they send you to occ health, again, to put you off calling in sick. Is you were out 5 times over the year - straight to HR with you. Went in very ill many times and never once got sent home or had them show any concern - just got treated like a leper for having the audacity to be unwell.

Pretty sure when I read this article earlier it was health service employees not public service in general? It might be useful to add health service employees are exposed to more germs/illnesses etc than people in other sectors and you aren't supposed to be around patients if you are unwell(if you were recovering from major surgery or from a serious illness would you want someone coughing and spluttering over you?). More often than not we would have been in work. I had patients say to me a few times 'I hope I don't get what you have'. We had staff members sent in to work in ICU while they had colds/chest infections. They should have either been at home or sent elsewhere where they wouldn't be putting very sick people at risk.

Granted a lot of people take advantage, I could go into the sort of people that tended to extract the urine, but, I won't...

Gumbo

[Jackass] wrote: »

I don't really want to make this a personal rant thread, but many PS administration offices don't open until after 9am (usually somewhere between 9.30-10.30am) and close before 5pm (usually around 4.30pm), essentially closed until everyone else is in work, and closed again before they leave, rather than a 8am - 6.30pm service as standard, meaning you need to take time off work if you need to go see them, such as the passport office. Many require you contact them by post and have no email address, some even close for lunch, ones that have phone numbers usually have an automated system and it takes several minutes to get transferred to a "person" and then when you do, there's usually a message stating "Please call on Tuesdays between 1.30pm and 2.30pm in order to speak to our customer service team..." as is the case in the tax office.

Madness..

Passport Office is open 9.30am-4.30pm.
They are actually in there working from 9am but processing postal applications etc.
they are also in there working until 5pm and dealing with the public who get in before the 4.30pm deadline, only the doors are closed but they are still working.

similar to the motor tax office. if you left the doors open till 5pm, it would 6 before you cleared the ques etc there has to be a deadline somewhere along the lines.

You can also apply in any post office which even open on Saturdays

Degsy

[Jackass] wrote: »

=
I don't really want to make this a personal rant thread, but many PS administration offices don't open until after 9am (usually somewhere between 9.30-10.30am) and close before 5pm (usually around 4.30pm), essentially closed until everyone else is in work, and closed again before they leave, rather than a 8am - 6.30pm service as standard, meaning you need to take time off work if you need to go see them, such as the passport office. Many require you contact them by post and have no email address, some even close for lunch, ones that have phone numbers usually have an automated system and it takes several minutes to get transferred to a "person" and then when you do, there's usually a message stating "Please call on Tuesdays between 1.30pm and 2.30pm in order to speak to our customer service team..." as is the case in the tax office.

Madness..

Really...so what opening hours do banks have?

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Im guilty of a sweeping generalisation and two 'sweeping generalisations' don't make a right:)

I think the main point is that the focus should be on where the actual problem exists. The use of statistical averages is very useful in many ways, e.g. to observe trends and to highlight differences across sectors. However, these statistical differences should cause an investigation into why they exist and identify the cause of such differences rather than uses them as a final measure of a problem.


There is no doubt that there are serious misuses of the sick leave provisions in many organisations. Unfortuntely, these problems should have been routed out much earlier but as often said never waste a good recession to put right wrongs of the past.

I may have been vague in my response, but I agree with the emboldened part of you post. The statistics are useful as long as they are treated fairly. It is an undeniable fact that the government has a higher rate of sick leave in certain parts of its organisation than other employers the private sector. To say that people are pulling sickies based on those statistic is not a fact but an assumption. The only action that needs to be taken from this is that we need to identify where the problem is, why it exists and put measures in place to reduce it.

on edit: removed the word undeniable as the facts may change and therefore it would be deniable.

sarumite

donalg1 wrote: »

These reports are always a load of rubbish imo, they are never truly accurate and lead people to believe everyone abuses their sick leave.

The reports themselves are not rubbish, however the conclusion people draw from them is. That is the problem.

Degsy

sarumite wrote: »

I It is an undeniable fact that the government has a higher rate of sick leave in certain parts of its organisation than other employers the private sector. .

Because you say so?

Prove this undeniable fact please.

sarumite

Degsy wrote: »

Because you say so?

Prove this undeniable fact please.

The stats say so. That is the point.

itzme

sarumite wrote: »

Yes.

Although to argue that it "doesn't really reflect reality" is perhaps an overstatement as they are based on real data.

Even within normal statistical tolerances you are probably able to say its 2.5% +/- 0.1 to 0.05% which wouldn't change the outcome all too much. Furthermore, while certainly it isn't a specific figure, it does highlight that the government (as an employer) as higher levels of sick leave in some parts of its organisation than what is being experienced by other employers. At the very least, this should force the government to address the situation. Either some government workers suffer a greater number of health issues and/or they are taking advantage of the governments generous sick leave provisions. Neither situation is acceptable.

All sounds reasonable, can I just add one extra reason for the difference in numbers as well. Pressure applied by employers in the private sector to force employees to come in even if they are sick, particularly in small companies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attribute the whole 2% difference to this it is just another factor to consider. As you say a much more thorough analysis of the figures would be much more useful.

sarumite

itzme wrote: »

All sounds reasonable, can I just add one extra reason for the difference in numbers as well. Pressure applied by employers in the private sector to force employees to come in even if they are sick, particularly in small companies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attribute the whole 2% difference to this it is just another factor to consider. As you say a much more thorough analysis of the figures would be much more useful.

I agree that is probably an issue, something I haven't actually thought about to be fair, but I imagine it does happen.

Degsy

sarumite wrote: »

The stats say so. That is the point.

The "stats" say nothing of the sort.

How can such figures be arrived at? None of my friends in teh private sector recall havving visits from people with clipboards about sick leave..what about self-employed people,taxi drivers,pub staff? Do they register thier sick leave on a central computer everytime they dont go into work?

The report,like almost all such reports from the independant is a laod of anti-PS bullshiit.

donalg1

sarumite wrote: »

The reports themselves are not rubbish, however the conclusion people draw from them is. That is the problem.

Thats true I suppose, but its not helped when the headlines read something like the Council employees took an average of 13 days sick leave each last year. (this headline appeared in my local paper recently enough) and was similiar to last sundays article, written in such a way that sweeping generalisations were going to be drawn from it, but then letting the facts get in the way of a good headline would probably be too much to expect from one of our rags.

sarumite

Degsy wrote: »

The "stats" say nothing of the sort.

How can such figures be arrived at? None of my friends in teh private sector recall havving visits from people with clipboards about sick leave..what about self-employed people,taxi drivers,pub staff? Do they register thier sick leave on a central computer everytime they dont go into work?

The report,like almost all such reports from the independant is a laod of anti-PS bullshiit.

The stats say they do. Now if you have a problem with how they were derived at, that is a different story. When the stats change, the facts change. Perhaps 'undeniable' was too strong of a word, however the point remains.

As for self-employed people. They don't really take 'sick leave' in the same sense as a employee as they won't get paid for any time off. A taxi driver only gets paid for the time s/he works.

sarumite

donalg1 wrote: »

Thats true I suppose, but its not helped when the headlines read something like the Council employees took an average of 13 days sick leave each last year. (this headline appeared in my local paper recently enough) and was similiar to last sundays article, written in such a way that sweeping generalisations were going to be drawn from it, but then letting the facts get in the way of a good headline would probably be too much to expect from one of our rags.

For the record, the sindo is a rag and will just abuse the stats to push their agenda. My father was school teacher and every now and then had to take sick leave. The government really needs to make better provision for school teachers to be able to take days off during term times. The problem there is not the teachers, but the system.

itzme

Degsy wrote: »

The "stats" say nothing of the sort.

How can such figures be arrived at? None of my friends in teh private sector recall havving visits from people with clipboards about sick leave..what about self-employed people,taxi drivers,pub staff? Do they register thier sick leave on a central computer everytime they dont go into work?

The report,like almost all such reports from the independant is a laod of anti-PS bullshiit.

I think the article is a miserable attempt at journalism but that doesn't mean the absolute numbers it reports aren't true. For instance the average sick leave in the Property Regulation authority in 2009 was 16 days.

What is being called for here by the majority of people (including sarumite) is not a knee jerk reaction to say the the PS are taking the piss its a more detailed analysis to show IF and how the amount of sick leave can be reduced.
source (civil service only) this report goes into serious detail on absenses in the civil service breaking them down by age/gender/experience level/type/length. If people are interested in discussing this topic, this report could be a great starting point

eigrod

itzme wrote: »

I think the article is a miserable attempt at journalism but that doesn't mean the absolute numbers it reports aren't true. For instance the average sick leave in the Property Regulation authority in 2009 was 16 days.

What is being called for here by the majority of people (including sarumite) is not a knee jerk reaction to say the the PS are taking the piss its a more detailed analysis to show IF and how the amount of sick leave can be reduced.
source (civil service only) this report goes into serious detail on absenses in the civil service breaking them down by age/gender/experience level/type/length. If people are interested in discussing this topic, this report could be a great starting point

As I (and others) said earlier, nobody can dispute the Public Service figures, and indeed nobody is because they are reported on by each Department/Office back to Dept of Public Expenditure & Reform. However, where are the Private Sector figures coming from ? There's nothing in that article to say where those figures come from and how scientific they are.

Degsy

itzme wrote: »

its a more detailed analysis to show IF and how the amount of sick leave can be reduced.

Maybe pay them more money..then they wont feel like going sick when they're actually just tired?

itzme

eigrod wrote: »

As I (and others) said earlier, nobody can dispute the Public Service figures, and indeed nobody is because they are reported on by each Department/Office back to Dept of Public Expenditure & Reform. However, where are the Private Sector figures coming from ? There's nothing in that article to say where those figures come from and how scientific they are.

You're right, apart from some of the absolute numbers I wouldn't rely on the article for anything at all. If you are looking for information on some of the private sector information (page 5), here is some source and on the europe wide survey that this was a part of source
So it seems to be coming mainly from the CSO although for the life of me I can't actually find the information on the CSO site about absence leave, so if someone does please post the link.

Chris_5339762

Lumbo wrote: »

You can get a note from the doctor saying you are fit to return to work. A lot of doctors won't charge you a fee for doing this.

Thats good to know. But I can understand if the **potential** for an extra charge by the doctor would put them off and make them say sod it - I'll take the rest of the time off.

itzme

Degsy wrote: »

Maybe pay them more money..then they wont feel like going sick when they're actually just tired?

That's a pretty denigrating comment to say there are people PS that take sick leave when they are just tired. I really don't get your point.

On your original point, can I assume that you now accept that according to the best stats out there, thatthere are sections of the PS that have the highest sick leave stats?

I am not trying to criticize any area of the PS but if you can't accept both the positives and the negatives of a system then you blind yourself to being able to make the appropriate changes. For instance, there is huge variation in sections of the PS and that is what needs to be isolated and looked into from 2009source. Doctors with a absentee rate of 0.93pc! That should be applauded not dumped in with the 4.4% PS average and criticized.

But there were significant variations within the health service, with medical and dental staff recording an absenteeism rate of 0.93pc, nursing staff recording 5.69pc and "other patient and client care" recording a rate of 7pc.

The porters, carers, cleaners and caterers within the health service lost 8pc of their working year to sick leave.

woodoo

My guess is that there are a small number of staff taking the piss. Off for months at a time. That is skewing the numbers.

SerialComplaint

woodoo wrote: »

My guess is that there are a small number of staff taking the piss. Off for months at a time. That is skewing the numbers.

Or perhaps a small number of staff very ill. Off for months at a time. That is skewing the numbers.

n97 mini

^ There was that woman in the civil service who was off sick for 5 years and when they tried to get rid of her she tried to sue.

Interesting how people return to work when their pay is cut:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/sick-leave-in-civil-service-falls-by-68pc-when-pay-is-cut-3104659.html

Also unsurprising the unions objected to reform of the sick pay arrangements:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0503/1224315512677.html

Also worth noting is that the private sector is under no obligation to pay people for days they haven't worked.

[Jackass]

Degsy wrote: »

Really...so what opening hours do banks have?

Having worked in KBC Bank, we were available for meetings with clients from as early as 8am and I have contacted clients as late as 7pm and we are available for appointments up until that time also.

We also didn't close for lunch, had tens of thousands of clients, a small team and had a service level agreement to resolve issues from first contact to last within 48 hours.

kceire wrote: »

Passport Office is open 9.30am-4.30pm.
They are actually in there working from 9am but processing postal applications etc.
they are also in there working until 5pm and dealing with the public who get in before the 4.30pm deadline, only the doors are closed but they are still working.

similar to the motor tax office. if you left the doors open till 5pm, it would 6 before you cleared the ques etc there has to be a deadline somewhere along the lines.

You can also apply in any post office which even open on Saturdays

As stated above, working in the private sector, if people came to see us late, we worked late. Many a Friday evening I would get a phone call about a client in reception at 5pm and would be cursing my luck as I'd be late to the pub.

Also, you can apply for a passport in the post office, but the passport office has several duties to carry out that can't be done in a post office. That much is obvious.

Gumbo

[Jackass] wrote: »

Having worked in KBC Bank, we were available for meetings with clients from as early as 8am and I have contacted clients as late as 7pm and we are available for appointments up until that time also.

Try get a meeting with somebody in the bank at any time nowadays, nevermind 8am or 5pm! Funny though as banks dont open till 10am, for insurance reasons, no non-staff should be allowed on the premise outside of opening times, so its stange to think you could have bank meetings at 8am or 7pm indeed??? considering KBC's Office opening hours are Monday - Friday 9am - 5.15pm, i doubt you'll get much responce for a meeting at 8am!

[Jackass] wrote: »

We also didn't close for lunch, had tens of thousands of clients, a small team and had a service level agreement to resolve issues from first contact to last within 48 hours.

Most PS offices dont close for lunch either. Its call staff lunch break rotation.

[Jackass] wrote: »

As stated above, working in the private sector, if people came to see us late, we worked late. Many a Friday evening I would get a phone call about a client in reception at 5pm and would be cursing my luck as I'd be late to the pub.

Had to do it myself many of times, but we were rewarded with time in lieu so all was not lost.

[Jackass] wrote: »

Also, you can apply for a passport in the post office, but the passport office has several duties to carry out that can't be done in a post office. That much is obvious.

Passport office checks your form and sends it for processing, An post take your form and post it to the passport office for processing.

Theres no benefit to go to the passport office unles you have either lost, destryoed your passport. need one in one day or emergency etc therefore you cant really complain about waiting a few hours for something that most people post off and takes 14 days for return.