Public sector watch
Discussion
mph1977 said:
so, you freely admit to having no understanding of the duties of these roles, the legal and regulatory requirements which may require someone be excluded from theworkplace on health grounds etc ...
I said I haven't done it- that's very different to not knowing a few things. Also consider that there's a lot more public sector than the part of the NHS that actually does things. mph1977 said:
i see that people have also conflated 'most dangerous' jobs with jobs most likely to be facing violence from their 'customers'
And what percentage of the public sector does that cover?mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
MPH1977 said:
Rovinghawk
have you ever actually worked in a frontline Health or Emergency Services role ?
what aobut education or Child Protection ?
No, I've always had a "don't work, don't earn" type of job.have you ever actually worked in a frontline Health or Emergency Services role ?
what aobut education or Child Protection ?
3 days off sick in the last 25 years.
i see that people have also conflated 'most dangerous' jobs with jobs most likely to be facing violence from their 'customers'
I've only had direct experience of armed services not emergency services.
A lack of direct experience doesn't render people incapable of reading and understanding credible reports based on research into dangerous occupations and many of the most dangerous - can we assume you have no experience of many of them - are in the private sector.
As to excluded from the workplace on health grounds, people in food factories and eateries are private sector and are they not meant to stay away from work because of the elf in safety when they get the trots? It's not just public sector johnnies that get that deal.
People on PH aren't conflating anything as far as I can see, there are reports of the results of studies into dangerous occupations being discussed. They don't seem to toe your line, which is presumably why you're not keen on them.
And at the end of the day, there are still millions of more days taken as sick leave in the public sector than the private sector with the figures stacking up as 1.6% private sector and 2.6% public sector. Given what's behind those numbers, indicating the stark difference is reasonable.
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 19th April 21:17
turbobloke said:
<snip>
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
the problem is that the frontline in this case is hundreds of thousands of people ... not the minority that the publc sector bashers like to portray.While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
mph1977 said:
turbobloke said:
<snip>
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
the problem is that the frontline in this case is hundreds of thousands of people ... not the minority that the publc sector bashers like to portray.While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
The public sector needs to sort its sickie act out even more than it has done in the past, then the discussions can turn to lower public sector efficiency, and levels of waste.
turbobloke said:
mph1977 said:
turbobloke said:
<snip>
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
the problem is that the frontline in this case is hundreds of thousands of people ... not the minority that the publc sector bashers like to portray.While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
The public sector needs to sort its sickie act out even more than it has done in the past, then the discussions can turn to lower public sector efficiency and levels of waste.
of would you rather have staff back caring for immunocompromised patients less than 48 / 72 hours after the cessation of D+V symptoms ?
what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
mph1977 said:
turbobloke said:
mph1977 said:
turbobloke said:
<snip>
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
the problem is that the frontline in this case is hundreds of thousands of people ... not the minority that the publc sector bashers like to portray.While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
The public sector needs to sort its sickie act out even more than it has done in the past, then the discussions can turn to lower public sector efficiency and levels of waste.
of would you rather have staff back caring for immunocompromised patients less than 48 / 72 hours after the cessation of D+V symptoms ?
what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
How about giving private sector employees in customer facing roles a can of spray...taxi drivers, sales people, bar staff, maccyd staff, door supervisors, shopping arcade security...lots of private sector employees face abuse and assault from lovely customers.
External factors aren't necessarily out of the control of the employer, that's a rather sweeping generalisation, and the most dangerous occupation studies still don't match your claims.
mph1977 said:
of would you rather have staff back caring for immunocompromised patients less than 48 / 72 hours after the cessation of D+V symptoms ?
what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
There are more people in the public sector than those in the NHS that actually deal with people.what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
of would you rather have staff back caring for immunocompromised patients less than 48 / 72 hours after the cessation of D+V symptoms ?
what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
There are more people in the public sector than those in the NHS that actually deal with people.what aobut the toll that violence against staff takes across the NHS as a whole ... do you really want to see A+E staff with CS spray on their hips ?
If we cut down the people taking sickies then we don't need to keep taxing people if others stopped taking them as their entitlement.
turbobloke said:
mph1977 said:
turbobloke said:
<snip>
While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
the problem is that the frontline in this case is hundreds of thousands of people ... not the minority that the publc sector bashers like to portray.While nobody would dispute that some public sector roles offer risk, neither would anybody dispute the greater sickie culture in public sector jobs generally after reading the numbers from that ONS report which in the Express gave the accurate 2012 headline "Public sector workers are 63 per cent more likely to take time off work sick than private sector employees, official figures revealed yesterday." That was down to PuS HR and ONS not Thatcher's ghost.
The public sector needs to sort its sickie act out even more than it has done in the past, then the discussions can turn to lower public sector efficiency, and levels of waste.
It's a bit unfair to call it a 'sickie culture' in either the private, or the public sector. Surely the 'data' and 'as it is' stance you adhere to so thoroughly, is massively flawed when you actually start to take into consideration that these are 100% genuine claims. You are of course, not doing that. You are clearly biased, a 5 minute search for anything 'turbobloke' would reveal multiple threads of public sector bashing with a distinctive sense of pleasure in what you write, oozing from your posts.
I mentioned last time this came up (possibly in this topic) that for the company I worked for for 10 years and the one after it for 3 years, it was normal that under any 'sickie' day I 'pulled' I had the option to take this as a holiday. Even if I broke my leg, I would lose my first 3 days pay. This is a massive incentive to anyone who has a similar structure, to dock your holiday in return for no loss of earnings and no doubt will skew the results.
Other companies are a lot more reasonable and accept that people do fall ill. If you think this 'culture' of exploiting such an act of kindness is only exploited by the public sector, more fool you.
There are also many variables to take into consideration that haven't been identified in your 'sickie culture' factual claim.
There's nothing wrong with using data to back up your agenda and you should be aware of that, turbobloke, shame on you.
I feel that tarring all public sector workers with the same brush is unfair. I work as a frontline paramedic in the NHS in a city. A typical shift involves 8-12 different patients. Regularly I am faced with elderly people with vomiting and diahorreah who need my help. I am up close and personal with that infection risk and the poorlier they are the closer I have to get. I am allowed 2 periods of sickness in 12 months before I get an informal warning, 3 times and things become formal. Consequently the genuine amongst us are often scared to go off work and turn up for work ill.
A quick story to illustrate other risks that the righteous might not be aware of. I will keep it brief.
24 stone patient, on floor for 4 days, possible Stroke, possible broken hip, hypothermic, GCS 9 (semi-conscious), family on scene. Pretty obvious they are extremely unwell.
Unable to get a stretcher or long carrying device in due to house layout. That means carrying on a small carry chair. We sent for a pneumatic lifting device to lift the patient off the floor, it broke. The nearest one was now 45 minutes away. What would you do in that scenario!
I am governed by lifting and manual handling policies. If I don't adhere to them and for example I suffered a career ending injury I wouldn't be entitled to the normal benefits of ill health retirement. Let's say an example of this would be lifting a heavy patient off the floor when other options are available.
So the dilemma, very poorly patient, correct lifting device broken, nearerst one 45 minutes away. How would you feel if it was your relative laid there and I quoted a lifting policy instead of acting? I took the initiative and dead lifted the patient onto the chair. Was it the correct thing for the patient? Absolutely. However if my back had gone I wouldn't of had a leg to stand on.
I am not looking for sympathy, it's my job choice but the constant public sector bashing on here is shameful. I go above and beyond in my role every day, often putting my own health and well being at risk. All I ask is that you give us a little respect.
A quick story to illustrate other risks that the righteous might not be aware of. I will keep it brief.
24 stone patient, on floor for 4 days, possible Stroke, possible broken hip, hypothermic, GCS 9 (semi-conscious), family on scene. Pretty obvious they are extremely unwell.
Unable to get a stretcher or long carrying device in due to house layout. That means carrying on a small carry chair. We sent for a pneumatic lifting device to lift the patient off the floor, it broke. The nearest one was now 45 minutes away. What would you do in that scenario!
I am governed by lifting and manual handling policies. If I don't adhere to them and for example I suffered a career ending injury I wouldn't be entitled to the normal benefits of ill health retirement. Let's say an example of this would be lifting a heavy patient off the floor when other options are available.
So the dilemma, very poorly patient, correct lifting device broken, nearerst one 45 minutes away. How would you feel if it was your relative laid there and I quoted a lifting policy instead of acting? I took the initiative and dead lifted the patient onto the chair. Was it the correct thing for the patient? Absolutely. However if my back had gone I wouldn't of had a leg to stand on.
I am not looking for sympathy, it's my job choice but the constant public sector bashing on here is shameful. I go above and beyond in my role every day, often putting my own health and well being at risk. All I ask is that you give us a little respect.
Rovinghawk said:
Ruskie said:
All I ask is that you give us a little respect.
The good ones are entitled to that respect- it's the bad ones I have the problem with. This despite the fact those on mega bonuses (traders/hedge funds) had very little to do with toxic products, but hey if it mostly quacks (it works in finance) then they are all responsible.
The Mail is having a go at NHS execs today quoting some astonishing salaries and practices.
One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
FiF said:
The Mail is having a go at NHS execs today quoting some astonishing salaries and practices.
One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
So because they face violent people, they are allowed to go through HMRC loopholes, yet would be the first to complain if self employed people do tax avoidance as they are not paying their fair share.One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
mph1977 said:
Camoradi said:
On the question of public sector sickness rates, there are areas of the public sector (civil service) where they get up to 12 days per annum of paid sick pay, after which their holiday entitlement is reduced for each day.
I have friends in this area of work who routinely take days off sick in November and December each year because they "have some sick days left" ie they haven't taken their full 12 days off sick that year. In some cases they take them by arrangement with line managers.
As opposed to most of the public sector, where legal requirements ref: certification are followed and onerous attendance management policies are put in place which often ignore the requirements of the equality act ... I have friends in this area of work who routinely take days off sick in November and December each year because they "have some sick days left" ie they haven't taken their full 12 days off sick that year. In some cases they take them by arrangement with line managers.
I presume you can provide proof of these assertions
Du1point8 said:
So because they face violent people, they are allowed to go through HMRC loopholes, yet would be the first to complain if self employed people do tax avoidance as they are not paying their fair share.
Just in case it was missed the comment about facing violence was tongue firmly in cheek and a poke at an earlier excuse. These execs pretty much do not face the public, be they violent or mostly grateful for the treatment, which was the point. The much lower paid, who are the ones facing the violent patients, are allowed the loophole because their pensions are possibly not enough to live on, allegedly, and need to be supplemented. But these grasping execs in the NHS setup to model private industry are selfishly taking advantage. It used to be called taking the piss. All assuming the accusations are true and representative of the situation, which UK media isn't above twisting things for a story. Problem is, knowing some of the proven things happening in the NHS it's quite believable.
FiF said:
The Mail is having a go at NHS execs today quoting some astonishing salaries and practices.
One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
it is my understanding that you cannot do that ... One which particularly galled me was execs using a technique to help nurses who might not have such a good pension to carry on supplementing their pensions with working part time. The accusation by the Mail is of people secretly quitting for a day, withdrawing large tax free lump sums from pension, then working for a month or so part time to get past HMRC rules, then returning to their full time role at original salary.
No doubt we'll be treated to a session of bullcrap bingo and extensive use of jargon and acronyms from the usual apologists. Oh of course forgot these people face violent abuse every day, or not. That's all right then.
however if as a colleague of mine once did you retire from a fairly senior post and return as a bog standard band 5 you can work a good number of hours before it stops your prension
Camoradi said:
mph1977 said:
Camoradi said:
On the question of public sector sickness rates, there are areas of the public sector (civil service) where they get up to 12 days per annum of paid sick pay, after which their holiday entitlement is reduced for each day.
I have friends in this area of work who routinely take days off sick in November and December each year because they "have some sick days left" ie they haven't taken their full 12 days off sick that year. In some cases they take them by arrangement with line managers.
As opposed to most of the public sector, where legal requirements ref: certification are followed and onerous attendance management policies are put in place which often ignore the requirements of the equality act ... I have friends in this area of work who routinely take days off sick in November and December each year because they "have some sick days left" ie they haven't taken their full 12 days off sick that year. In some cases they take them by arrangement with line managers.
I presume you can provide proof of these assertions
Hope your friend enjoys donuts
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff