Sickness Absence in the Public Sector

not yet

KilOit wrote: »

A "talk" haha yeah seen many of them alright, goes nowhere!

You do know staff can be taken off the USL scheme.

mariaalice

To be fair a lot of companies have some paid uncertified sick leave, not usualy as generous as the HSE I grant you.

If a system is open to being abused you will get some people abusing it, so the answer is to design a system that is not open to abuse and if thats not possible make the system difficult to abuse.

Maternity leave is a statutory entitlement, you cant stop people taking up unpaid leave if they are entitled to it nor can you stop people takeing their holiday after their maternity leave.

The thing of coming back pregnant or getting pregnant shortly after coming back form maternity leave is recent and is due to the fact woman often don't start their family's till their mid or late thirties these days. I think not a good idea you end up with two children under two while trying to work full time I knew one women who did it because she was convinced it gave her almost two years of paid maternity leave. Trying to care for two children under two while holding down a job like nursing might be their reason you are seeing so much sick leave in the group.

Maura74

Hybernian Angel wrote: »

It is shameful Rightwing, because we as a profession should know better. But it's the whole abuse of the system that's so grating. I've come across instances which are pretty astounding -but are literally happening in hospitals and Care facilities across the country. In one, a HCA had taken all of the 'sick' days he could, then ended up in trouble over a work related incident. He went to his GP and got certs covering him for a total of six months and full pay and then six months on half pay. When he was contacted by HR to say his contract would now have to be terminated - he turned up for work again.

In another instance, a nurse was found to have done something that endangered a patient. When she was spoken to about it and advised that some training would be needed - she went to her union. It's now in it's 8th month of investigation - she's out on full pay........and working as an agency worker pretty much full time.

She's told me that out of the money she's made she can now buy her parents another house in her country - and will happily emigrate later because wages are dropping here. Oh - and she's getting paid full A/L, Sunday and night duty premium - not flat rate.

I think it is disgraceful the way these people are in it just for the money, it is the same in the UK. Nurses can demand up to £1,800.00 day, while patients are let to die for a drink of water.

Doctors also earning £20k a week in the UK NHS as well, something got to give somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9813361/Hospital-pays-1800-a-day-for-a-nurse-in-NHS-staff-crisis.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9150772/NHS-pays-20000-a-week-for-a-doctor.html

Hybernian Angel

Jesus - nurses can get £ 1,800 a DAY ?. Tell me where quick - i'll up and leave hubby, dog and children - no prob.

mariaalice

Hybernian Angel wrote: »

Jesus - nurses can get £ 1,800 a DAY ?. Tell me where quick - i'll up and leave hubby, dog and children - no prob.

You would have to set up a nursing agency employ yourself and then hire yourself out that way you would get the agency fee and your hourly fee as well it s a brilliant idea:P

Hybernian Angel

Sheer genius !. That way I can take loads of sick leave as well - but since i'll be sleeping with the boss it won't be a problem. Oh happy days - no more slogging.;)

woodoo

I have no doubt sick leave is being abused in the public sector. I am normally one to defend the PS against some of the accusations leveled against them. But i am on the side of Hybernian Angel here. We all know there are certain individuals that take the piss and i would like to see them dealt with. I wouldn't like to see a good and fair sick leave policy ruined by wasters.

Hybernian Angel

Thanks Woodo - this is why I'm trying to highlight it.:D

RGS

Maura74 wrote: »

I think it is disgraceful the way these people are in it just for the money, it is the same in the UK. Nurses can demand up to £1,800.00 day, while patients are let to die for a drink of water.

Doctors also earning £20k a week in the UK NHS as well, something got to give somewhere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9813361/Hospital-pays-1800-a-day-for-a-nurse-in-NHS-staff-crisis.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9150772/NHS-pays-20000-a-week-for-a-doctor.html

You ahould read the article first. Nurses are not demanding £1800 per day.Thats the rate being paid to a private agency to provide nurses for the NHS to cover staff shortages. The nurses are not getting that figure. Instead of employing nurses the NHS engage private agencies to supply staff. Its a "cost saving" scam. NHS does not pay taxes etc so they think they are saving money, which is not the case. The same idiotic approach is taken here. HSE cut staff numbers but employ agency nurses and pay the private agencies.

creedp

RGS wrote: »

You ahould read the article first. Nurses are not demanding £1800 per day.Thats the rate being paid to a private agency to provide nurses for the NHS to cover staff shortages. The nurses are not getting that figure. Instead of employing nurses the NHS engage private agencies to supply staff. Its a "cost saving" scam. NHS does not pay taxes etc so they think they are saving money, which is not the case. The same idiotic approach is taken here. HSE cut staff numbers but employ agency nurses and pay the private agencies.

The reason the HSE does it is that there is an employment ceiling which can't be exceeded so they hire agency nurses which are not included in the employment ceiling. So they actually spend more scarce resources in order to save money by having a lower numbers of nurses employed. Seriously twisted logic!

Hybernian Angel

True - and we're also expected by the public to provide the same service.

Scortho

RainyDay wrote: »

Most decent employers will pay a limited amount of uncertified sick leave. You really don't want to be forcing employees to the doctor for every flu or tummy bug at €50 or €60 a go. The best thing they can do is stay at home, rest and get plenty of fluids. If you make it really hard for them to take time off, they'll come to work, do very little, and spread their germs around.
With proper management, leadership and motivation, uncertified leave is just that, and is not treated as extra leave for the taking.


The doctor doesn't have a crystal ball. He's not going to know how soon your symptoms will clear in any exact detail, so he's going to err on the side of caution. And by the way, if you want to return to work early, you need to get a doctors cert to say that you're fit for work too.

If the doctor doesnt have a crystal ball how then does he know that you'll need 5 days off? The last time I needed a sick cert for college lectures, I was only given one for 2 days. If im sick I go to the doctor so would I not be going anyway?
Now I might add, in our place, which is one of the largest multinationals in the world (employee wise) and listed on the FTSE, if we go to work and the manager deems us to be unfit to work then we get sent home with pay. If we want uncertified we can have it alright, just no wages coming into your account that day. Fair enough in my opinion as well.

Scortho

Paulzx wrote: »

It is in its arse 3 long weekends. In my workplace sick is monitored for patterns. If you took 3 long weekends of uncertified it will be flagged and you'll probably be hauled in and warned. I have seen it happen to plenty of people.

You can belittle uncertified all you want but there is no doubt it avoids longer term sick when only a day is required for an illness.

Really so your saying that in your place, if you go sick on a friday in February, a Monday in July and a Friday in October youd be hauled in and warned? But if you took the 3 days on a tuesday, wednesday or thursday it wouldnt matter???

Godge

Scortho wrote: »

Really so your saying that in your place, if you go sick on a friday in February, a Monday in July and a Friday in October youd be hauled in and warned? But if you took the 3 days on a tuesday, wednesday or thursday it wouldnt matter???

It is the pattern that matters.

Go sick every time there is a race meeting in the Curragh, go sick every Friday of a bank holiday weekend, go sick the day after payday, those types of patterns are easy to spot and are dealt with in both the public and private sectors.

Godge

woodoo wrote: »

I have no doubt sick leave is being abused in the public sector. I am normally one to defend the PS against some of the accusations leveled against them. But i am on the side of Hybernian Angel here. We all know there are certain individuals that take the piss and i would like to see them dealt with. I wouldn't like to see a good and fair sick leave policy ruined by wasters.

Yes, but Hybernian Angel is a manager and supposed to be dealing with it.

Don't know what you are but from my experience both from inside the public sector and from outside, the biggest issue by far in today's public sector is the failure of middle management to actively manage.

You hear the excuses of the unions, the lack of procedures, the lack of support from the centre etc, but the main reason is the lack of priority given by middle management to dealing with underperformance.

Boombastic

Excuse my ignorance but is this type of thing not dealt with at yearly reviews and increments suspended? Or is it just people who are the top of their scale that are taking the p1$$?

Scortho

Boombastic wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but is this type of thing not dealt with at yearly reviews and increments suspended? Or is it just people who are the top of their scale that are taking the p1$$?

Can you suspend an increment in the public service?

Godge

Boombastic wrote: »

Excuse my ignorance but is this type of thing not dealt with at yearly reviews and increments suspended? Or is it just people who are the top of their scale that are taking the p1$$?

It should be dealt with in that way. In most parts of the public sector it is dealt with in that way. However, in many parts of the public sector there are weaknesses in middle management.

The HSE is one example. Between five and ten years ago, there was a massive expansion in frontline management jobs. Unfortunately there wasn't sufficient training given to newly appointed frontline managers and the selection wasn't the best with the best nurse getting the job rather than the best manager.

Scortho

Godge wrote: »

It is the pattern that matters.

Go sick every time there is a race meeting in the Curragh, go sick every Friday of a bank holiday weekend, go sick the day after payday, those types of patterns are easy to spot and are dealt with in both the public and private sectors.

Yes but that'd be more than 3,5 days a year.

Godge

Scortho wrote: »

Yes but that'd be more than 3,5 days a year.

3 examples of patterns, not suggesting someone did every one.

gazzer

Scortho wrote: »

Can you suspend an increment in the public service?

Yes you can. Well you can in the Civil Service anyway.

murphaph

gazzer wrote: »

Yes you can. Well you can in the Civil Service anyway.

But in reality it almost never happens. Figures were released to show that only a handful of state employees per year are deemed not to be performing well enough to get their increment.

THIRTY MEMBERS of staff in the Civil Service were denied an incremental pay increase last year on performance grounds.

Official figures released last night show that only 0.1 per cent of staff in the Civil Service - which has about 30,000 personnel - were awarded a rating of one in their performance evaluation.
A total of 64 per cent of staff in the Civil Service were awarded ratings of four or five in the five- point scale.

Under Civil Service employment rules staff must receive a rating of two or more to qualify for an incremental pay increase.

It's clearly a bogus appraisals system that deems just 0.1% of staff to be undeserving of their pay increase.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0627/1224318805878.html

Godge

Scortho wrote: »

Can you suspend an increment in the public service?

In most parts of the public service. It happens regularly enough in the central civil service, never happens for teachers in education and somewhere in between in the health sector.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

In most parts of the public service. It happens regularly enough in the central civil service, never happens for teachers in education and somewhere in between in the health sector.

0.1% is "regularly enough" in your eyes? (see my post above yours, it refers specifically to the Civil Service and is quite damning).

0.1% means 999 staff out of 1,000 are deemed to be performing well enough for an increment :rolleyes:

Aidan1

Frankly Murph, there's something very dodgy about those figures. From personal experience, they just don't make sense. People being denied increments is much more common than that.

I've seen this happen before too - for figures on people leaving the Public Service to go to industry. I knew more people personally that had left then were actually covered in the published figures.

For persistent offenders, 'active management' by central HR has become much more of a feature across the system. This means a formal weekly reporting system over and above the norm, leading ultimately to dismissal if people don't get their $hit together. It's a pain for all concerned, because the form filling, documenting of everything, and meetings suck a huge amount of time, but with numbers so tight, passengers are no longer accepted.

murphaph

Aidan1 wrote: »

For persistent offenders, 'active management' by central HR has become much more of a feature across the system. This means a formal weekly reporting system over and above the norm, leading ultimately to dismissal if people don't get their $hit together. It's a pain for all concerned, because the form filling, documenting of everything, and meetings suck a huge amount of time, but with numbers so tight, passengers are no longer accepted.

if things have genuinely improved in tackling these people, I'm happy as a taxpayer

nice_guy80

I can genuinely say that sick leave is very low in the primary sector.
Most teachers I know hate missing days.
and try to avoid taking days off as you need to go to doctor to get cert

The biggest expense the education department has is maternity leave. (which they've been changing)
And this is going up every year due to the increasing feminisation of the primary teaching sector. males are now a small minority in classrooms and schools

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

0.1% is "regularly enough" in your eyes? (see my post above yours, it refers specifically to the Civil Service and is quite damning).

0.1% means 999 staff out of 1,000 are deemed to be performing well enough for an increment :rolleyes:

What figure would be realistic? How often should an average person be denied an increment. If, say everyone, was denied one increment during their career, that would still only amount to 2.5% in any one year over the 40-year length of the career.

A figure of 0.1% would suggest therefore that up to 4% of civil servants are denied one increment during their career. If the average number increment denied among the group that are denied increments is 2, then it would be 2% of civil servants who are denied at least one increment during their career.

As always, statistics depend on which way you look at them (and of course, if the statistic is accurate).

beeno67

Godge wrote: »

What figure would be realistic? How often should an average person be denied an increment. If, say everyone, was denied one increment during their career, that would still only amount to 2.5% in any one year over the 40-year length of the career.

A figure of 0.1% would suggest therefore that up to 4% of civil servants are denied one increment during their career. If the average number increment denied among the group that are denied increments is 2, then it would be 2% of civil servants who are denied at least one increment during their career.

As always, statistics depend on which way you look at them (and of course, if the statistic is accurate).

That assumes that civil servants get increments every year for 40 years. They don't as you are well aware. The average civil servant gets 10 increments in a 40 year career. The figures then mean that 99% of civil servants never get refused an increment in their entire career.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

What figure would be realistic? How often should an average person be denied an increment. If, say everyone, was denied one increment during their career, that would still only amount to 2.5% in any one year over the 40-year length of the career.

A figure of 0.1% would suggest therefore that up to 4% of civil servants are denied one increment during their career. If the average number increment denied among the group that are denied increments is 2, then it would be 2% of civil servants who are denied at least one increment during their career.

As always, statistics depend on which way you look at them (and of course, if the statistic is accurate).

Give me a break.

Regardless of whether an appraisal is used in any given year to prevent an increment, do you think that just 1 out of 1,000 civil servants in the year the report was made performed so badly that they only got a 1?

fall

When I was due back from maternity leave and told people I was taking unpaid leave I was told I was mad, just go sick. I am public sector.
Family member is a GP and he regularly gets complaints because he refuses week long certificates. He also notices a particular pattern in the people seeking certs. I have sick days but only when I am generally sick. I will go to work and will be told to go home. There are at least ten people in my job who regularly abuse sick leave certified and uncertified.
This is why Croke park talks piss me off, it should address the fact that these people still have jobs and they are not efficient or productive staff members and yes in my work place they head straight for the union.

Head The Wall

Are you in a union?

fall

Yes. Attend monthly meetings. I think a lot of changes are necessary.
There are those who work so hard and give over and above and people who just milk the system.

Godge

beeno67 wrote: »

That assumes that civil servants get increments every year for 40 years. They don't as you are well aware. The average civil servant gets 10 increments in a 40 year career. The figures then mean that 99% of civil servants never get refused an increment in their entire career.

You obviously didn't understand my post which took this into account, but hey, read it again slowly and carefully.

Markcheese

How much of the problem is poor HR , i think sick leave should be at your own expense for the first couple of days, sick note needed afterwards ... I'd make an exception for front line medical staff,(who wants the nurse in a cancer care ward to be dying with a cold ) but there should probably be better HR in there...

Figures keep getting quoted for absenteeism in public hospitals, is there an equivalent figure for private hospitals ? It'd be an interesting comparison ...

Godge

fall wrote: »

When I was due back from maternity leave and told people I was taking unpaid leave I was told I was mad, just go sick. I am public sector.
Family member is a GP and he regularly gets complaints because he refuses week long certificates. He also notices a particular pattern in the people seeking certs. I have sick days but only when I am generally sick. I will go to work and will be told to go home. There are at least ten people in my job who regularly abuse sick leave certified and uncertified.
This is why Croke park talks piss me off, it should address the fact that these people still have jobs and they are not efficient or productive staff members and yes in my work place they head straight for the union.

Rather than each of us tell our own little anecdote once again about how bad the public service is, let us read about the policies:

http://per.gov.ie/modernised-and-updated-sickness-absence-management-policy/

The point I have made all along through this thread is that the policies are there, if there is a problem then middle management should deal with it.

RainyDay

beeno67 wrote: »

That assumes that civil servants get increments every year for 40 years. They don't as you are well aware. The average civil servant gets 10 increments in a 40 year career. The figures then mean that 99% of civil servants never get refused an increment in their entire career.

He also assumed that all public servants are civil servants. They're not.

The figures quoted in the PQ response were for civil servants. There are about 15k civil servants. There are about 300k public servants, including teachers, nurses, gardai etc - two very different groups.

creedp

beeno67 wrote: »

That assumes that civil servants get increments every year for 40 years. They don't as you are well aware. The average civil servant gets 10 increments in a 40 year career. The figures then mean that 99% of civil servants never get refused an increment in their entire career.

Glad that you cleared that up because on here you could easily be forgiven for thinking that every PS has got 4 increments since 2009 so every PS earns more now than before they had their 1st pay cut in 2009. At last a bit of shape and objectivity coming to the discussion

whiteandlight

Can I just defend the public sector here. I'm in second level teaching. I am terrified to take sick leave because I am not permanent. At least 40% of our staff are part time/non permanent staff. We are under pressure never to take a day off in case it impacts our future. A similar situation is the case for most* permanent staff as the long time teachers tend to have the higher level student leaving cert classes and cannot afford to miss days. The idea of taking a day off when I'm not sick enough to attend the doctor and get a legitimate sick cert is just madness. I don't honestly know what the management are doing because my principal would never put up with it

There are the odd bad apples but they are few and far between, none in my current school.

Lumbo

Musicmental85 wrote: »

Can I just defend the public sector here.

No, no, no, no, no.. not here. It's not allowed.

BTW I checked today. I've had a total of 28 sick days in 11 years :cool: Things have improved since I went to school.

Chris_5339762

I've taken a grand total of 0.5 days of sick leave in 3 years, and that day was because my boss sent me home as I was practically keeling over.

My department has the lowest sick leave in the company as we're all good, professional workers. However, the sick leave among other departments is too high... due to understaffing it is extremely difficult to sort out annual leave, to the point where EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THEIR ANNUAL LEAVE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR has to be booked in January. It usually has to go through two or three iterations because of clashes, and you try organising a weekend away in late November with your friends when its only January now. Ridiculous carry on. Then, when they are told that due to inadequate cover they can't have the day off for their friends wedding six months down the line, they of course take an uncertified sick day on that day. I can see exactly why they do it, not that I agree with it though.

Head The Wall

fall wrote: »

Yes. Attend monthly meetings. I think a lot of changes are necessary.
There are those who work so hard and give over and above and people who just milk the system.

So you are effectively supporting and facilitating th esystem by which these people survive and thrive at your and others expense. Do you feel proud of that?

AlexisM

Godge wrote: »

You obviously didn't understand my post which took this into account, but hey, read it again slowly and carefully.

I have read your post very slowly and carefully. Your headline calculation number (the 2.5% in your first example) is meaningless as a measurement of how often increments are denied.

Godge wrote: »

What figure would be realistic? How often should an average person be denied an increment. If, say everyone, was denied one increment during their career, that would still only amount to 2.5% in any one year over the 40-year length of the career.

This actually makes no sense (your intention?) – 2.5% of what?

Take a group of 1,000 employees who have 10 increment opportunities in a 40 year career. In your example, each of them gets denied 1 increment in their career so that is 1,000 increments denied over 40 years, an average of 25 denials per year. So out of 1,000 employees, each year 25 increments are denied (hence your 2.5%). But in that year, only 250 were eligible for an increment so the denial rate every time an employee has an increment opportunity is actually 10%. Comparing the 25 denied with the full 1,000 employees (to get your 2.5%) doesn’t make any sense if they are not eligible for an increment. Is your manager going to be happy that you can say ‘only 2.5% of employees were denied an increment this year’ without knowing how many were eligible for an increment? Not all employees are eligible every year and unlike these made-up examples, there isn’t a set % eligible each year – so you HAVE to compare the numbers denied with the numbers eligible, not the total number of employees.

[More extreme example: Would it make sense to say ‘great success, only 2.5% of employees were denied an increment this year’ if only 2.5% of employees were eligible for an increment that year?]

And just in simple numbers, 1,000 employees eligible increments in 10 out of 40 years with a 10% denial rate.

1,000 employees,
40,000 years worked
10,000 increment opportunities
1,000 increment denials
Denial rate over 40 year career = 1,000 out of 10,000 opportunities = 10%

Godge wrote: »

A figure of 0.1% would suggest therefore that up to 4% of civil servants are denied one increment during their career. If the average number increment denied among the group that are denied increments is 2, then it would be 2% of civil servants who are denied at least one increment during their career.

Again looking at a group of 1,000 employees with a 0.1% denial rate:

1,000 employees
40,000 years worked
10,000 increment opportunities
10 increment denials (10,000 opportunities x 0.1% denial rate)
% of employees denied at least one increment in their career = 1% (10 denials / 1,000 employees)
If 2 denials per denied employee, % employees denied = 0.5% (5 denied employees / 1,000 employees)

So 1% and ½% ~ not your 4% and 2% which are wrong by a multiple of 4.

nice_guy80

Sandy Vag wrote: »

Well the public sector are a shower of lazy dogs. These pay cuts are long overdue

I don't know where these lazy dogs are?
Because they sure aren't in my school
or among my cohort of friends who work in the public sector from the shifts they put in nursing, as gardai and other jobs

beeno67

Godge wrote: »

You obviously didn't understand my post which took this into account, but hey, read it again slowly and carefully.

I understood your post. I am pointing out how stupid it is.
You are saying if workers eligible for an increment every year (which they are not)
were refused an increment once per career on average (which they are not)
then 2.5% of workers would be refused increments (which doesn't happen).
Seems to be a pretty pointless post.

My post which you had a problem with stated that as 0.1% of workers were refused an increment in one year, if you spread that out over a 40 year career (and assume one person is never refused more than 1 increment which is unlikely) then 99% of workers will never get refused an increment in their entire 40 year career.

Anyway, people are not refused increments. It is the opposite. People earn increments. Might sound the same but it is an important difference. It means that 99.9% of those workers who could possibly have received an increment had work of such standard that, in these recessionary times, it was felt they should get a pay rise. Odd.

fall

Godge wrote: »

Rather than each of us tell our own little anecdote once again about how bad the public service is, let us read about the policies:

http://per.gov.ie/modernised-and-updated-sickness-absence-management-policy/

The point I have made all along through this thread is that the policies are there, if there is a problem then middle management should deal with it.

Well I think we also have personal responsibility and a moral duty not to abuse the system. What can they do if someone has a cert? There is very little they can do.

Of course this does not apply to all public servants but a minority that puts even more stress on a system that is already under serious pressure. We have to pick up the slack when these people take regular days off.

fall

Head The Wall wrote: »

So you are effectively supporting and facilitating th esystem by which these people survive and thrive at your and others expense. Do you feel proud of that?

There are many reasons to be a member of a union. It is my opportunity to have a voice about how my profession is developing. If other people choose to use the union for other reasons that is their business.

RainyDay

fall wrote: »

What can they do if someone has a cert? There is very little they can do.

Not true - they can (and do) go through the absence management process, which involves sending the employee to the company doctor for assessment if they are regularly ill.

Head The Wall

fall wrote: »

There are many reasons to be a member of a union. It is my opportunity to have a voice about how my profession is developing. If other people choose to use the union for other reasons that is their business.

That still doesn't change the fact that you are indirectly supporting these people in their endeavours to screw you and all other taxpayers over.

woodoo

Head The Wall wrote: »

That still doesn't change the fact that you are indirectly supporting these people in their endeavours to screw you and all other taxpayers over.

They are taxpayers themselves.