Another public sector pay outrage

BillJones

chucknorris wrote: »

I don't think it matters in some jobs in the private sector if you are off sick, because the work is still there waiting for you when you get back. In about 20 years I've probably had about 10-15 days off sick, but in that same period I've probably worked about 10-15 days per year as unpaid overtime (it isn't actually unpaid of course, it was part of my salary).


I've only been in the public sector 4 years and haven't had a sick day yet. I can't really take a day off as I'm a lecturer and the students would lose out, but if I had something contagious I suppose I would have to take a day off.

It's a bit strange, given how unimportant the jobs are in the private sector, and how critical they are in the public sector, that the public sector seems to employ such sickly people. A day off sick once every five years or so seems about right for a person without an underlying condition, yet public sector workers seem to manage to rack up something of the order of 10-12 days off "sick" every year.

Is it something in the air conditioning, or maybe government sandwiches?

I suppose that I saw this in effect back when I was a civil servant, people coming down with "flu" on Mondays and Fridays, or with a bad back in July.

It's almost like they were work shy layabouts who'd noticed that there were no sanctions for having the sort of work ethic that would have got you shunned at British Leyland...

chewmylegoff

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In the private sector shirkers often get the cold shoulder from their fellow employees. Patterns of sickness normally emerge.

No one liked the shirkers in the civil service department I worked in either because it meant we all had to do more work - in fact there was a lot more resentment because it went on for longer creating real and lasting grudges whereas the problem person would just have been sacked in the private sector.

Tromking

Although you can make the case that public sector workers in comparison with those in private sector are generally cosseted and allowed to get away with murder as regards sickness, for the sake of balance we shouldn't forget the millions of those in the private sector who rather than being the steely-eyed privateers some on here would have you believe, seem incapable of living their lives without reference to taxpayers like myself. I know of several people seemingly in connivance with their employers (it is a racket!) who are in receipt of in-work benefits and as a result are obsessed with not working too many hours lest they lose them.
At least with the average public sector worker, they don`t get routinely paid taxpayers money to stay at home!

BillJones

Tromking wrote: »

At least with the average public sector worker, they don`t get routinely paid taxpayers money to stay at home!

They do, though, 10-12 days every year according to the first set of statistics that I found via Google.

Graham_Devon

BillJones wrote: »

They do, though, 10-12 days every year according to the first set of statistics that I found via Google.

Public sector workers have more time off sick than private sector workers. Theres no denying that statistic.

However, if you are willing to delve a little deeper you may realise why they have more time off.

Public sector, frontline workers are far more at risk to injury or attack than private sector workers on the whole. Everyday nurses come across drunken, drugged up patients. Every day police wrestle people to the ground. Every day firefighters put themselves in dangerous situations. Hell, even council workers are at risk of attack now, especially traffic wardens!

My cousin had nearly 2 weeks off work not that long ago. He is in the police and was injured in a mass brawl. Broke a finger, his thumb and had facial wounds including needing a bit of dental work.

He's recovered, but what do you expect him to do exactly? Let people fight on in the street? Would you prefer he and his colleagues run away from a late night brawl and let it get out of hand in order that that minimise the possibility of getting injured and therefore take less sick time?

I'm just wondering, you are full of scorn, but what would you rather happen? The public sector frontline staff deal with these situations with the heightened liklihood of being injured? Or would you prefer they left those situations and turned up fit and well each day?

You simply cannot have both.

adouglasmhor

My brother was struck from behind on the head with a bottle and beaten when he was on the ground while attending an incident as a beat constable; he was off work for nearly 6 months.
I was casevaced in Northern Ireland when I was serving and spent two week in Queen Elizabeth Military Hospital in Woolwich.
While not typical cases like this are more common in the public services and will skew the stats.

Tromking

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm just wondering, you are full of scorn, but what would you rather happen? The public sector frontline staff deal with these situations with the heightened liklihood of being injured? Or would you prefer they left those situations and turned up fit and well each day?

You simply cannot have both.

I have noticed a reluctance from some on here to acknowledge the 'special' nature of some public sector jobs. It seems their irrational dislike of all things public sector, probably borne out of a keenly felt annoyance at their own situation in the private sector, means a grown-up debate free from clich!s and Tory misinformation is beyond them.

noodle_doodle

I can see that small private firms might struggle if people chuck sickies so people might drag themselves in when ill (and make everyone else ill too) but another driver is the size of the workplace.

Public sector workplaces tend to be bigger than private sector workplaces, and thus there are more people to come in and share their germs with you, and thus more chances to get ill.

That would seem a fairly obvious reason for more sick days in the public sector. Using my logic I would hypothesize large private firms have more sick days per employee than smaller private firms.

Plus, especially with teachers and nurses, you might have to come into contact with the public, minging specimens they are ,

BillJones

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Public sector workers have more time off sick than private sector workers. Theres no denying that statistic.

However, if you are willing to delve a little deeper you may realise why they have more time off. .

Only if you rather dishonestly cherry-pick the examples, of course.

Do you genuinely believe that lumberjacks, scaffolders, hod carriers, or trawlermen have less dangerous jobs than a desk-jockey in the MOD, for example, or do you have some actual statistics to justify your implication that public sector jobs are more dangeous than private sector ones?

You do realise, I hope, that assertion and one anecdote don't actually go any way to suggesting that the statistics are justifiable?

BillJones

Tromking wrote: »

I have noticed a reluctance from some on here to acknowledge the 'special' nature of some public sector jobs.

And I've noticed a rather dishonest tendency to imply that this "special nature" somehow spreads across all public sector jobs, and to ignore the dangerous and "special" nature of some private sector jobs, as they seem strangely unwilling to dig up any actual statistics that justify the difference in sickness records between the sectors.

When I worked at the MOD, behind a desk, the sickness culture was every bit as bad as the statistics suggest.