Public sector productivity
Discussion
Apparently ...
"Last year, this Council (Somerset) lost 41,822 working days to staff sickness, an average of 10.04 days for every FTE. The ONS says the UK average was just 4.4 days per worker in 2025."
But also ...
"the council's figure remained below a separate public-sector benchmark reported by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Its 2025 Health and Wellbeing at Work report recorded an average of 13.3 days lost per employee in public services, although the CIPD cautioned that the figure was based on a relatively small sample."
Why would that be ?
"Last year, this Council (Somerset) lost 41,822 working days to staff sickness, an average of 10.04 days for every FTE. The ONS says the UK average was just 4.4 days per worker in 2025."
But also ...
"the council's figure remained below a separate public-sector benchmark reported by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Its 2025 Health and Wellbeing at Work report recorded an average of 13.3 days lost per employee in public services, although the CIPD cautioned that the figure was based on a relatively small sample."
Why would that be ?
Penny Whistle said:
Apparently ...
"Last year, this Council (Somerset) lost 41,822 working days to staff sickness, an average of 10.04 days for every FTE. The ONS says the UK average was just 4.4 days per worker in 2025."
But also ...
"the council's figure remained below a separate public-sector benchmark reported by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Its 2025 Health and Wellbeing at Work report recorded an average of 13.3 days lost per employee in public services, although the CIPD cautioned that the figure was based on a relatively small sample."
Why would that be ?
Because people do what you pay them to do, and in public service that includes sitting in the garden drinking wine. So that's what people do."Last year, this Council (Somerset) lost 41,822 working days to staff sickness, an average of 10.04 days for every FTE. The ONS says the UK average was just 4.4 days per worker in 2025."
But also ...
"the council's figure remained below a separate public-sector benchmark reported by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Its 2025 Health and Wellbeing at Work report recorded an average of 13.3 days lost per employee in public services, although the CIPD cautioned that the figure was based on a relatively small sample."
Why would that be ?
And if a person isn't doing it enough, they get bullied into doing it more by their colleagues who are unhappy at having their own terrible attendance embarrassed by that rare someone who doesn't actively steal additional holiday from the State.
There's no reason why a soft desk job in public services should return a worse attendance than someone working for themselves in a difficult and stressful environment, other than malingering. Stop indulging the malingering by paying for it, and watch it dry up.
Edited by SpeckledJim on Tuesday 22 September 12:52
Never mind the slackers the SNP keeps on paying a full salary to people whose job no longer exists.
"The Sunday Times can reveal that the Scottish government has 32 people on a so-called priority movers list who are no longer needed in the role for which they were hired but who are still paid a salary."
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/civil...
"The Sunday Times can reveal that the Scottish government has 32 people on a so-called priority movers list who are no longer needed in the role for which they were hired but who are still paid a salary."
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/civil...
Why would that council in particular, and public services in general, have higher rates of sickness absence than the average across the whole workforce?
Could be all sorts of reasons.
It's consistently higher in the public sector than the private sector.
Women take more time off sick than men.
Older people take more than younger people.
People with long term health conditions take more than people without.
Part time workers take more than full time.
It varies geographically.
It varies by role - "process, plant and machine operatives" take three times as much as "managers, directors and senior officials".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
It also varies massively by industry - for example, "Transport & storage" is 3x the rate of "Professional, scientific & technical activities"
https://www.alltoogether.com/sickness-absence-rate...
If I had to guess, I would say some combination of culture, management, unionisation, and the inherent nature of the set of roles performed. It would be interesting to see the council's performance benchmarked against people doing the same kind of jobs in the private sector.
Could be all sorts of reasons.
It's consistently higher in the public sector than the private sector.
Women take more time off sick than men.
Older people take more than younger people.
People with long term health conditions take more than people without.
Part time workers take more than full time.
It varies geographically.
It varies by role - "process, plant and machine operatives" take three times as much as "managers, directors and senior officials".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
It also varies massively by industry - for example, "Transport & storage" is 3x the rate of "Professional, scientific & technical activities"
https://www.alltoogether.com/sickness-absence-rate...
If I had to guess, I would say some combination of culture, management, unionisation, and the inherent nature of the set of roles performed. It would be interesting to see the council's performance benchmarked against people doing the same kind of jobs in the private sector.
otolith said:
Why would that council in particular, and public services in general, have higher rates of sickness absence than the average across the whole workforce?
Could be all sorts of reasons.
It's consistently higher in the public sector than the private sector.
Women take more time off sick than men.
Older people take more than younger people.
People with long term health conditions take more than people without.
Part time workers take more than full time.
It varies geographically.
It varies by role - "process, plant and machine operatives" take three times as much as "managers, directors and senior officials".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
It also varies massively by industry - for example, "Transport & storage" is 3x the rate of "Professional, scientific & technical activities"
https://www.alltoogether.com/sickness-absence-rate...
If I had to guess, I would say some combination of culture, management, unionisation, and the inherent nature of the set of roles performed. It would be interesting to see the council's performance benchmarked against people doing the same kind of jobs in the private sector.
Because 'sickness absence' doesn't correlate to actual sickness.Could be all sorts of reasons.
It's consistently higher in the public sector than the private sector.
Women take more time off sick than men.
Older people take more than younger people.
People with long term health conditions take more than people without.
Part time workers take more than full time.
It varies geographically.
It varies by role - "process, plant and machine operatives" take three times as much as "managers, directors and senior officials".
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
It also varies massively by industry - for example, "Transport & storage" is 3x the rate of "Professional, scientific & technical activities"
https://www.alltoogether.com/sickness-absence-rate...
If I had to guess, I would say some combination of culture, management, unionisation, and the inherent nature of the set of roles performed. It would be interesting to see the council's performance benchmarked against people doing the same kind of jobs in the private sector.
What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
SpeckledJim said:
Because 'sickness absence' doesn't correlate to actual sickness.
What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
I see. Does that also explain the variation between industries in the private sector?What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
otolith said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because 'sickness absence' doesn't correlate to actual sickness.
What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
I see. Does that also explain the variation between industries in the private sector?What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
We can be sure that less than 50% of public sector illness is genuine. Who is poorly for 2-3 weeks a year, every year, for decades!? It's b
ks.Stop paying the first three days of 'sickness' and get a much more realistic picture of how poorly people really are.
That Sunday bender in the pub is much less attractive if losing £150 by not being at work on Monday becomes part of the decision-making mix.
SpeckledJim said:
otolith said:
SpeckledJim said:
Because 'sickness absence' doesn't correlate to actual sickness.
What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
I see. Does that also explain the variation between industries in the private sector?What it correlates to is the management's tolerance for absenteeism and the organisation's cultural commitment to making sure you take at least two weeks sick every year or you make everyone else look bad.
The council doesn't care because nobody is wasting their own money, and the manager certainly isn't going to kick off about your two weeks because she's keen as mustard that she's going to take her two weeks as well.
We can be sure that less than 50% of public sector illness is genuine. Who is poorly for 2-3 weeks a year, every year, for decades!? It's b
ks.Stop paying the first three days of 'sickness' and get a much more realistic picture of how poorly people really are.
That Sunday bender in the pub is much less attractive if losing £150 by not being at work on Monday becomes part of the decision-making mix.
ChevronB19 said:
SpeckledJim said:
We can be sure that less than 50% of public sector illness is genuine.
Citation please?I know we're all supposed to believe that everyone tells the truth all the time and nobody is stealing a living from the state. But sadly it's very clearly not the case. And the less your boss gives a f
k (and is doing exactly the same thing) the more likely you are to hang your head off the side of the bed so you sound bunged-up and call in sick on a Monday, because you get the same money (more actually, without lunch and petrol) and you get to lie in the garden listening to Absolute 90's.I have friends in the NHS who've been told to take more time off sick because they're showing the team up.
yeah, so cynical, etc etc etc
Q: Why would literally millions of people with an easy desk job in the NHS or a high school or a council office have dramatically worse health than self-employed roofers or tilers or plumbers?
A: They don't. They just get well-paid to pretend to.
SpeckledJim said:
Q: Why would literally millions of people with an easy desk job in the NHS or a high school or a council office have dramatically worse health than self-employed roofers or tilers or plumbers?
A: They don't. They just get well-paid to pretend to.
"Taking time off sick" is not the same as "dramatically worse health" - without even getting into the rights and wrongs of the broader issue, this is an apples and oranges comparison that would be a terrible basis for data-gathering. A: They don't. They just get well-paid to pretend to.
Your two employment groups have different demographics, for a start.
Your self-employed tradespeople are motivated financially (and, to a not-insignificant extent, culturally and socially) to not take time off work so long as they can still drag themselves into a van and still wield a tool. I've employed more than one tradesperson who has hacked, coughed, sniffed and sneezed their way through a job.
Maybe the two groups have identical instances of sickness but one is more accommodating with giving people time off. That's not necessarily a bad thing, whether that's in an office environment (nothing worse than some martyr coming in to cough and spew all over everything and everyone and so spread their lurgy to an entire department) or in a hygiene- or safety-critical role.
In the past I worked in the NHS (in an admin role) and two other public sector organisations and I never, ever encountered being "asked" to take sick leave to make up the numbers and not make others look bad. I was encouraged to take sick leave if I was sick so it didn't spread and so I could get back to 100% before returning to work.
2xChevrons said:
"Taking time off sick" is not the same as "dramatically worse health" - without even getting into the rights and wrongs of the broader issue, this is an apples and oranges comparison that would be a terrible basis for data-gathering.
Your two employment groups have different demographics, for a start.
Your self-employed tradespeople are motivated financially (and, to a not-insignificant extent, culturally and socially) to not take time off work so long as they can still drag themselves into a van and still wield a tool. I've employed more than one tradesperson who has hacked, coughed, sniffed and sneezed their way through a job.
Maybe the two groups have identical instances of sickness but one is more accommodating with giving people time off. That's not necessarily a bad thing, whether that's in an office environment (nothing worse than some martyr coming in to cough and spew all over everything and everyone and so spread their lurgy to an entire department) or in a hygiene- or safety-critical role.
In the past I worked in the NHS (in an admin role) and two other public sector organisations and I never, ever encountered being "asked" to take sick leave to make up the numbers and not make others look bad. I was encouraged to take sick leave if I was sick so it didn't spread and so I could get back to 100% before returning to work.
Everybody should have the same motivations. An exchange of money in return for work. That's my point. When you pay healthy people and sick people and pretending-to-be-sick people exactly the same, then you get an absenteeism problem. Simply because people don't want to be at work if they can instead be in the pub or the garden and still get paid.Your two employment groups have different demographics, for a start.
Your self-employed tradespeople are motivated financially (and, to a not-insignificant extent, culturally and socially) to not take time off work so long as they can still drag themselves into a van and still wield a tool. I've employed more than one tradesperson who has hacked, coughed, sniffed and sneezed their way through a job.
Maybe the two groups have identical instances of sickness but one is more accommodating with giving people time off. That's not necessarily a bad thing, whether that's in an office environment (nothing worse than some martyr coming in to cough and spew all over everything and everyone and so spread their lurgy to an entire department) or in a hygiene- or safety-critical role.
In the past I worked in the NHS (in an admin role) and two other public sector organisations and I never, ever encountered being "asked" to take sick leave to make up the numbers and not make others look bad. I was encouraged to take sick leave if I was sick so it didn't spread and so I could get back to 100% before returning to work.
Take away the rewards for the pretending and lo, the problem is dramatically reduced.
Part of the reason is because the government (and therefore the public sector) have to champion health, safety and wellbeing in the workplace. It would not go down well if the government and various legislation is telling employers to do things/behave in a certain way, whilst not doing the same themselves.
Expecting employees to work when they're not well enough to do so can lead to accidents, mistakes or a worsening health condition down the line and then more time off. The difference is though, private sector is less lenient towards absences so either employers discourage sick leave or employees feel like they can't take that time off. If employers made it clear at the outset what an acceptable/unacceptable level of absence is, it would help. But often this is only communicated once it becomes unacceptable.
There will be a certain % of public sector playing the stress leave game when they probably could be working. But what can you do when an employee gives you a doctor's note saying they can't work?! Force them back or manage them out and you're in for HR issues.
Expecting employees to work when they're not well enough to do so can lead to accidents, mistakes or a worsening health condition down the line and then more time off. The difference is though, private sector is less lenient towards absences so either employers discourage sick leave or employees feel like they can't take that time off. If employers made it clear at the outset what an acceptable/unacceptable level of absence is, it would help. But often this is only communicated once it becomes unacceptable.
There will be a certain % of public sector playing the stress leave game when they probably could be working. But what can you do when an employee gives you a doctor's note saying they can't work?! Force them back or manage them out and you're in for HR issues.
SpeckledJim said:
ChevronB19 said:
SpeckledJim said:
We can be sure that less than 50% of public sector illness is genuine.
Citation please?I know we're all supposed to believe that everyone tells the truth all the time and nobody is stealing a living from the state. But sadly it's very clearly not the case. And the less your boss gives a f
k (and is doing exactly the same thing) the more likely you are to hang your head off the side of the bed so you sound bunged-up and call in sick on a Monday, because you get the same money (more actually, without lunch and petrol) and you get to lie in the garden listening to Absolute 90's.I have friends in the NHS who've been told to take more time off sick because they're showing the team up.
yeah, so cynical, etc etc etc
Q: Why would literally millions of people with an easy desk job in the NHS or a high school or a council office have dramatically worse health than self-employed roofers or tilers or plumbers?
A: They don't. They just get well-paid to pretend to.
As others have posted, there are multiple factors at play.
(Actually, come to think of it, are you sure you didn’t mean ‘more’, not ‘less’?)
Edited by ChevronB19 on Tuesday 22 September 14:17
MKnight702 said:
Unless things have changed in the last few years, public sector workers also get a sick day allocation that most treat like extra holiday, that isn't going to help the figures.
That wasn't true in the 1990's when i was public sector, I'm not sure if it's ever been true.xx99xx said:
Part of the reason is because the government (and therefore the public sector) have to champion health, safety and wellbeing in the workplace. It would not go down well if the government and various legislation is telling employers to do things/behave in a certain way, whilst not doing the same themselves.
Expecting employees to work when they're not well enough to do so can lead to accidents, mistakes or a worsening health condition down the line and then more time off. The difference is though, private sector is less lenient towards absences so either employers discourage sick leave or employees feel like they can't take that time off. If employers made it clear at the outset what an acceptable/unacceptable level of absence is, it would help. But often this is only communicated once it becomes unacceptable.
There will be a certain % of public sector playing the stress leave game when they probably could be working. But what can you do when an employee gives you a doctor's note saying they can't work?! Force them back or manage them out and you're in for HR issues.
First bold: Publishing a 1 week or 2 week or 3 week acceptability boundary is just giving the staff their 'lead-swinging allocation' and you can expect some of them to swing it very accurately up to that level.Expecting employees to work when they're not well enough to do so can lead to accidents, mistakes or a worsening health condition down the line and then more time off. The difference is though, private sector is less lenient towards absences so either employers discourage sick leave or employees feel like they can't take that time off. If employers made it clear at the outset what an acceptable/unacceptable level of absence is, it would help. But often this is only communicated once it becomes unacceptable.
There will be a certain % of public sector playing the stress leave game when they probably could be working. But what can you do when an employee gives you a doctor's note saying they can't work?! Force them back or manage them out and you're in for HR issues.
Second bold: And this is what desperately needs addressing, in law if need be. We just cannot afford this.
Someone whose stress-levels are so bad that they require 6 months off work to walk the cat and 'find themselves' should be out of the intolerable job that ruined their life and then someone who desperately needs that job quickly gets subbed in. Then when Poorly Pam is better again, the job market will be lively and she can find something that doesn't 'make her bad'.
ChevronB19 said:
SpeckledJim said:
ChevronB19 said:
SpeckledJim said:
We can be sure that less than 50% of public sector illness is genuine.
Citation please?I know we're all supposed to believe that everyone tells the truth all the time and nobody is stealing a living from the state. But sadly it's very clearly not the case. And the less your boss gives a f
k (and is doing exactly the same thing) the more likely you are to hang your head off the side of the bed so you sound bunged-up and call in sick on a Monday, because you get the same money (more actually, without lunch and petrol) and you get to lie in the garden listening to Absolute 90's.I have friends in the NHS who've been told to take more time off sick because they're showing the team up.
yeah, so cynical, etc etc etc
Q: Why would literally millions of people with an easy desk job in the NHS or a high school or a council office have dramatically worse health than self-employed roofers or tilers or plumbers?
A: They don't. They just get well-paid to pretend to.
As others have posted, there are multiple factors at play.
(Actually, come to think of it, are you sure you didn t mean more , not less ?)
Edited by ChevronB19 on Tuesday 22 September 14:17
There are indeed multiple factors at play. So why not remove the one that turns Am-Dram into Pro-Dram, and then we can measure the others more accurately?
SpeckledJim said:
I know. I don't have that citation. We don't have proper stats on how many people are stealing days off, because when you ask them if they did, they all say 'no'. Weird that.
There are indeed multiple factors at play. So why not remove the one that turns Am-Dram into Pro-Dram, and then we can measure the others more accurately?
So why did you say ‘we can be sure’? Just say something like ‘I suspect’, at least that would be vaguely accurate.There are indeed multiple factors at play. So why not remove the one that turns Am-Dram into Pro-Dram, and then we can measure the others more accurately?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff