Sick day pay outs are costing Sussex council's millions (From The Argus)

People don't come to work when just have runny nose. In private company it would be impossible. Or they abuse system being off sick for long time and no one can do anything.

I bet that there are more sick days when the sun is out. The council should collect the statistics.

where i work we don't get paid for the first 3 days sickness. if you are off for 2 weeks or more, you then get the first 3 days back. this puts paid to people having odd days off, although it does happen, but not very often. this sort of plan needs putting into action, so that these 'sick' days are cut down.

14 days a year per employee. Is this serious?
Why are these councils using public money to pay these people. It is an utter disgrace.
No wonder the Government wants to cut public spending.
More like public wasting.
As a previous poster said, if this were the private sector these people would not be paid after three to five days.

davyboy wrote:
where i work we don't get paid for the first 3 days sickness. if you are off for 2 weeks or more, you then get the first 3 days back. this puts paid to people having odd days off, although it does happen, but not very often. this sort of plan needs putting into action, so that these 'sick' days are cut down.

When these lazy,skiving,fraudst
ers talk about sickness,they mean broken toenails, hangovers and broken thermos flasks,not genuine illness.I'm in the same boat as you,shame we don't work for a local council.

Working for Brighton City Council is quite attractive because people know that they will get an easier ride as the council can't be seen to discriminate and so these people take the mick and claim some form of illness or disability to cover their back and strengthen their position.

I know someone who works for the council and she is never there as she is always 'sick' - they have set it up so that this person can work from home - When this person does eventually get the sack/made redundant they won't be able to cope with life in the real world working for a proper company in the private sector.

Speaking of council employees, how come there has been no story about the traffic wardens in cars parking illegally to put tickets on vehicles and driving the wrong way down one way streets?

kingruss wrote:
Working for Brighton City Council is quite attractive because people know that they will get an easier ride as the council can't be seen to discriminate and so these people take the mick and claim some form of illness or disability to cover their back and strengthen their position. I know someone who works for the council and she is never there as she is always 'sick' - they have set it up so that this person can work from home - When this person does eventually get the sack/made redundant they won't be able to cope with life in the real world working for a proper company in the private sector. Speaking of council employees, how come there has been no story about the traffic wardens in cars parking illegally to put tickets on vehicles and driving the wrong way down one way streets?

Something makes me wonder if your views drawn from one person and extrapolated to the entire work force are entirely accurate!

I note that B&H's figure of 9.75 is a mere 0.05 above the average for the public sector; I suggest that Lewes, with 14, should be the target!

And no praise for Eastbourne, with 6.5 which is close to and below the 2008 average of the private sector (last figure I could find) of 6.8!

Funny how we can play with figures and spin it totally different - same as the author of this article - ie where are the private sector stats for comparision?

Run your own buisness & being off sick is not an option.

RickH you would not get comparable private sector stats because the level of paid sick days in private industry is far, far lower. In my company, if staff took 14 days sick, they would only get paid for three. After that there are rigorous processes involving independent doctors and HR. They only get more if they have a serious, certified illness such as chicken pox, broken limbs etc. Self certified sickness is only paid for three days.
This really does stop the 'odd' sick day culture.
Also in the private sector, if you took 14 days here and there, your fitness for the role would be examined. You get sent to doctors, psychologists etc and if the sickness continues, you are considered unfit to carry out the T&Cs of employment and released without redundancy and many companies are doing this in the current climate to reduce employee numbers.
So beware, your contract may say how much sick time you are entitled to, but this does not mean the employer will not use your record to remove you.

A council spokeswoman blamed a rise in long-term sickness for the results.

She said: “The important thing from our point of view is that because we have so few staff, less than 500, if we have just one or two people that are terminally ill, and we do, then that does skew the figures quite drastically.”

is this right? how can you employ people that are terminally ill? i know that the council offer equal opportunities but surely this is taking it a bit too far. these people would be better off on the sick. then other people that were not ill and who desperatley need work could do the jobs more effeciently.

I'm sure that the councils will manage to claw the revenue back from the motorists.

I'm sure that the councils will manage to claw the revenue back from the motorists.

@ MontySidewinder
A council spokeswoman blamed a rise in long-term sickness for the results.

She said: “The important thing from our point of view is that because we have so few staff, less than 500, if we have just one or two people that are terminally ill, and we do, then that does skew the figures quite drastically.”

is this right? how can you employ people that are terminally ill? i know that the council offer equal opportunities but surely this is taking it a bit too far. these people would be better off on the sick. then other people that were not ill and who desperatley need work could do the jobs more effeciently.

I am sure that they do not go out and recruit them that way. It is an unfortunate fact of life that people can and do develop terminal illness during their working years. Penalising them for it smacks of a somewhat brutal society to me, regardless of who they work for.

I've heard of 'the blame culture', but to shift these increases in sickness levels on to terminally ill employees takes a bit of beating.

Skewed figures? If one or both of them passes away this year, that should improve things. Or perhaps the council can find another few seriously ill employees to help disguise the fact that the casual attitude to time off is endemic in the public sector.

It goes without saying that 'stress' is another easy option for a bit of leisure time.

monty sidewinder wrote:
A council spokeswoman blamed a rise in long-term sickness for the results. She said: “The important thing from our point of view is that because we have so few staff, less than 500, if we have just one or two people that are terminally ill, and we do, then that does skew the figures quite drastically.” is this right? how can you employ people that are terminally ill? i know that the council offer equal opportunities but surely this is taking it a bit too far. these people would be better off on the sick. then other people that were not ill and who desperatley need work could do the jobs more effeciently.

Oh for crying out loud........

Sometimes it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry at some of the comments on here.....

The Good Driver wrote:
I've heard of 'the blame culture', but to shift these increases in sickness levels on to terminally ill employees takes a bit of beating. Skewed figures? If one or both of them passes away this year, that should improve things. Or perhaps the council can find another few seriously ill employees to help disguise the fact that the casual attitude to time off is endemic in the public sector. It goes without saying that 'stress' is another easy option for a bit of leisure time.

...but...presumably.
..if you had your way, these terminally ill people would all be sacked anyway, so it's hard to see what you're so indignant about.

Andy R., I am not indignant about this matter. Your presumption on my wishes is misplaced.

The point I am making is not that I want terminally ill employees dismissed, more that the council (in the form of the spokeswoman) seeks to blame these people for the figures, along with an increase in 'long-term' sickness.

Didn't they have such things in previous data?

Read what the spokeswoman said. Apparently the 'important thing' from (the council) point of view is that terminal illness in employees can skew the figures. Now THAT is getting priorities right.

I reiterate my earlier point. Shifting blame on to these unfortunates is totally wrong.

Why do sick pay schemes exist? I have worked all my life without one, or holiday pay...if i dont work, then i dont get money, its simple. And I might point out that i have rarely been ill even though i have worked in the high risk construction sector for 40 odd years. The trouble with these schemes is that employees do treat them as a handy way to take a day off and if you put these people in real world situations without these 'parachutes' then they wouldnt last 5 minutes.

Andy R is always on the defensive when any critisism of local government rears its head...I have challenged him several times to come out and say he is a local government employee but so far he hasn't owned up!

The Good Driver wrote:
Andy R., I am not indignant about this matter. Your presumption on my wishes is misplaced. The point I am making is not that I want terminally ill employees dismissed, more that the council (in the form of the spokeswoman) seeks to blame these people for the figures, along with an increase in 'long-term' sickness. Didn't they have such things in previous data? Read what the spokeswoman said. Apparently the 'important thing' from (the council) point of view is that terminal illness in employees can skew the figures. Now THAT is getting priorities right. I reiterate my earlier point. Shifting blame on to these unfortunates is totally wrong.

But the spokesperson clearly wasn't "blaming" terminally people, although "seriously ill" might have been a better choice of words. It is simply the case that if you only look at sickness absence in terms of numbers of days lost across the workforce you potentially miss the fact that people with a serious/chronic condition might account for most of that time off.

Short-term sickness absence is actually lower in the public sector than in the private sector - so who's ACTUALLY got the problem with the "odd day syndrome"??

rayellerton wrote:
Why do sick pay schemes exist? I have worked all my life without one, or holiday pay...if i dont work, then i dont get money, its simple. And I might point out that i have rarely been ill even though i have worked in the high risk construction sector for 40 odd years. The trouble with these schemes is that employees do treat them as a handy way to take a day off and if you put these people in real world situations without these 'parachutes' then they wouldnt last 5 minutes.

Er...sick pay schemes exist to give some protection to workers who fall ill during their working lives. Sick pay was fought for by previous generations of workers for your benefit.

Are we supposed to be impressed that you went through your working life without any protection from illness or injury? No wonder workers in UK construction get so kicked around if they are as compliant as you.

Perhaps a bit of that time spent wondering what I do for a living should have been spent of standing up for yourself at work.

Andy R...construction is a man's game, yes its hard, but when you work, you are paid well...i may be old fashioned, but why should anyone get money from an employer when they are not at their workplace? I am having to assume that you have been always employed in a protective environment where you recieve all these 'benefits' and would struggle in a job where you had to fend for yourself....survival of the fittest mate

TheInsider wrote:
RickH you would not get comparable private sector stats because the level of paid sick days in private industry is far, far lower. In my company, if staff took 14 days sick, they would only get paid for three. After that there are rigorous processes involving independent doctors and HR. They only get more if they have a serious, certified illness such as chicken pox, broken limbs etc. Self certified sickness is only paid for three days. This really does stop the 'odd' sick day culture. Also in the private sector, if you took 14 days here and there, your fitness for the role would be examined. You get sent to doctors, psychologists etc and if the sickness continues, you are considered unfit to carry out the T&Cs of employment and released without redundancy and many companies are doing this in the current climate to reduce employee numbers. So beware, your contract may say how much sick time you are entitled to, but this does not mean the employer will not use your record to remove you.

1. The stats are comparable as they deal with absence from work - as opposed to 'paid absence';
2. The article I quote (an Independent article from 2008) cites comparable figures, hence my using them to compare like with like; and
3. As far as I know, regardless of your employer, you become entitle to Statutory Sick Pay on your 4th day of illness - so to claim that someone who was ill for 14 days would only get 3 days' sickness benefit is a little inaccurate, I believe.

And as for the claim that it is only in the pvte sector that they conduct 'fitness for work' interviews and monitor sick leave, that's also wrong. I work in the public sector and there are 5 different triggers for reviewing someone's absence record, including total numbers in a rolling year and total frequency in a rolling year. Pity most see these figures as an oppurtunity to attack (again!) public sector workers - some of whom (I include myself) work bloody hard for the money and benefits we get.

Andy R., the spokeswoman is clearly blaming the terminally ill. She says they skew the figures, so what other interpretation is there?

I would repeat my question, is this the first set of data which has included terminally ill and long-term sick, or are these new phenomena?

You might also address the point of what the lady and her employers define as 'the important thing', or do you agree with her and them?

I would suggest that the welfare of her colleagues is 'the important thing', not how they distort the precious figures.

RickH statutory sick pay is very different from company sick pay.
Many private companies do NOT pay company sick pay after day three. The organisation I work for, like many UK companies, is also moving from direct employees to using self employed staff, overseas staff, temps, contractors etc to avoid employing people - no sick pay, no holiday pay, no maternity/paternity/
pensions. Councils will go the same way. The likelihood of admin, HR and IT jobs going overseas or going out to contract is very high. The levels of direct employment are unsustainable and all political parties have accepted this.
As a union representative, I can also tell you that current redundancy selection procedures include sickness levels.
Therefore, if a job has to go and both employees have the same skills, the sick record may be used to select the candidate for redundancy.
Also you may be aware that many private companies seek sickness records as part of a job candidate's references.
So all in all, it's really now in the hands of an employee to ensure they don't take too much sick time.
Trust me, employees seem to think they have a right to sick but there are many caveats with any company policy.

The Good Driver wrote:
Andy R., the spokeswoman is clearly blaming the terminally ill. She says they skew the figures, so what other interpretation is there? I would repeat my question, is this the first set of data which has included terminally ill and long-term sick, or are these new phenomena? You might also address the point of what the lady and her employers define as 'the important thing', or do you agree with her and them? I would suggest that the welfare of her colleagues is 'the important thing', not how they distort the precious figures.

Yeah...ok....whateve
r....I'm now struggling to work out whether you're deliberately twisting her words or whether you really cannot see the point. No great concern to me which it is.

TheInsider wrote:
RickH statutory sick pay is very different from company sick pay. Many private companies do NOT pay company sick pay after day three. The organisation I work for, like many UK companies, is also moving from direct employees to using self employed staff, overseas staff, temps, contractors etc to avoid employing people - no sick pay, no holiday pay, no maternity/paternity/ pensions. Councils will go the same way. The likelihood of admin, HR and IT jobs going overseas or going out to contract is very high. The levels of direct employment are unsustainable and all political parties have accepted this. As a union representative, I can also tell you that current redundancy selection procedures include sickness levels. Therefore, if a job has to go and both employees have the same skills, the sick record may be used to select the candidate for redundancy. Also you may be aware that many private companies seek sickness records as part of a job candidate's references. So all in all, it's really now in the hands of an employee to ensure they don't take too much sick time. Trust me, employees seem to think they have a right to sick but there are many caveats with any company policy.

I am sort of glad you're not MY union rep. You ought to know that the old trick of getting employees to "go self-employed" to get out of giving them any rights was effectively outlawed by Revenue and Customs a good few years ago now. So hopefully you'll not let your company get away with that one.

A large chunk of the private sector DOES have sick pay schemes, just as most of the public sector does many of the same things with sickness figures which you cite as being peculiar to the private sector.

There's an awful lot of myth out there on this issue.

Andy R., you've argued your case very well. The thirteen-year-old teenage response to being told off by mummy.

I've not twisted any words, nor do I think I am not seeing any particular point. Merely highlighting what the spokeswoman said.

Fortunately, this is of no great concern to you, so I guess that is the end of the matter.

AndyR you are incorrect. Individuals are self-employed while working for organisations and councils. They set themselves up as limited companies and then are employed under titles such as contractors, consultants/freelanc
e/temps etc. B&HCC use these consultants and temps as do many other councils. It is a way of using 'self employed' people, even if the term self employed is no longer correct, the practice is. The Argus wrote a story a few months back about the cost of hiring these staff.
Now as a union rep, I have a duty to tell members the truth about policy and employment law, not lie to them.
Just like you they get very angry when they realise that employees actually have very few rights. Blame Thatcher for the demise of the rights of the worker and the breaking of unions. Don't blame me. Here is some good advice for all employees: Read your contracts and company handbooks before accepting a job. Do not just look at the salary and holiday days.
If you have sat through tribunals as I have done, where colleagues have even been represented by solicitors and still had their case dismissed, you will realise that employers pay more attention to what staff are up to than you will know.
Take a look at your company policy with regard to company email use: many of these policies are now used to dismiss troublesome or 'lazy' staff. If you have signed a contract there will often be a clause about misuse of company email and I have seen many employees tripped up by this.
I began my career on the picket lines in the early 80s and sadly I have seen the rights of the employee eroded even under a Labour Govt.

Some of these comments make me feel sick. I don't think I'll go in today.

One end of the work scale there are High Bonus payments....the other end is the sickness scheme. If you are really clever you get both, as I am sure some of the council staff do.
They take days off sick, but are still not excluded from department bonus schemes. However, don't take it out on the genuine ones...It can be controlled by Contracts that pay bonus only on achievement of minimum working days.