Sick pay scheme. The public and private sectors.

marknjb

i used to be on a board of management of a small school where a teacher had thirty one off sick days from sept -feb (before the rule changes )
when we (bom ) pulled her about it she stoped being sick
the chairman got the secretary to print off a list of the days most were fridays or mondays

Gumbo

Stheno wrote: »

I've no idea who you are talking about.

Please don't bother replying as I've used the magic ignore button so I no longer have to read your posts.

If you keep ignoring every poster that doesnt agree with you, boards.ie will become a one poster forum for you....

Head The Wall

Lumbo wrote: »

That's actually an entitlement available to all women who have suffered a stillbirth or miscarriage but don't let that get in the way of your misinformed rants.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/social_welfare_payments_to_families_and_children/maternity_benefit.html

Thanks, I'm surprised about that, although I still don't understand how if your child dies you get three days off but if it's a stillbirth or miscarriage you get six months off. Surely both are just as devastating.

gozunda

Regarding the private sector I have came across companies that take the complete piss out of employees who are medically certified as sick; pay them nothing but expect employees to pay for weekly medically appointments for the purposes of submitting Certs or demand a second opinion even when a proper medical cert has already been provided by the employee

Then there are the companies that bully / abuse employees so that they are unfit to work and then let the state pay for their aggressive management practices

Or in the case of health & safety and where an employee gets hurt and the company hand the responsibility to the state

There needs to be a balance in this. - not all companies play fair - just the way some employees may not play fair

Companies need to be a bit more responsible for Their own employees and their welfare and not hand this responsibility to the taxpayer....

Lumbo

Head The Wall wrote: »

Thanks, I'm surprised about that, although I still don't understand how if your child dies you get three days off but if it's a stillbirth or miscarriage you get six months off. Surely both are just as devastating.

Maternity leave isn't just about having time to spend with your baby. Your body needs time to recover. It's about the physical rather then the psychological. Still birth or miscarriage after 24 weeks would have a similar effect to a woman's body as a full term pregnancy.

byhookorbycrook

frankosw wrote: »

Ah you see teh PS pay you indefinatley no matter how long you're out sick..its free money you see.

They certainly dont reduce your pay by half if you're incapaciated or cut your pay to nothing iof you have the cheek to suffer a debillitatiing stroke like a guy i work with.

Errrr...no you don't. But please, let's not have facts get in the way.

TheRealPONeil

Stheno wrote: »

It's symptomatic of the malaise that is the policies of the HSE.
On any given day they have 5000 staff out sick.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0814/1224322124523.html

Wow 5000 !! Out of a staff 110000, whats that 1 in 20 or so ?
There's another bull**** statistic for you.

Stheno

kceire wrote: »

If you keep ignoring every poster that doesnt agree with you, boards.ie will become a one poster forum for you....

I've one poster on my ignore list in ten years and it so happens to be that chap from today? I found him personally rude, and didn't like his posting style

Head The Wall wrote: »

Thanks, I'm surprised about that, although I still don't understand how if your child dies you get three days off but if it's a stillbirth or miscarriage you get six months off. Surely both are just as devastating.

Lumbo wrote: »

Maternity leave isn't just about having time to spend with your baby. Your body needs time to recover. It's about the physical rather then the psychological. Still birth or miscarriage after 24 weeks would have a similar effect to a woman's body as a full term pregnancy.

Thanks for explaining that, I'd the same query as Head the Wall

gozunda wrote: »

Regarding the private sector I have came across companies that take the complete piss out of employees who are medically certified as sick; pay them nothing but expect employees to pay for weekly medically appointments for the purposes of submitting Certs or demand a second opinion even when a proper medical cert has already been provided by the employee

Then there are the companies that bully / abuse employees so that they are unfit to work and then let the state pay for their aggressive management practices

Or in the case of health & safety and where an employee gets hurt and the company hand the responsibility to the state

There needs to be a balance in this. - not all companies play fair - just the way some employees may not play fair

Companies need to be a bit more responsible for Their own employees and their welfare and not hand this responsibility to the taxpayer....

Most private sector companies I've worked in there is a balance, but you must produce certs, and have your social welfare deducted etc.

And plenty of them asked you to go see their doctor if you are ill long term.

Companies also can't hand responsibility for accidents in the workplace to the state, social welfare illness benefit forms specifically ask if the illness is as a result of a work related accident and follow it up

TheRealPONeil wrote: »

Wow 5000 !! Out of a staff 110000, whats that 1 in 20 or so ?
There's another bull**** statistic for you.

5% absence every day due to illness would be high in my opinion?

Godge

Sleepy wrote: »

Why would you hope that out of interest Godge? Actually, most of what I've been working on has been for the UK public sector but others in my company have done identical services for Irish companies and PS bodies (albeit on different systems).

Almost every HR system I've worked with records absences along the lines of [Employee_ID],[Absence_Type],[Absence_Sub_Type],[Description],[Date_From],[Date_To],[Time_From],[Time_To]. Thus, the clerical officer in your example would enter their sick leave as 4 days absence (Friday to Monday).

Reporting from this, would obviously skew the figures if you simply added up all the DateDiff's of the absence lines. While the staff member was absent for 4 days, as only two of those days were working days, only 2 days absence should be reported in any report providing number of days absence. Were they a part-timer/flexi-timer etc., only those hours they were rostered to work for should be included so that 2 days could easily become 1 or 1.5 days actual absence (or could become 1 days absence in Dept A and 1 day's absence in Dept B if they held multiple roles as many do in large organisations).

That's not to say the overall length of the absence wouldn't usually be listed on the same report, or that it's not a useful figure. Metrics like the (rather controversial but still widespread) Bradford Factor I mentioned above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Factor), often use different absence figures in conjunction with each other to highlight problems such as departments suffering from numerous short absences (i.e. habitual absenteeism) by factoring these in such a way that the number of absence periods in a year is used to weight each employee's or departments total number of absence days. It's a blunt instrument but used correctly, it can be very useful.

Incidentally, one of the most requested outputs we're asked for from HR systems is a "Mondays and Fridays report" to highlight the employees/managers/departments most frequently suffering from "long weekend-itus"

You are missing the point, in the public service, it counts as four days if you miss Friday and Monday. For example, and it is clear in the recent circular, if you are absent Friday and then Monday, you need a certificate because it is more than two days but if you miss Tuesday and Wednesday it is two days and you don't need a cert.

A current public sector employee might be able to correct me on that but I am nearly 100% certain.

Idbatterim

Wow 5000 !! Out of a staff 110000, whats that 1 in 20 or so ?
There's another bull**** statistic for you.

i disagree, in 22 staff missing everyday is fairly shocking!

thebman

Godge wrote: »

You are missing the point, in the public service, it counts as four days if you miss Friday and Monday. For example, and it is clear in the recent circular, if you are absent Friday and then Monday, you need a certificate because it is more than two days but if you miss Tuesday and Wednesday it is two days and you don't need a cert.

A current public sector employee might be able to correct me on that but I am nearly 100% certain.

This is the same in the private sector as far as I know.

Certainly is where I work.

Stheno

thebman wrote: »

This is the same in the private sector as far as I know.

Certainly is where I work.

Are you in a 7 day week as opposed to M-F?

Any company I've been in M-F only counts those days actually absent from work as absent.

Sleepy

Godge wrote: »

You are missing the point, in the public service, it counts as four days if you miss Friday and Monday. For example, and it is clear in the recent circular, if you are absent Friday and then Monday, you need a certificate because it is more than two days but if you miss Tuesday and Wednesday it is two days and you don't need a cert.

A current public sector employee might be able to correct me on that but I am nearly 100% certain.

No, it counts as two days of absence but the employee needs to provide a sick cert because the absence duration exceeds the 3 days of illness for which a sick cert is required.

And rightly so, if you're still sick enough to need to stay out of work on a Monday with something you were sick with on Friday, you should be going to a doctor.

gozunda

Stheno wrote: »

Most private sector companies I've worked in there is a balance, but you must produce certs, and have your social welfare deducted etc.

And plenty of them asked you to go see their doctor if you are ill long term.

Companies also can't hand responsibility for accidents in the workplace to the state, social welfare illness benefit forms specifically ask if the illness is as a result of a work related accident and follow it up

There are many private companies where employees provide medical certs (paid by the employee) on a weekly basis even when the employee will be out for for an extended period and the company pay workers nothing. The problem with some private companies that they have adopted the worse cute hoor policies available to them with the end result that their employees get shafted by both their employers and the system. In relation to the workplace injuries (and I am not only including 'accidents' btw) is that there must be a cause and effect proven - it may take years for a worker to medically 'prove' that his work practices / place of work have caused the injury / illness. So no there is no automatic follow up in these situations - in these situations it requires the employee to take the company to court to behave responsibility.

frankosw

Idbatterim wrote: »

i disagree, in 22 staff missing everyday is fairly shocking!

Says a lot for thier working conditions doesnt it?

Imagine having to deal with sick people every day and expect not to get sick.

I work with the "public" in my job and we have people coming up coughing,sneezing,slobbering and sniffling multiple times a day often without bothering to stifle a cough or asneeze.

One bad dose will make three people sick out of maybe 20 but it can go on for ages,i had a bad dose of strep throat a while back and i *had* to go sick..its a dangerous condition and only treatable by antibiotics..i know for a fact i picked it up in work.

Head The Wall

Plenty of people be they private or public sector work with other people but you go on as if it's only the PS workers that get sick. What about shop workers, waiting staff, people in chemists, doctors offices etc.

You're a waffler trying to make excuses for the ridiculous sick rates in the PS

JustinDee

Tiring of the begrudgery line between the two sides that people often like to take.
The term 'public sector' (actual acronym being 'pbs', with private sector being 'pvs') is far too vague a term.
An emergency services nurse is hardly due the same level of critique as a desktop clerk in the HSE might be. Very few of the same tenets involving these respective roles are shared.

Certain areas of the public sector quite obviously need scrutiny and reform because quite plainly the width for abusing the system is far broader. Some of the excuses put in regarding sick leave and the trends that exemplify the abuse of provisions for it, are simply limp.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

You're a waffler trying to make excuses for the ridiculous sick rates in the PS

What "ridiculous sick rates"?

Have you carried out an exhaustive study of every PS department in the country and contrasted it with your equally exhausitive study of every private sector firm in the land?

Of course you havnt..you're a keyboard warrior with a chip on your shoulder masquerading as an economic expert.

The Indo has a lot to answer for.

ballyharpat

frankosw wrote: »

Says a lot for thier working conditions doesnt it?

Imagine having to deal with sick people every day and expect not to get sick.

I work with the "public" in my job and we have people coming up coughing,sneezing,slobbering and sniffling multiple times a day often without bothering to stifle a cough or asneeze.

One bad dose will make three people sick out of maybe 20 but it can go on for ages,i had a bad dose of strep throat a while back and i *had* to go sick..its a dangerous condition and only treatable by antibiotics..i know for a fact i picked it up in work.

Once again Frank, In my experience, and I work in a similar field to you, I was sick for two days last year, I travel to hospitals regularly with clients as well. If we had those stats for people being off sick every day/week, there would be chaos.

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

What "ridiculous sick rates"?

Have you carried out an exhaustive study of every PS department in the country and contrasted it with your equally exhausitive study of every private sector firm in the land?

Of course you havnt..you're a keyboard warrior with a chip on your shoulder masquerading as an economic expert.

The Indo has a lot to answer for.

The govt's own figures show that the public sector take nearly twice as many days on average as the private sector and this has been a known issue for years.

here's a breakdown of some figures for you http://www.thejournal.ie/annual-sick-leave-in-public-sector-costs-state-over-e551-million-379796-Mar2012/

Here's another link where the sick rate in the Dept of social protection is nearly 7% and its from the ministers own mouth http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0711/1224319793279.html


Educate yourself a bit before you come in here ranting and spouting rubbish

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

The govt's own figures show that the public sector take nearly twice as many days on average as the private sector and this has been a known issue for years.

How do they know this?

Do Taxi men and builders and barmen all ring up the GOvt when they have to take day off?

What exactly does an average sick day look like?

Paulzx

Head The Wall wrote: »

The govt's own figures show that the public sector take nearly twice as many days on average as the private sector and this has been a known issue for years.

here's a breakdown of some figures for you http://www.thejournal.ie/annual-sick-leave-in-public-sector-costs-state-over-e551-million-379796-Mar2012/

Here's another link where the sick rate in the Dept of social protection is nearly 7% and its from the ministers own mouth http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0711/1224319793279.html


Educate yourself a bit before you come in here ranting and spouting rubbish

Reading the letter you have quoted, it states the the main problem in the cost of ps sick leave is in certified sick leave. If thats the case is it the medical professions fault? Are they forging certs?


The problem with sick leave is that a small minority of wasters take the majority of the sick leave and drive the statistics up. Management need to take on the people who are taking the piss..........not target the ps body as a whole.

My own organisation has a sick level below 5%

We work 24/7 365 days of the year. The annoying part of the 5% is that it includes injuries caused on the job. A huge percentage of our sick rate is from genuine occupational injuries which in my opinion skews the figures unfavourably.

The areas of the PS that have the large sick figures need to be looked at. Targeting everyone is the cowards way out for management

frankosw

Paulzx wrote: »

Reading the letter you have quoted, it states the the main problem in the cost of ps sick leave is in certified sick leave. If thats the case is it the medical professions fault? Are they forging certs?

There are certain doctors who everybody knows will write you a cert without examining you or asking any questions at all.

When i worked in dunnes the local doctor would write certs for a fiver..a week at a time with no questions asked untill management copped on and refused to take anymore notes from him.

These are the same doctors who are writing scripts for valium by the hundred to people who go in and say they have trouble sleeping.

A nice little racket they have going on and of course subject to no official scrutiny.

not yet

frankosw wrote: »

What "ridiculous sick rates"?

Have you carried out an exhaustive study of every PS department in the country and contrasted it with your equally exhausitive study of every private sector firm in the land?

Of course you havnt..you're a keyboard warrior with a chip on your shoulder masquerading as an economic expert.

The Indo has a lot to answer for.

He doesn't need to do any study sure doesn't he have hearsay and the indo to give him the facts.

frankosw

not yet wrote: »

He doesn't need to do any study sure doesn't he have hearsay and the indo to give him the facts.

The sort of "Facts" that have been bouncing around here unchallanged and with no onus of proof on the poster.

It makes me wonder is this particular forum singing from an anti PS hymsheet much like the Indo?

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

How do they know this?

Do Taxi men and builders and barmen all ring up the GOvt when they have to take day off?

What exactly does an average sick day look like?

It's not my problem if you don't understand or choose not to believe statistics and how they are collected and correlated.

Paulzx wrote: »

Reading the letter you have quoted, it states the the main problem in the cost of ps sick leave is in certified sick leave. If thats the case is it the medical professions fault? Are they forging certs?


The problem with sick leave is that a small minority of wasters take the majority of the sick leave and drive the statistics up. Management need to take on the people who are taking the piss..........not target the ps body as a whole.

My own organisation has a sick level below 5%

We work 24/7 365 days of the year. The annoying part of the 5% is that it includes injuries caused on the job. A huge percentage of our sick rate is from genuine occupational injuries which in my opinion skews the figures unfavourably.

The areas of the PS that have the large sick figures need to be looked at. Targeting everyone is the cowards way out for management

I'll agree with everything you say there. They are changing the sick pay system but that will be in relation to long term sick leave, I believe it is the short term sickness that's the main problem.

not yet wrote: »

He doesn't need to do any study sure doesn't he have hearsay and the indo to give him the facts.

frankosw wrote: »

It makes me wonder is this particular forum singing from an anti PS hymsheet much like the Indo?

Obviously neither of ye looked at the links in my post - neither of them were from the indo and the stories were both based on the govt's own figures. So it's not hearsay or made up but don't let that get in the way of ye pretending the sick rates in the PS are fine.

frankosw wrote: »

The sort of "Facts" that have been bouncing around here unchallanged and with no onus of proof on the poster.

Again my post provides govt figures so it's up to ye to disprove them.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

It's not my problem if you don't understand or choose not to believe statistics and how they are collected and correlated.





I'll agree with everything you say there. They are changing the sick pay system but that will be in relation to long term sick leave, I believe it is the short term sickness that's the main problem.









Obviously neither of ye looked at the links in my post - neither of them were from the indo and the stories were both based on the govt's own figures. So it's not hearsay or made up but don't let that get in the way of ye pretending the sick rates in the PS are fine.




Again my post provides govt figures so it's up to ye to disprove them.

I'd like to know exactly how you came to study every single private sector worker in the country,asses thier sick leave and compare it to the Public Sector.


How could this be done??

not yet

Just as a matter of interest, Why have the Indo/IBEC/ISME etc not remarked or mentioned the fact that the PS have implemented a new sick scheme policy where they will save 1000,000 days a year or approx 100 million euro.

Now, all we hear is PS bashing from almost every angle but when something positive happens the silence if deafening.

srsly78

not yet wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, Why have the Indo/IBEC/ISME etc not remarked or mentioned the fact that the PS have implemented a new sick scheme policy where they will save 1000,000 days a year or approx 100 million euro.

Now, all we hear is PS bashing from almost every angle but when something positive happens the silence if deafening.

Because noone believes it. Sure they won't even allow an independent audit for stuff like this, the PS regulates itself.

frankosw

srsly78 wrote: »

Because noone believes it. Sure they won't even allow an independent audit for stuff like this, the PS regulates itself.

Three lies in as many lines...pretty typical of what gets written round these parts.

not yet

srsly78 wrote: »

Because noone believes it. Sure they won't even allow an independent audit for stuff like this, the PS regulates itself.

What planet are you on, I'b bet my left ball you don't even know or understand the revision to the sick scheme I'm talking about.

frankosw

not yet wrote: »

What planet are you on, I'b bet my left ball you don't even know or understand the revision to the sick scheme I'm talking about.

Course he doesnt despite the fact that it has been reported nationally for several months and the details are available online with ten seconds of googling.

not yet

I'd also like to add that a recent report on staff reduction numbers in local councils says they are over 1000 ahead of the target for 2015, that's 2 years ahead of target. No word of that anywhere.........

Head The Wall

frankosw wrote: »

I'd like to know exactly how you came to study every single private sector worker in the country,asses thier sick leave and compare it to the Public Sector.


How could this be done??

Again you are highlighting your ignorance of statistical analysis and surveys.

not yet wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, Why have the Indo/IBEC/ISME etc not remarked or mentioned the fact that the PS have implemented a new sick scheme policy where they will save 1000,000 days a year or approx 100 million euro.

not yet wrote: »

What planet are you on, I'b bet my left ball you don't even know or understand the revision to the sick scheme I'm talking about.

frankosw wrote: »

Course he doesnt despite the fact that it has been reported nationally for several months and the details are available online with ten seconds of googling.

You two guys are hilarious spouting off as if ye know it all when ye have not got a clue

Subject to the necessary legislation being enacted, the proposal on certified sick leave and the other matters covered by this recommendation should take effect from 1st January 2014.

Taken from the govt's own web site here. I have highlighted it for ye.

You have to bring a better level of debate to the table as ye are looking ridiculous.

frankosw

not yet wrote: »

I'd also like to add that a recent report on staff reduction numbers in local councils says they are over 1000 ahead of the target for 2015, that's 2 years ahead of target. No word of that anywhere.........

There wouldnt be..its not part of the anti-PS mob's agenda.

Scortho

frankosw wrote: »

Is it in any way connected with the fact that they're dealing with sick members of the public who transmit sicknesses to them?

My mams a nurse. In the last 15 years she hasnt taken one sick day.
Also not everyone in the HSE is on the frontline dealing with sick patients.

not yet

Head The Wall wrote: »

Again you are highlighting your ignorance of statistical analysis and surveys.












You two guys are hilarious spouting off as if ye know it all when ye have not got a clue



Taken from the govt's own web site here. I have highlighted it for ye.

You have to bring a better level of debate to the table as ye are looking ridiculous.

You my friend are posting complete and utter crap.

I have recently been handed instructions to pass on to staff that the new sick scheme allowance is 3.5 days a year. This is to be retrospectively introduced from August of this year, yeah that's this year 2012. Now off you pop and find some obscure,out of date piece of nonsense to post here.

not yet

Scortho wrote: »

My mams a nurse. In the last 15 years she hasnt taken one sick day.
Also not everyone in the HSE is on the frontline dealing with sick patients.

No,No this cannot be true as it doesn't fit in with the bile being spouted here.

not yet

not yet wrote: »

You my friend are posting complete and utter crap.

I have recently been handed instructions to pass on to staff that the new sick scheme allowance is 3.5 days a year. This is to be retrospectively introduced from August of this year, yeah that's this year 2012. Now off you pop and find some obscure,out of date piece of nonsense to post here.

Hey mister Know-it-all, what part of this catch's in the throat.

frankosw

Head The Wall wrote: »

Again you are highlighting your ignorance of statistical analysis and surveys.

.

I ask you again..how can anybody take a survey of everybody in the private sector's sick leave? Do they go around every single business in the country and ask about every single employee's sick leave?

What about those self-employed in the private sector? How do you assertain how much sick leave they have taken?

not yet

frankosw wrote: »

I ask you again..how can anybody take a survey of everybody in the private sector's sick leave? Do they go around every single business in the country and ask about every single employee's sick leave?

What about those self-employed in the private sector? How do you assertain how much sick leave they have taken?

Surely you are not looking for a fair comparison on private v public sectors. Don't you know the private sector are well policed, regulated and documented when it comes to tax issues and sick leave.

Head The Wall

not yet wrote: »

You my friend are posting complete and utter crap.

I have recently been handed instructions to pass on to staff that the new sick scheme allowance is 3.5 days a year. This is to be retrospectively introduced from August of this year, yeah that's this year 2012. Now off you pop and find some obscure,out of date piece of nonsense to post here.

Are you going to tell me that the department of Public Expenditure and Reform are wrong here. Maybe you should read the informative links in peoples posts, here let me do some reading for you as you obviously didn't read it or understand it.

The Court recommends that the recommendation on self certified sick leave should come into effect as soon as practicable. The D/PER will immediately commence work to give effect to this recommendations from September of this year.

Subject to the necessary legislation being enacted, the proposal on certified sick leave and the other matters covered by this recommendation should take effect from 1st January 2014.

Miss Lockhart

Sleepy wrote: »

No, it counts as two days of absence but the employee needs to provide a sick cert because the absence duration exceeds the 3 days of illness for which a sick cert is required.

And rightly so, if you're still sick enough to need to stay out of work on a Monday with something you were sick with on Friday, you should be going to a doctor.

It counts as 4 days where I work anyway.

***
Also, the changes to self-certified sick leave have already come into effect, backdated to August. The changes to certifiied sick leave will come into effect in January 2014.

Gumbo

not yet wrote: »

You my friend are posting complete and utter crap.

I have recently been handed instructions to pass on to staff that the new sick scheme allowance is 3.5 days a year. This is to be retrospectively introduced from August of this year, yeah that's this year 2012. Now off you pop and find some obscure,out of date piece of nonsense to post here.

We got the same last week.
7 uncertified sick days over a 2 year period starting from August 1st 2012.

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you going to tell me that the department of Public Expenditure and Reform are wrong here. Maybe you should read the informative links in peoples posts, here let me do some reading for you as you obviously didn't read it or understand it.

You dont like being proved wrong do ya

Following intense representations by the public sector unions, the Labour Court has decided that backdating for the new uncertified leave/ self-certified leave arrangements will apply from August 1st 2012.

The original date proposed for backdating was 28 September 2011 and was opposed by the public sector unions. The announcement means that teachers can discount any uncertified leave taken prior to August 1st 2012 when they are calculating their entitlement.
Phase in period
The Labour Court has recommended a phased move to new self-certified (uncertified) sick leave arrangements which allow for 7 self-certified sick leave days in a rolling two-year period.

Scortho

not yet wrote: »

No,No this cannot be true as it doesn't fit in with the bile being spouted here.

What I meant by my post was that not all sick days are being taken by those who work on the frontline with the sick! Very few nurses and doctors that I know go sick! So who is claiming all these sick days in the hse?
Also the idea that I can ring in sick 3.5 days in a year without cert and still get pay is ridiculous! In many private sector companies this doesn't exist! If it does, it's coming from the companies own profit!
When it's the tax payer who's paying it however perks like this should not be available especially when we're borrowing to pay it!
Uncertified sick pay is too easy to abuse!

not yet

Head The Wall wrote: »

Are you going to tell me that the department of Public Expenditure and Reform are wrong here. Maybe you should read the informative links in peoples posts, here let me do some reading for you as you obviously didn't read it or understand it.

What I am TELLING you as a fact, is that Dublin city council have as from 1st of August 2012 introduced the new provisions for sick leave.

Head The Wall

Scortho wrote: »

What I meant by my post was that not all sick days are being taken by those who work on the frontline with the sick! Very few nurses and doctors that I know go sick! So who is claiming all these sick days in the hse?

Clerical Workers and Females - That is what is in one of my posts from earlier today.

Scortho

Head The Wall wrote: »

Clerical Workers and Females - That is what is in one of my posts from earlier today.

I'd say mainly admin staff! The original reply was to a post saying its due to them working with the sick. Unfortunately the ratio of administers (which could be outsourced) to frontline staff is ridiculously large!

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Oh look, lots of sniping involving the same people on a thread about the public sector.

If you can't keep it civil, don't post.

If you want to make sweeping statements, post a link or be prepared to get challenged.

If you think that other posters are stonewalling or trolling, report it rather than complaining about it on thread.

This will be the first and last warning on this thread.

Godge

Head The Wall wrote: »

You two guys are hilarious spouting off as if ye know it all when ye have not got a clue



Taken from the govt's own web site here. I have highlighted it for ye.

You have to bring a better level of debate to the table as ye are looking ridiculous.

not yet wrote: »

You my friend are posting complete and utter crap.

I have recently been handed instructions to pass on to staff that the new sick scheme allowance is 3.5 days a year. This is to be retrospectively introduced from August of this year, yeah that's this year 2012. Now off you pop and find some obscure,out of date piece of nonsense to post here.

You are both wrong and you are both right.

The self-certified sick leave takes effect from 1 August 2012.
The certified sick leave takes effect from 1 January 2014.

The big change is in the self-certified leave because that is where the abuse could come from. For the certified leave to be abused, a GP had to sign a cert.