Benefit of 100% attendance at work?

ILW

antonic wrote: »

So its more cost effective then to dismiss people and go off sick and then replace them with new staff who then need to be trained ?.

I speak as someone who has :

In 2001 being off with work related stress for 6 months on full pay - not nice at all
In 2009 being off for 3 months with a fractured wrist then
In 2011 being off for another 3 months following surgery to correct and improve my wrist.

I write this as a CS with 24 years service.

Did I want to be off ?? no but needs must.

So you have been given roughly a years salary for doing nothing of value to the taxpayer who is forced to pay this. How can that be right?
Nothing personal, just seems wrong to me.

antonic

Thanks for asking ILW, you may think its wrong but my employer doesnt and as my employer pays my wages and you dont, I will do what my employer wants and not what you want.

I do actually respect your point of view but I disagree with it but want to thank you for your input.

ILW wrote: »

So you have been given roughly a years salary for doing nothing of value to the taxpayer who is forced to pay this. How can that be right?
Nothing personal, just seems wrong to me.

miduck

ILW wrote: »

Again, I fail to see why the public sector are using taxpayers money to offer contracts such as this. I see no evidence that they are having trouble recruiting people for most positions.

For my old NHS job the salary for an equivalent role in the private sector was a fair bit higher. However the NHS was still an attractive employer as it offered a good package overall - sick leave, flexible working, pension etc. I would not say the same reasoning should apply for all roles, as you say for junior roles there is a high number of applicants that probably don't even know the provision exists.

I do think a reasonable sickness absence policy is a good thing, and leads to long term commitment from an employee. It shows a level of respect from the employer, and in most cases that same respect is returned by people not abusing the policy.

theoretica

ILW you still aren't looking at the whole picture. Many friends with my qualifications are earning several times my salary. I would be happy to lose the benefits, in return for a doubling of my pay. Would you be happier with that?

Certainly jobs get a lot of applicants, but some are still readvertised because none of the applicants are acceptable.

miduck

theoretica wrote: »

ILW you still aren't looking at the whole picture. Many friends with my qualifications are earning several times my salary. I would be happy to lose the benefits, in return for a doubling of my pay. Would you be happier with that?

Certainly jobs get a lot of applicants, but some are still readvertised because none of the applicants are acceptable.

Many people still think that the civil service is well paid. If only they knew!

antonic

I`m actually happy with what I earn where you consider where I live, I am actually quite well paid for what I do.

Whats more important to me is :

1) My Pension
2) Flexi-time & Annual Leave

And I am happy to consider changes to my Terms & Conditions.

miduck wrote: »

Many people still think that the civil service is well paid. If only they knew!

F_Bear

there is no benifit except personal pride. we got £60 quid vouchers if we hit 100%. a nice gesture but those who have 1 day 'sick' get the equivalent of £100+ for 'free'.

part of the problem in my public 'sector' is cultural. before 1989 you was detailed 'sick' so ur mate could get the overtime to make up the wages as the basic was low. like all cultures there hard to change.

also if i didnt turn up tomo someone else would do my job and id be at no 'work comittment' loss. in a job with ur own work load im sure you would be more determined to get in as if u didnt do it that day ud have to catch up.

as for the martays who come in regardless, me included, if people didnt abuse the sick, painting everyone ill with the same brush, then these people would stay off.

on a closing note; my manager once said to me, when i was in the middle of one of my 'sack them if there sick and faking rants', that all sick is geniune, if it wasnt theyd be awol. a nice play on words.

my solution: unlawfully sack them you know but cant prove are taking the mick and pay them off. at £20-30k a hit its still worth it as ur paying them that each year to not turn up! once you did it to a few sickness would drop.

dizzyrascal

This discussion is getting quite silly
For one thing, the NHS workers who are being slated on this thread are also tax payers and some posters on here are assuming that ALL staff with this sickness benefit are taking loads of time off!!
I work for a university which also allows up to six months full pay for serious illnesses or long term sickness after you have been there for a year (I think, it doesn't happen immediately).
I only know of one member of staff who has been off for a long period and that was to recover from brain surgery so it was no fun and I know she hated being forced to be off work for a minute longer than she had to be.
I was knocked off my bike last year and came back to work after 10 days to do what I was able to, broken bones and flesh wounds permitting. I could have been off for much longer but I love my job and wanted to work.
Not everyone who has these t & C's actually uses them but it is nice to have that safety net if something goes wrong.
Just because there is a generous sickness policy doesn't mean that everyone abuses it.

ILW

antonic wrote: »

Thanks for asking ILW, you may think its wrong but my employer doesnt and as my employer pays my wages and you dont, I will do what my employer wants and not what you want.

I do actually respect your point of view but I disagree with it but want to thank you for your input.

Think you have hit the crux of the matter, as a taxpayer I do have to contribute whether I like it or not.

antonic

And your (unwilling) contribution is most appreciated - thanks ! (and you forget that as a taxpayer I contribute as well !!)

ILW wrote: »

Think you have hit the crux of the matter, as a taxpayer I do have to contribute whether I like it or not.