Sick leave in the public sector? (title amended by MNHQ)

[Cutecat78]

Not really an AIBU but wonder what happens in other workplaces as I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

I work for the LA. Loads of redundancies and loads of people going on "long term sick".

Call me cynical but the people who do this (there are two repeat offenders - oh and our manager who was moved to our team and didn't want to be then went on 6 months sick leave on full pay) do not seem stressed they just go off with it or a bad back when they don't like their job (they couldn't possibly leave and work somewhere else as then they might miss out on redundancy in the next wave of cuts - which have been every year for the last 5/6).

Offender one has been suspended for 4 months on a disciplinary - but is now "on long term sick leave" as his GP doesn't seem impartial to handing him out sick notes like smarties. Last year he had 3 months off with a bad back and the year before had about 4 months off with said back but has also had time off being suspended too - he's utterly incompetent and anywhere other than the LA he would have been sacked years ago.

Offender 2 has been off for 7/8 months (1st 6 months full pay, next 6 1/2 pay). Also utterly incompetent (moans constantly about being over worked whilst swanning out of office for 2 hour nail appt etc).

She had been told to come back or she will be dismissed. Although when we questioned where she was our manager informed us "well she has so much leave to take".

Our LA's are going bankrupt yet this is allowed to carry on because of some overly PC policies on acid.

It's so frustrating.

I used to audit LAs and it really was a massive problem. Procedures not implemented or managed and generous sick pay

I believe this is a key point, as finding anyone to take responsibility for dealing with the issue - or anything else, come to that - isn't always easy. Of course they claim "it's the awful cuts you see, we're soooo short staffed", which conveniently brings me to your second point ...

Often there seemed little effect of these people being off for 6 months at a time which makes you wonder why they were employed in the first place

Like the HR manager at our LA, you mean, who was off for months with "crippling back pain"? He spent most of it renovating his cottage ...

As PPs have said, none of this is to deny the genuinely ill; trouble is, the lead swingers do them no favours at all

Often there seemed little effect of these people being off for 6 months at a time which makes you wonder why they were employed in the first place

BOTH of these people fit this.

Don't forget Deogratis, that's those lazy public sector employees who you are paying for are educating your children, nursing the sick, dealing with abusive neighbours, policing your streets. Why not just get rid of all the lazy shirkers? Perhaps shooting at dawn would be best?😕

Tabsicle - how are all companies supposed to fund enhanced sick pay? Easy enough for large companies which have plenty of assets - lots of them offer it anyway as part of their employee benefits. My current firm employs 10 people - do you see it as reasonable or feasible that they should do this? How do you think they should afford it? Would you apply this to anyone that was an employer?

JolseBaby - I think if all they can afford is SSP then I'm happy with them going out of business. I think leaving sick employees potentially having to choose between food and rent while managing something like chemo is not ok.

Well I can say I've worked in the public sector (NHS) for 5 years and I've never known or heard of anyone doing this. People do get burnt out and go off with stress but I've never known anyone do that who wasn't a genuine case.

As a note, legally I accept those small companies probably shouldn't be forced to pay more.

However, if it is a large profit making business, I do think it is disgusting if they can't pay decent sick pay.

There is an awful lot of misrepresentation and projection going on here. Which is a shame, because I think with the sniping aside there is a serious debate to be had, about the impact that abuse of sickness absence has on service users. There is also the consequential effect of employers' reactive amendments as a result of abuse of policy, and how this makes life harder for employees who have a genuine need of paid absence.

Nobody is talking - or judging - people who have genuinely needed to use sick policies which are there for people who are actually ill. However there are people, myself included, who have seen these policies abused and manipulated by dishonest employees. Discussion of this does not automatically equate to a conclusion that everyone must be playing the system, ergo anyone who has had sick leave is dishonest!

Tabsicle - really?! So you'd be happy for a small company to fold because it couldn't afford to pay enhanced sick pay?! Where do you think all this additional employment is going to come from, for those who have just lost their jobs as a result? You do know that this would mean MORE people struggling to pay their bills due to lack of work?

jolsebaby

Quite.

I confess to being absolutely staggered by some of the blinkered statements on this thread. It's been a real eye-opener.

"
Buck, come on - it is not the managers who are at fault - typical public sector cop out. It's the lazy work shy sick leave abuser who is at fault "
Personal responsibility whatever next?

DeoGratias
"I just want the fault to lie where it should - the skivers in the main and a weak bloated state which pays public sectors workers more in many cases that those of us who pay their wages in the private sector. It would not be hard to ensure all new teachers, nurses etc were offered contracts saying SSP only."

You pay taxes you do not pay public sector wages, it is frankly a BS argument that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

There are major recruitment and retention problems for both teachers and nurses and you want to reduce incentives further. That would be a really good idea (sarcasm)

I was called in once to over see a situation where a member of staff was due to be disiplined and immediately went off sick for headaches (for 6 months)

Once we'd deciphered his messy paperwork it was established he had about 6 weeks worth of back log. A competent member of staff cleared it in a day (it was data entry type work) then we sat and twiddled our fingers... He had a few hours a week work MAX. He'd been there for 30 years pretending to do things.

I honestly have so many similar stories

I wouldn't want to see a paring back to SSP only. I have a former colleague who is currently undergoing cancer treatment. The enhanced sick pay that she receives is a God-send for her and her family - exactly what it was designed for.

What I would like to see is more pro-active and responsive use of absence management policies, so that those who are actually ill are supported through their absence. By contrast those who play the system should be disincentivised from doing so, and if necessary managed out of the business. It is possible - I have worked for companies which have managed absence (including my own) very effectively.

"If you know you are likely to be ill quite often or suffer from stress or MH issues you are more likely to choose work in the public sector because of more generous sick pay."

Exactly. As someone who is physically disabled and chronically ill, working for a local authority and the NHS has been good for me. I've felt protected. Also, declaring a disability on my application form always works in my favour.

Evil and vile because someone thinks their colleagues are lazy? Over reacting much? What words do you use for human traffickers, arms dealers and paedophiles?

OP, I agree with you. I work in HR and have dealt with many piss takers over the years. And it's definitely worse in public sector IME (and born out by stats - about a week more sick leave on average in public than private sector)

Zariyah - your employer knows your situation when they take you on and your sickness absence is genuine (I presume!!). But amendments to sickness absence as a result of people who take the piss, make life harder for people like you who have genuine need of sickness policies and protection.

I'm HR. As I've said quasi public sector.

I manage absence rigorously. It's one of my key KPIs and we are way below benchmark. I manage it rigorously so I've something up my sleeve to support the occasional member of staff with stage Iv breast or lung cancer so the executive team will agree an extension or to keep them on so they can die in service for the sake of life insurance and their families. Some have teenage children.

OHP referrals, consultation meetings fir others, sometimes people with MH caused by trauma, sometimes coping with MS diagnoses. Often coming in through the back door because they don't want people to see them.

I've banged on doors with bags if food at 7pm when staff have had breakdowns and aren't coping.

I mange non genuine absence rigorously. Many people think I'm a total bitch; many don't have any idea what goes on behind the scenes. The puss takers yell lies and spread venom. The genuinely ill wish for confidence.

There's much more going on behind the scenes than many realise.

Another thing, especially within the M25 is that often the age demographic in the public sector is higher and there is therefore more chronic and serious disease. In my 20s/30s life was about earning power - in my 40s it became about convenience and juggling. Therefore I compromised for less mone, more flexibility and less travel time.

We don't reality have HR where I work. Line managers deal with absence. It's really, really difficult to handle pisstakers without being dragged through harassment allegations and the like, even with senior backing.

Also don't forget that the vast majority o f workers in the UK work for tiny tiny businesses which employ 1- 5 people and most of those will only pay SSP. The state refunds them the SSP they pay although it is a huge hassle for small employers to have to operate it and arrange it - the state doesn't compensate you for the hours of time. The way our welfare state works for this majority and the self employed is if you cannot work we have a welfare state. It is not that we are heartless and leave people like I am (the self employed who get nothing in the sick pay line at all) and those working for employers who only offer SSP to starve.

I work in the public sector and some people go take this piss - we all know who they are.

Of course people are genuinely ill then they need to be supported, but piss takers have an impact on the rest of their team.

A poster higher up makes excuses for Public Sector workers saying they are mostly badly paid. I don't think that is true. In our local authority education support staff- nursery nurses, nursery support staff, teaching assustants, SSAs are paid more than they are paid in private nurseries and schools. I have been in a school today, doing some work with a disgruntled member of staff who told me, thinking I am a consultant and don't know, she is paid 'a pittance, miniumum wage'.
She works 32 hours, takes nothing home after work and earns £21,000 for 39 weeks work a year = 16.82 an hour. On top of that she earns an additional £1800 a year for doing a 40 minute dinner duty every day and is given a free 2 course cooked lunch with a drink- value £3.50 a day = £683 a year.
So that is £23,500 for 39 weeks work. In addition she is guaranteed 6 months full salary sick pay, 6 months half salary sick pay.Hardly minimum wage. When I did the sums and pointed out she has actually had the full rate sick pay for 8 months in the last 3 years, she was incredibly sullen and complained her job is too hard for the money.
She has no qualifications- not a single C grade or better at GCSE. She complained that teachers have better salary scales than she does, that she has been put on an attendance monitoring procedure and she does not see why she can't dye her hair purple- the school is too strict.
Personally, I think the school should sack her - moaning, negative, lazy lump.
HR are about to put flexible working in place because she feels 'stressed and under-valued and is saying it affects her health'. Local authorities are terrified of dealing with these people. So she will be allowed to start late and go home early for the next month to ease her stress- no pay loss for that.
She is takng the piss and the LA are dancing to her tune and have been for 3 years.

For those people complaining that it's the fault of managers not managing sick absence effectively, it's really not that simple. In most LAs sickness absence IS monitored but managing it really effectively is very time consuming (at a time when you're more stretched due to staff absence) and it is a very tricky and careful road where you have to follow things BY THE BOOK or else the person off can make complaints about the process or if they're unhappy with the process claim harassment. It's also a very slow process which can be draining - you can understand how it's easy for busy managers to turn a blind eye because its much easier.

To be honest senior management doesn't always want to support the time and effort required to manage these issues. And my experience with HR is that while they support the monitoring of sickness absence they don't always want to/support escalating issues to disciplinaries or possible dismissal. Another frustration is that you'll often get EXTREMELY CONFLICTING advice from HR about what to do and with huge variations in perspectives and ideal outcomes. This makes it very confusing for a manager to proceed properly.

Challenging doctors notes/assessments can also be incredibly difficult and the quality of occupational health and their willingness to challenge is limited (especially in a small community where professionals know each other... but that's another story.)

At the end of the day EVERYBODY tends to be very nervous about the process and it does tend to fall into the favour of the staff member, even if they are 'taking the proverbial'. And there is a huge reluctance to dismiss someone on grounds of long term absence (it's really not done that much in LAs and really is absolutely last, last last thing done - especially for established staff. I've heard of dismissed staff then being reinstated after they complain to their local councillors!!! Because we don't want one more person out of work - sigh!).

So after all the monitoring, processes, meetings, etc the end result is that you just have someone back at work feeling even more cross with you (and probably soon to be off on stress leave) due to all the uncomfortable meetings you've had with them with sours the envt completely. You're drained from all the reporting, meetings, assessments, confrontations and for what? You can totally understand why managers just stop trying. I'm not saying it's right... but you can understand!