[Dodgy stats/Indo] "Huge levels of absenteeism still tolerated in the public sector"

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more avoidance - is there or is there not an absenteeism problem in the HSE in particular and the Public Service in general .

Do we agree the answer is yes there is and it is a serious one.

A newspaper highlighted this issue and all we do is discuss how well or badly they do so and miss the issue itself.

It just smacks of the ''teach the controversy'' strategy and nothing more.

Now back to the Op - why are such levels of absenteeism still tolerated .

My point that unless the matter is presented in a clear and unambiguous fashion then discussion of it gets clouded and taken over by arguments over the mode of reporting has been borne out, I would suggest, by the evolution of this thread.

The journalist could have picked the most recently available figures but I presume didn't because the worst performer in that dataset for September was the Network Office Dublin Midlands Hospitals at 13.4%. Incidentally, using the data in the HSE's own report I think there are 4 people working in that office.

Instead she reached past the most recent and up-to-date data to pick a figure relating to some obscure admin office that more suited the sensationalist, HSE-bashing agenda of the rag the Indo has become, from being a really decent paper. It also helped that the figure related to a summer month so there could be the added insinuation that staff weren't ill they were off elsewhere.

She could have opted to do even a crude analysis of the dataset and point out some interesting, even disturbing, anomalies in September such as why do medical / dental staff have an absenteeism rate of 1.13% (rolling three month average) and nurses 5.45%?

Or why do some large and busy hospitals such as the Eye & Ear and Holles St have relatively low absenteeism rates (1.18% and 2.51% respectively in September) and others don't? Or how come the Mater in Dublin met the target for absenteeism in September but CUH in Cork (both large city acute hospitals) failed significantly?

Is it expecting too much of the Health Correspondent in a national newspaper to do a bit of journalism and maybe drill into the figures, even a bit, rather than go for the cheap-shot headline?

Anyway back to the point you raised.

Is there an absenteeism problem in the HSE / Pubic Service?

That depends. Neither the HSE or PS are amorphous blobs. There will be bits where there are problems with absenteeism and bits where there are not.

There will be times when there are problems with absenteeism and times when there are not.

Frankly, I couldn't give a rats arse if the "Network Office Dublin Midlands Hospitals" has an absenteeism rate of 13%, 26% or even 100%.

What does bother me is that my local hospital has an absenteeism rate approaching 8% and that the rate for nurses is over 10%. Now that's a problem, and a serious one.

Likewise, the 'quality' of the abenteeism needs to be assessed - do I really care if the absenteeism rate is less than 1%, if the A&E Consultant is the guy or gal who is off sick when I bring a sick child into the hospital?

Also, just to point out that in September 91.5% of absenteeism was medically certified in the HSE - so I'll just leave you with the thought that maybe a lot of people were, in fact, actually ill?

ardmacha

sarumite wrote: »

What the indo did was to selectively choose their stats to suit their argument. They are hardly unique in that respect. In my opinion many on here taking the moral high ground and throwing metaphorical stones are doing it from a metaphorical glasshouse.

You have it right there. The Indo did not set out to report the situation, but set out to support an argument.

woodoo

marienbad wrote: »

This is just more avoidance - is there or is there not an absenteeism problem in the HSE in particular and the Public Service in general .

Do we agree the answer is yes there is and it is a serious one.

A newspaper highlighted this issue and all we do is discuss how well or badly they do so and miss the issue itself.

It just smacks of the ''teach the controversy'' strategy and nothing more.

Now back to the Op - why are such levels of absenteeism still tolerated .

Listen it is not honest journalism not by a long shot. Maybe you are ok with that but most people won.t be. If there is a problem with absenteeism in the hse then present the figures accurately. Why not...are they not sensationalist enough?

marienbad

Have your own way then and continue living in the clouds-A newspaper has a number of jobs but the main ones are to inform the people and to make money.

The tried and tested method is to graft on a sensationalist headline to a news story and let it run.

That is what this is - and unless you want subsidised Pravdas long may it continue.

Not one poster has taken up the issue raised but imstead blasted the messenger- as I say teach the controversy and in the meantime the absenteeism gets out of control.

VeryOwl

marienbad wrote:

Not one poster has taken up the issue raised but imstead blasted the messenger- as I say teach the controversy and in the meantime the absenteeism gets out of control.

Jawgap did an excellent analysis that you completely ignored.

Define what you mean by 'out of control'. Which parts are 'out of control', where's your evidence?

marienbad

VeryOwl wrote: »

Jawgap did an excellent analysis that you completely ignored.

Define what you mean by 'out of control'. Which parts are 'out of control', where's your evidence?

Just because I Didn't quote it dos'nt mean I ignored or even disagreed with it.


Out of control to me is anything that is out of line with the private sector .

As for my evidence ?? Why should I provide evidence ? My argument has simply been that posters are more interested in slagging off the indo than
addressing the substance of the article.

Gumbo

marienbad wrote: »

Just because I Didn't quote it dos'nt mean I ignored or even disagreed with it.


Out of control to me is anything that is out of line with the private sector .

As for my evidence ?? Why should I provide evidence ? My argument has simply been that posters are more interested in slagging off the indo than
addressing the substance of the article.

If you feel that you have a valid argument, you MUST provide evidence, otherwise it's just an ill informed rant, as per the forum charter.

You seem he'll bent to ignore factual discussion, in order to live by the article which you feel is factually correct. Then you accuse others of loving in clouds.........

The opening post has even been reprimanded by a moderator because of its non factual nature, but yet, you just keep giving your personal opinion with anything to back it up.

Here you go, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544387

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

.......

The tried and tested method is to graft on a sensationalist headline to a news story and let it run.

......

At the risk of derailing the thread, how come D'Indo and INM in general are in such a poor state financially, then?

Do you think the original article is worthy of a Health Correspondent? A journalist supposedly expert or at least informed on this specialist area?

Further, if they can't report some as simple as absenteeism right what chance have we got that they'll get some of the more complicated clinical issues right?

sarumite

kceire wrote: »

If you feel that you have a valid argument, you MUST provide evidence, otherwise it's just an ill informed rant, as per the forum charter.

You seem he'll bent to ignore factual discussion, in order to live by the article which you feel is factually correct. Then you accuse others of loving in clouds.........

The opening post has even been reprimanded by a moderator because of its non factual nature, but yet, you just keep giving your personal opinion with anything to back it up.

Here you go, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544387

To be fair, others are guilty of this as well...including some posts which you have actually thanked in this thread. While I am certainly not endorsing the the indo article, other Jawgap who made the effort to show why the stats are being so poorly used, most have resorted to ad-hominem arguments.

marienbad

kceire wrote: »

If you feel that you have a valid argument, you MUST provide evidence, otherwise it's just an ill informed rant, as per the forum charter.

You seem he'll bent to ignore factual discussion, in order to live by the article which you feel is factually correct. Then you accuse others of loving in clouds.........

The opening post has even been reprimanded by a moderator because of its non factual nature, but yet, you just keep giving your personal opinion with anything to back it up.

Here you go, http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056544387

But there has been no factual discussion !! Not until the jewgap post. and that has been my very point .

To be honest at this stage I don't care what the % is , but I do find it disturbing that anytime there is such a discussion the only reaction is to slate the messenger,

As happened on this thread and on the ESB thread and many more.

Yellowblackbird

marienbad wrote: »

Not until the jewgap post. and that has been my very point .

:eek: :eek: :eek:

ardmacha

It is not about shooting the messenger, it is about requiring data sufficiently detailed to support the contention of the discussion.
There may be cause for concern about absenteeism, on the data so far it is impossible to make a strong conclusion about this.

marienbad

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Oh my God - what a fauxpas , completely unintended , apologies apologies apologies .

Jawgap

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Dat's de brudder!

Yellowblackbird

Jawgap wrote: »

Dat's de brudder!

He's the one that's the journalist, isn't it?

Jawgap

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

He's the one that's the journalist, isn't it?

No, he can barely read or write........


........he's a guard;)

Gumbo

marienbad wrote: »

But there has been no factual discussion !! Not until the jewgap post. and that has been my very point .

To be honest at this stage I don't care what the % is , but I do find it disturbing that anytime there is such a discussion the only reaction is to slate the messenger,

As happened on this thread and on the ESB thread and many more.

The indo was guilty of reporting false figures during that fiasco too in fairness. The constantly quoted a figure of 55% discount to staff on their bills! which is a factual lie. They may get a 55% discount on a certain few units but not on the whole bill. And it's this lazy ****e reporting that has people so wound up when the indo prints clear lies.

The paper is on par with the joe Duffy phone show, and that's says a lot.
The only thing I believe in the indo's publication are yesterday's football results.

Silentcorner

kceire wrote: »

The indo was guilty of reporting false figures during that fiasco too in fairness. The constantly quoted a figure of 55% discount to staff on their bills! which is a factual lie. They may get a 55% discount on a certain few units but not on the whole bill. And it's this lazy ****e reporting that has people so wound up when the indo prints clear lies.

The paper is on par with the joe Duffy phone show, and that's says a lot.
The only thing I believe in the indo's publication are yesterday's football results.

It's funny you should mention that, way back when I did buy the Sunday Indo one of the many things that used to annoy me was the inability of the reporter to give an accurate clinical analogy of the game...the reporters bias towards/against teams were blatant...it used to drive me nuts...when I started paying more attention to the "news content" I quickly realized what I was dealing with....thankfully.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

My view is that the government legislates on what it believes is the appropriate level of sick leave an employer should offer. An employer can choose to offer additional sick leave entitlement than what the government suggest as a perk of employment.

I have worked for three public sector employers and four private sector employers and all have offered better sick leave schemes than the appropriate government legislation at the time.

Your view is a Victorian exploit the worker one, fair enough if you want workhouse conditions.

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Your view is a Victorian exploit the worker one, fair enough if you want workhouse conditions.

I see you are sticking with the hyberbole. If you think the current minimum is 'victorian' then the problem is with government policy (although having worked with the statutory minimum myself, your description while pulling on all the right heartstrings isn't based in reality). It is great that your employers offered you such additional perks of employment, however it doesn't change the fact that they did so at their discretion.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

I see you are sticking with the hyberbole. If you think the current minimum is 'victorian' then the problem is with government policy (although having worked with the statutory minimum myself, your description while pulling on all the right heartstrings isn't based in reality). It is great that your employers offered you such additional perks of employment, however it doesn't change the fact that they did so at their discretion.

hyperbole? when even retail employers like tesco and next offer more than the statutary minimum?


Diageo, Aviva, Danske Bank, PWC, and other companies in their sectors have generous sick pay policies. Unless you are working for a corner shop or a rogue builder, you can usually expect more than the minimum.

Hotblack Desiato

What statutory minimum? There is no legal requirement for an employer to offer paid sick leave at all.

beauf

ardmacha wrote: »

Data is not information. The Indo routinely presents facts in a selective way with misleading commentary to misdirect the reader.

Couldn't agree more.

'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' and 'a little learning is a dangerous thing' have been used synonymously since the 18th century.

Alexander Pope - A little knowledge is a dangerous thingThe version 'a little learning' is widely attributed to Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744). It is found in An Essay on Criticism, 1709, and I can find no earlier example of the expression in print:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again.

Its either to sensationalise subjects to sell more newspapers, and/or they an agenda. As they seem to have a few favourite subjects for this. Anything to do with the Public Sector, cycling and cyclists, etc.

Another favourite is to get some newly released statistics, highlight only some of them, often out of context, ask a few people for quotes, then a sensationalist headline. No investigation, no analysis, no commentary.

Then again maybe its what the public want, and what sells news papers for them.

chopper6

Wonder what the homicide rate within the Public Sector is compared to the Private Sector..?

Jawgap

Godge wrote: »

hyperbole? when even retail employers like tesco and next offer more than the statutary minimum?


Diageo, Aviva, Danske Bank, PWC, and other companies in their sectors have generous sick pay policies. Unless you are working for a corner shop or a rogue builder, you can usually expect more than the minimum.

When I was working for a private firm there was a "no sick pay" policy - which was fine because it was spelled out in your contract of employment.

However, no one ever, to my knowledge, had it imposed on them. People were paid full salary even when off sick, but obviously they didn't get any activity related salary and annual and quarterly bonuses (which were linked in a large part to income generating hours charged) suffered accordingly too.

If you were off long term (I only know of one case where this happened) a package was negotiated to see you on your way - and in that individual's case I know he came back some years later on a consultancy basis.

But you can't look at this in isolation. I would happily go back to having a no sick pay policy as long as I got what my previous employer was giving me - a decent and generous health insurance package.

woodoo

Godge wrote: »

hyperbole? when even retail employers like tesco and next offer more than the statutary minimum?


Diageo, Aviva, Danske Bank, PWC, and other companies in their sectors have generous sick pay policies. Unless you are working for a corner shop or a rogue builder, you can usually expect more than the minimum.

Still handing people their behinds on a plate godge i see.. keep up the good work.

Godge

ninja900 wrote: »

What statutory minimum? There is no legal requirement for an employer to offer paid sick leave at all.

Disability social welfare entitlement is the statutory provision, most decent employers (apart from those who sarumite works for) provide at least something else.

Jawgap wrote: »

When I was working for a private firm there was a "no sick pay" policy - which was fine because it was spelled out in your contract of employment.

However, no one ever, to my knowledge, had it imposed on them. People were paid full salary even when off sick, but obviously they didn't get any activity related salary and annual and quarterly bonuses (which were linked in a large part to income generating hours charged) suffered accordingly too.

If you were off long term (I only know of one case where this happened) a package was negotiated to see you on your way - and in that individual's case I know he came back some years later on a consultancy basis.

But you can't look at this in isolation. I would happily go back to having a no sick pay policy as long as I got what my previous employer was giving me - a decent and generous health insurance package.

sarumite

woodoo wrote: »

Still handing people their behinds on a plate godge i see.. keep up the good work.

Speaking of behinds, perhaps once you have pulled your head out of Godges, you might show me where my point was actually addressed.

sarumite wrote: »

however it doesn't change the fact that they did so at their discretion.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

Speaking of behinds, perhaps once you have pulled your head out of Godges, you might show me where my point was actually addressed.

"they did so at their discretion"

OK, let me address this point. the government statutorily provides a minimum wage, minimum annual leave - 20 days, minimum entitlement to disability payments, minimum entitlements to maternity leave etc.

Every non-sweat-shop, non-corner-shop, non mom-and-pop operation in the country requiring something more than rudimentary literary and numeracy skills offers packages a least a little bit more than that yet you seem to think that the fact that the government is now only giving three months full sick pay (less statutory disability payment) in any four years to a person who has a chronic illness such as MS is being overly generous by virtue of the fact that the payment is discretionary?

Am I getting you right? Do you seriously believe that public sector employers should only offer entitlements at the statutory minimum?

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Am I getting you right? Do you seriously believe that public sector employers should only offer entitlements at the statutory minimum?

No, you missed the mark. When I said the government dicates the minimum, I was clearly referring to the government as a legislative body not as an employer.

Godge

sarumite wrote: »

No, you missed the mark. When I said the government dicates the minimum, I was clearly referring to the government as a legislative body not as an employer.

Well then, what is wrong with the three months full pay, three months half-pay for certified illness (extendable to six months each in the case of say cancer and heart attack) as a minimum entitlement by a decent employer?

And applying the minimum entitlement would be perverse. It would be incredible to expect that someone who joined the civil service in 1985 and worked every day since could be left with nothing once they got sick (because they pay Class D PRSI they are not even entitled to disability pay) while someone who has never worked a day in their life could be entitled to social welfare for ever, wouldn't it? Or maybe we haven't scourged the public servants enough.

When I left the public service, the sick leave was more generous than it is now and I took a step down. Funnily enough, I took a step up in pay, which I have still maintained and now my sick leave is also as good.

Riskymove

sarumite wrote: »

My view is that the government legislates on what it believes is the appropriate level of sick leave an employer should offer. An employer can choose to offer additional sick leave entitlement than what the government suggest as a perk of employment.

out of interest, what do you think this minimum should be?

Jawgap

Riskymove wrote: »

out of interest, what do you think this minimum should be?

It seems a lot of people think that, when it comes to the race to the bottom in respect of wages, conditions of employment etc, the government and public service should be there first.

That's the type of benchmarking they could agree with.

Riskymove

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems a lot of people think that, when it comes to the race to the bottom in respect of wages, conditions of employment etc, the government and public service should be there first.

That's the type of benchmarking they could agree with.

cheers but I am interested in knowing what Sarumite thinks the minimum entitlement for all workers should be

OMD

Jawgap wrote: »

It seems a lot of people think that, when it comes to the race to the bottom in respect of wages, conditions of employment etc, the government and public service should be there first.

That's the type of benchmarking they could agree with.

Isn't it time that people who use the ridiculous phrase "race to the bottom" got banned. There is no race to the bottom. Using it represents a total lack of understanding of anything pertaining to the Irish economy