Sickness Absence in the Public Sector

RainyDay

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.

Nonsense

Rafa1977

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Sick days are treated as holidays in any part of the PS I am familiar with .

Same as my department and usually the higher the grade the more likely they are to go on long term sick.

RainyDay

Rafa1977 wrote: »

Same as my department and usually the higher the grade the more likely they are to go on long term sick.

Certified, right?

creedp

Rafa1977 wrote: »

Same as my department and usually the higher the grade the more likely they are to go on long term sick.

Would you consider this phenomenon exclusive to your Department or would you consdier it to be the norm across the PS?

creedp

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.

So basically you are saying if you are not in agreement with something you ignore it? Whatever chance you have of changing things from the inside you have sfa chance from the outside.

Head The Wall

woodoo wrote: »

They are taxpayers themselves.

Well, not really but that still doesn't change the fact that they are abusing the system that all you PS unon members are part off. They are effectively giving ye the 2 fingers because ye have to pick up teir slack

RainyDay wrote: »

Nonsense

Believe what you want, the unions strength is in it's numbers. You are making up those numbers and your union dues pay towards these people and their union reps which keep the abuse going.

You are the one being hypocritical here, you give out about management not doing what they should in relation to sickness which I will admit is a problem, but there is also then the unions sticking their noses in making it difficult for management to deal with the problem.

You come along then and still support this very union which lets your colleagues take the pi55 out of the system and think it's ok.

creedp wrote: »

So basically you are saying if you are not in agreement with something you ignore it? Whatever chance you have of changing things from the inside you have sfa chance from the outside.

People have a choice, they can't claim they don't agree with a union but then still stay a member. By staying a member they are effectively agreeing and condoning everything the union gets invlved in. People need to top being sheep and stop their membership if they want.

I have never ever had a situation where a union would have sorted out any issues I had. I believe it's a certain type of worker that joins a union, they feel they need to hide behind someone. I have never felt that I need to hide so I have never been in a difficult work situation. I think that says a lot about peoples work ethic, standards and attitude to work.

murphaph

RainyDay wrote: »

Nonsense

It's not nonsense.

If you join a union, you are prepared to stand shoulder to should with those in it, regardless of how bone idle they are. People have to make a decision...let their wages be determined by this collective bargaining process or stand up and be recognised as individuals. Unions feed from the subs. They don't give a sh!t whether the sub is paid by a good worker or a lazy sod. They'll represent both with equal vigour. The hard worker needs to ask himself some serious questions.....

Gumbo

It's not surprising that Ireland has the highest sick people in Europe and that is proved with public sector and private sector sick days.

http://www.hotpress.com/features/reports/Hot-Press-Report-Fluoride/9609873.html?new_layout=1#

OMD

kceire wrote: »

It's not surprising that Ireland has the highest sick people in Europe and that is proved with public sector and private sector sick days.

http://www.hotpress.com/features/reports/Hot-Press-Report-Fluoride/9609873.html?new_layout=1#

Not this ****e. We have enormous trials involving millions of people, bigger than any drug trial ever. We arenir sicker than the rest if Europe. That us the whole point. We are not sicker, fluoridation makes no difference. Where is the evidence fluoride harms. Hot press say so? Oh spare us from this ****e.

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

Not this ****e. We have enormous trials involving millions of people, bugger than any drug trial ever. Where is the evidence fluoride harms. Hot press say so? Oh spare us from this ****e.

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/irishfeatures/4821915/Does-medication-in-our-mains-do-more-harm-than-good.html

OMD

kceire wrote: »

http://www.thesun.ie/irishsol/homepage/irishfeatures/4821915/Does-medication-in-our-mains-do-more-harm-than-good.html

Ah well it is in the Sun. Couldn't be ****e then.

Gumbo

OMD wrote: »

Ah well it is in the Sun. Couldn't be ****e then.

You said its ok, so it must be then.

OMD

kceire wrote: »

You said its ok, so it must be then.

You need to offer proof of something. Newspaper articles are not proof. For 50 years we have added fluoride to water. TheGermans for 50 years have not. You therefore have two groups. One of about 3 million exposed to fluoride daily and the other group of 80 million with no fluoride exposure. Are the ones taking fluoride in worse health than those not taking it? No. So that is your answer. Overall health of people taking fluoride is no worse than those not taking it.

creedp

murphaph wrote: »

It's not nonsense.

If you join a union, you are prepared to stand shoulder to should with those in it, regardless of how bone idle they are. People have to make a decision...let their wages be determined by this collective bargaining process or stand up and be recognised as individuals. Unions feed from the subs. They don't give a sh!t whether the sub is paid by a good worker or a lazy sod. They'll represent both with equal vigour. The hard worker needs to ask himself some serious questions.....

Ah c'mon .. I know its Sunday pm but seriously? Some Liverpool [insert any team you want] supporters are thugs .. so if you support Liverpool you support thuggery! By the way do you vote?

murphaph

creedp wrote: »

Ah c'mon .. I know its Sunday pm but seriously? Some Liverpool [insert any team you want] supporters are thugs .. so if you support Liverpool you support thuggery! By the way do you vote?

I'm not allowed to vote mate. I am compelled to pay tax in Ireland but not to vote there as I am non-resident (so get even fewer tax credits than residents). Nice eh? Irish governments and Irish politicians in general don't want expats voting. Far too dangerous to the old guard.

Your analogy is flawed. You can support Liverpool without being compelled to join the hooligan in his thuggery. You cannot be in a union (and take it seriously) without being prepared to strike with your bone idle colleagues when the union votes to strike to protect the pay and conditions of that idle colleague.

woodoo

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not allowed to vote mate. I am compelled to pay tax in Ireland but not to vote there as I am non-resident (so get even fewer tax credits than residents). Nice eh? Irish governments and Irish politicians in general don't want expats voting. Far too dangerous to the old guard..

You pay your taxes here so nobody could complain when you have your say.

RainyDay

murphaph wrote: »

Your analogy is flawed. You can support Liverpool without being compelled to join the hooligan in his thuggery. You cannot be in a union (and take it seriously) without being prepared to strike with your bone idle colleagues when the union votes to strike to protect the pay and conditions of that idle colleague.

More nonsense - because the union doesn't 'strike to protect the pay and conditions of that idle colleague'. The union doesn't decide to strike about anything. Union members decide to strike, through democratic processes. And they don't 'strike to protect the idle'. If they do strike (and I can't recall the last time there was significant strike in the public sector in Ireland), they strike to protect the pay and conditions of ALL staff, and often to protect the viability of public services.

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.

If someone is skiving (as happens in all industries and sectors - public and private), there are processes in place to manage this. If the person is a union member, the union will ensure they are represented throughout the process - no more and no less. The employer will be accessing HR advice from IBEC or other source, and legal advice as required, so union representation brings a little balance to the process. It doesn't mean the union officials, or the other union members approve or support the behavior of the member. It just means that they support the person's right to representation.

Less drama, more facts please.

Godge

AlexisM wrote: »

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.

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%

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.

But the figure of 0.1% quoted by some newspaper related to the percentage of civil servants denied an increment not the percentage of increments denied which is what you are calculating.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

But the figure of 0.1% quoted by some newspaper related to the percentage of civil servants denied an increment not the percentage of increments denied which is what you are calculating.

It didn't relate to either!

It simply stated that just 0.1% of civil servants in the given year received a 1 on their appraisal.

To be eligible for an increment, the employee must achieve at least a 2 (the scale is 1-5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst).

So, I'll ask again as it appears you actually misunderstood the article:
Do you think that just 1 employee in 1,000 in the given year performed badly enough to warrant receiving the lowest appraisal possible?

Godge

murphaph wrote: »

It didn't relate to either!

It simply stated that just 0.1% of civil servants in the given year received a 1 on their appraisal.

To be eligible for an increment, the employee must achieve at least a 2 (the scale is 1-5, with 5 being the best and 1 being the worst).

So, I'll ask again as it appears you actually misunderstood the article:
Do you think that just 1 employee in 1,000 in the given year performed badly enough to warrant receiving the lowest appraisal possible?

Now it makes more sense.
To get an increment your appraisal has to be completed. If your appraisal is not completed, you do not get an increment (well, that is the way it was when I last left the public service, someone more recent can update).

Did the article give completion rates?

creedp

murphaph wrote: »

I'm not allowed to vote mate. I am compelled to pay tax in Ireland but not to vote there as I am non-resident (so get even fewer tax credits than residents). Nice eh? Irish governments and Irish politicians in general don't want expats voting. Far too dangerous to the old guard.

Your analogy is flawed. You can support Liverpool without being compelled to join the hooligan in his thuggery. You cannot be in a union (and take it seriously) without being prepared to strike with your bone idle colleagues when the union votes to strike to protect the pay and conditions of that idle colleague.

Its obvious you have a terrible opinion of public servants in general to the point that its possible you're not being very objective here!

murphaph

creedp wrote: »

Its obvious you have a terrible opinion of public servants in general to the point that its possible you're not being very objective here!

There are surely some fantastic public servants out there. I don't know how they don't go insane working in a system that sees them get paid the same as the useless ones. I don't understand how these good public servants can be in a union with the useless ones.

creedp

murphaph wrote: »

There are surely some fantastic public servants out there. I don't know how they don't go insane working in a system that sees them get paid the same as the useless ones. I don't understand how these good public servants can be in a union with the useless ones.

No need to overdue it now:) Like all walks of life there are good & bad. Also people do things/dont do things for many reasons - which sometimes seem incoherent to others. I would say if you want to work in a certain environment it is sometimes easier to conform and if that means joining a union why not. Joining a union can have some advantages even for diehard anti-unionists like youself. For example reduced premiums for car/house/income continuance, etc. I'd go as far as to say if you took away those perks, union membership would dwindle substantially after this deal, especially for those who have been kicked in the pants.

Gumbo

murphaph wrote: »

There are surely some fantastic public servants out there. I don't know how they don't go insane working in a system that sees them get paid the same as the useless ones. I don't understand how these good public servants can be in a union with the useless ones.

Dont worry, im not in a union

murphaph

kceire wrote: »

Dont worry, im not in a union

No, but your pay and conditions are determined by the union and the govt and you are more of a passenger in the whole process, right? Your individual contributions are not determining your remuneration, right?

creedp

murphaph wrote: »

No, but your pay and conditions are determined by the union and the govt and you are more of a passenger in the whole process, right? Your individual contributions are not determining your remuneration, right?

So now you're calling him a freeloader for not being in a union?

RainyDay

murphaph wrote: »

There are surely some fantastic public servants out there. I don't know how they don't go insane working in a system that sees them get paid the same as the useless ones.

Probably because
a) There really aren't many 'useless ones' around, and normal management processes are dealing with the few that are
b) Money isn't their major motivating factor. If money was the major factor, they wouldn't have gone for a public sector job in the first place.
c) They knew how the system worked when they signed up.

It's really not that difficult. Public servants aren't a different breed. Here's a shocker - some people even move from private to public, and from public to private and back again.