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

n97 mini

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I'm willing to bet that it's costing just as much and probably a lot more to run the Prison Service now that it did then.

When some Prison Officers were coming away with €100,000 in overtime alone, which was causing consternation even during the boom, I think it's clear why it was reformed, and I doubt any Prison Officer has come away with €100,000+ in overtime since then.

twowheelsonly

n97 mini wrote: »

A buddy system. HSE staff thru exposure to diseases etc we can understand.

Everybody knows what was going on in the Prison Service, including Michael McDowell.

n97 mini wrote: »

When some Prison Officers were coming away with €100,000 in overtime alone, which was causing consternation even during the boom, I think it's clear why it was reformed, and I doubt any Prison Officer has come away with €100,000+ in overtime since then.

I appreciate that you're trying to turn this into a Prison Officer bashing thread but...
Everybody knows what was going on?? Do you have any evidence of specific cases?? No?? I presume not seeing as at the time nobody else could find any either. Because it was another massive urban myth spun by a hungry media.
BTW, if you want to sample exposure to diseases take a stroll around Mountjoy some day!!!

NO Officer ever made over €100k in overtime alone as you imply so you might want to check your facts there.
Every year about 10 or 12 Officers made over 100k - One went over 120k one year - but to do that you actually had to spend almost every waking moment in the Jail. 90 hour weeks were not unusual. In fact for a lot of people they were the norm!! Don't forget also that a lot of this overtime was compulsory. It was also impossible to get leave hence the sick leave jumped up. If you continually tell somebody that they can't have this day off or that day off they will eventually say 'Feck that...I'm outta here..' and go sick.
Believe it or not it was cheaper for the state to allow this to happen than to employ more staff. That's why it was allowed to carry on. McDowell hated the warders, hence his bull headed determination to end the old overtime regime. He since brought in Annualised Hours which has been a blessing for most of us but not for 'The System'. Trouble is that some people that never did overtime were also dragged/forced into it whilst those who would work every hour if they could had their hours restricted. It's now also costing the State just as much as the old overtime was but it's just renamed and spread out across the board.

Don't believe everything you read in the paper or hear from someone down the pub.. Most of it is BS.

itzme

n97 mini wrote: »

Do you think employers should pay sick pay out of their own pockets, or should they get reimbursed from the employees' social contributions?

Again you seem to refuse to answer a very basic question, do you agree that employees should be paid sick pay? Please answer this (although it wouldn't surprise me if you ignored this and addressed some of the post below)

To me you are jumping the gun with your question to follow a divisive public V private point.

Do all employees deserve sick pay, regardless of which sector they work in?
What is a fair amount to pay?
What conditions should be placed on this pay?
In what cases should it be not paid?
What are the mechanisms that an employer can use to fund this sort of pay?
How should the state as an employer fund this?
How should a private business person fund this?

Your question depends on having answers to all of the questions above which you have not provided. For instance to answer your question (in the hope you'll actually engage in this debate), it would be my opinion that long term illness/sickness is a social welfare issue. So in that way an employer (be they state or private) should be responsible for short term sick pay but if an employee is out long term the responsibility for their sick pay should pass to the state. This is where the employee's social contributions should be used. For the short term sick pay, I don't believe either should use the social contributions of the employee.

itzme

barneystinson wrote: »

A few interesting facts pointed out in the C&AG's 2009 report, which examined 2007 absences in the Civil Service:

(http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/vfmreports/69_Managing_Sickness_Absences.pdf)

• almost half of all sick days were taken by Clerical Officers and three quarters of all Clerical Officers availed of sick leave. The average number of days taken by each Clerical Officer was 16 days
• female staff absence accounted for 68% of all working days lost, the average number of sick days taken by each female employee was almost 14 days, while the average for each male employee was around eight days (55% of staff resources of departments covered in the examination were female)
• the average number of days lost for those working a three day week was almost 80% higher than the average for those who worked a standard week.
• 5% of all instances of absence in 2007 lasted longer than 20 days. However, these instances accounted for almost half of all days lost to absence with the average absence lasting 62 days.

It's a serious pity your post has been ignored, I'd posted that link hoping that some people would read it and maybe an informed debate (at least for the CS rather than full PS) on sick pay would start. It just seems like the usual anecdotal "My friend once told me", "I know X who works in" has continued.

On top of what you pointed out, some of the things that I found very interesting were that

• 41% of CS took no sick leave in the year
• Figure 3.2 on page 36 is also interesting, really begs the question why there is such difference
• 32% of sick days on Mondays is worrying, makes me think a lot of them are hangover days.
• As you said Figure 3.6, 35% of sick days were clerical, 20% executive officer and the highest after that is 11%
• only 9% of days were uncertified.

There is a lot more in it, but it does point to some discussion points. Even the certified V uncertified. Only 9% of days were uncertified, so as earlier posters this is the doctors. This implies (assuming competency of the doctors) that 91% of the days were justified?

n97 mini

itzme wrote: »

So in that way an employer (be they state or private) should be responsible for short term sick pay

What about employers who don't have the money to pay?

itzme

Lumbo wrote: »

Looks like the Labour Court is doing something about it.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0719/public-service-sick-pay-entitlements-to-be-halved.html

Seems like some real reform there, halving the long term sick pay entitlements, halving the uncertified sick pay allowances (even more than half considering its a rolling two years). Mostly understandable steps to try and reduce the bill

People experiencing "critical illness" will still be entitled to six months’ full pay and six months on half pay.

This is very important, they are introducing a gradiated approach where you aren't entitled to full sick pay until you meet certain conditions. Seems sensible and correct to me.

Surprising that all those who were shouting for changes and reform haven't welcomed it? It will reduce long term sick pay and uncertified sick pay by 50%. Is that not a massive reduction

itzme

itzme wrote: »

Again you seem to refuse to answer a very basic question, do you agree that employees should be paid sick pay? Please answer this(although it wouldn't surprise me if you ignored this and addressed some of the post below)

n97 mini wrote: »

What about employers who don't have the money to pay?

If it's not too much to ask, could you answer the simple question I asked you first some time ago and asked you four times now.

daltonmd

n97 mini wrote: »

A buddy system. HSE staff thru exposure to diseases etc we can understand.

You mean exposure to diseases like Hep C, TB, HIV? Infections such as scabies? Risks such as dirty needles, junkies, drunks, murderers, sex offenders, insane people? All correct and present in the prison system.

n97 mini wrote: »

Everybody knows what was going on in the Prison Service, including Michael McDowell.

You, Mickey mac and most of the outside world, have absolutely no clue what went on or what goes on in the prison service.

n97 mini wrote: »

When some Prison Officers were coming away with €100,000 in overtime alone, which was causing consternation even during the boom,

That system was created, manipulated and abused by the failures of successive governments to sort out many problems in the prison service.

Recruitment, prison spaces, adequate supports for both prisoners and staff.

n97 mini wrote: »

I think it's clear why it was reformed, and I doubt any Prison Officer has come away with €100,000+ in overtime since then.

You see, here is where you show that you have no idea why the system was reformed.

The prison service was reformed because of the EU's insistance that the Irish Prison Service stopped forcing their staff (through conscription) from working every day for weeks, sometimes months without adequate rest days and complied with the working time act that was introduced in 1997.

Up until then officers were conscripted on a daily basis, one particular instance I recall was a heavily pregnant officer, forced to work 42 days straight (12 hour shifts) taking a case to either the labour court or the high court and losing the case, as this was found not to be in breach of the law, because of the exemption.

For many years, many officers were forced to take sick through sheer exhaustion, or to simply get a day off.

When you overwork staff in such a dangerous, stressful and an abnormal working enviroment for years, then what in the name of god would you expect?

sarumite

daltonmd wrote: »

You, Mickey mac and most of the outside world, have absolutely no clue what went on or what goes on in the prison service.

My granddad was a prison officer. I don't think you could pay me enough to want to do that job. Its a tough career.

daltonmd

n97 mini wrote: »

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.

I noticed this back in the thread and decided not to comment on it. But given your attack on prison officers and how they "abuse" the system, you are no better.

Not only did you attempt to take a sick day in a fraudulent manner (you were not sick, your child was) but you then conspired with your line manager to be paid in a fraudulent manner, i'e as in "working from home" , when in fact you were caring for your sick child - and not only that - you kept your FULL compliment of sick leave entitlement AND your annual leave entitlement intact.

You see, abuse is abuse is abuse. And that is an abuse of the system.

donalg1

bamboozle wrote: »

i guess the problem is the amount of people taking the full 7 uncertified days each year, that's to be cut to 7 uncertified days every 2 years. that should have a big impact on productivity.

still waiting for the govt to announce the referendum on the closure of the Seanad...the biggest waste of tax payers money....the 1963 pawnbrokers bill was the last time it has rejected a dail bill.

Apparently 90% of the €500million plus was as a result of Certified sick leave.

barneystinson

daltonmd wrote: »

n97 mini wrote: »

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.

I noticed this back in the thread and decided not to comment on it. But given your attack on prison officers and how they "abuse" the system, you are no better.

Not only did you attempt to take a sick day in a fraudulent manner (you were not sick, your child was) but you then conspired with your line manager to be paid in a fraudulent manner, i'e as in "working from home" , when in fact you were caring for your sick child - and not only that - you kept your FULL compliment of sick leave entitlement AND your annual leave entitlement intact.

You see, abuse is abuse is abuse. And that is an abuse of the system.

I'm going to second guess N97's response here, and it applies to lots of jobs, but obviously not to prison officers, in that it's entirely possible to work from home, even while minding a sick child.

Also if you're not in a job where you have daily duties etc, but rather a (say) monthly target, or responsibility to deliver a project within a timeframe then days worked is kind of a crude (even irrelevant, in some cases) measure of your actual level of contribution.

n97 mini

daltonmd wrote:

When you overwork staff in such a dangerous, stressful and an abnormal working enviroment for years, then what in the name of god would you expect?

A couple of properties, a BMW and early retirement.

Seriously, I know a few real life prison officers, and none of them are complaining.

n97 mini

daltonmd wrote: »

I noticed this back in the thread and decided not to comment on it. But given your attack on prison officers and how they "abuse" the system, you are no better.

Hmm, I never once claimed overtime, I never had a day off sick, and when I was at home with a sick kid I was working/on call.