Trois heures par jour ? Tous les jours? Va te faire...!

[eccles]

Du1point8 said:

mph1977 said:

turbobloke said:

However I hadn't factored in SDA, the sickie day allowance in the public sector.

which despite the hazards faced by workers in the NHS is around 4% ...

also point out thereis NO 'allowance' of sick days and many NHS employers now operate highly onerous 'attendance monitoring' processes

never mind the penalisation of those who return to work between acute episodes of a condition ...

In 2012 NHS staff had on average 15 days off a year sick.

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/did_nhs_staff_take_...

people in the public sector do class sick days as their holiday days which must be taken every year to top up their holiday limit... See that one with my own disgusted eyes when a friend/acquaintance who is working for public sector. They needed more days for his holiday so rang in sick to get the extra days, how you ask? He was going away for 2 weeks and didnt have enough holiday so booked off 8 days at work, then booked the flights as if they were taking 10 days off and didnt tell anyone, emailed in sick for those 2 days from the hotel on holiday.

And I've seen exactly the same attitude in the private sector. Whooppee doo!

[heebeegeetee]

eccles said:

And I've seen exactly the same attitude in the private sector. Whooppee doo!

Yep, that'd go with my experience of employees in the private sector.

When I was a lorry owner driver, effectively being a franchisee for a large multi-national company, the owner-drivers took something like 2 days sick per year compared to 15 for employees, and approx 2 weeks holiday a year compared to 6 weeks for employees.

[turbobloke]

It's not far from the actual position with hardworking class business owners and the self-employed generally that evenings, weekends and sickies are unfamiliar concepts.

Not working means not being paid. You have to wonder what the sickie rate would be if that applied in the public sector. I mention the public sector in particular because of the 63% greater sickie rate compared to the private sector.

[mph1977]

turbobloke said:

mph1977 said:

turbobloke said:

However I hadn't factored in SDA, the sickie day allowance in the public sector.

which despite the hazards faced by workers in the NHS is around 4% ...

also point out thereis NO 'allowance' of sick days and many NHS employers now operate highly onerous 'attendance monitoring' processes

The remark I made wasn't just about the NHS and the 'allowance' comment was obviously what it was.

Office for National Statistics data shows that public sector workers are 63% more likely to take time off than private sector employees. There's no acceptable reason for this overall difference, which doesn't look at specific occupations on either side.

People often forget the fact that healthcare staff who have any contact with patients or patient care areas are required to have 48 hours symptom free following any episode of Vomiting and/or Diarrhoea to ensure they are not going to bring bugs in... outside of food processing / prep or pharmaceutical manufacturers how often is this required in other workplaces ?

Any person working in the NHS who has a wound below the elbows which can't be covered by a standard washproof plaster is excluded from the work place until the wound is healed...

Any person working in the NHS with patient contact or any person in an operational role in the emergency services is excluded from the workplace if they have a plaster cast on, regardless of of the type of cast. in other none manual and none driving jobs how often is this required or 'light duties' not found...

Also do you really want someone who is under the weather in charge of caring for inpatients ?

how many private sector employees face the risks of violence that NHS or 999 staff face ?

[Du1point8]

mph1977 said:

turbobloke said:

mph1977 said:

turbobloke said:

However I hadn't factored in SDA, the sickie day allowance in the public sector.

which despite the hazards faced by workers in the NHS is around 4% ...

also point out thereis NO 'allowance' of sick days and many NHS employers now operate highly onerous 'attendance monitoring' processes

The remark I made wasn't just about the NHS and the 'allowance' comment was obviously what it was.

Office for National Statistics data shows that public sector workers are 63% more likely to take time off than private sector employees. There's no acceptable reason for this overall difference, which doesn't look at specific occupations on either side.

People often forget the fact that healthcare staff who have any contact with patients or patient care areas are required to have 48 hours symptom free following any episode of Vomiting and/or Diarrhoea to ensure they are not going to bring bugs in... outside of food processing / prep or pharmaceutical manufacturers how often is this required in other workplaces ?

Any person working in the NHS who has a wound below the elbows which can't be covered by a standard washproof plaster is excluded from the work place until the wound is healed...

Any person working in the NHS with patient contact or any person in an operational role in the emergency services is excluded from the workplace if they have a plaster cast on, regardless of of the type of cast. in other none manual and none driving jobs how often is this required or 'light duties' not found...

Also do you really want someone who is under the weather in charge of caring for inpatients ?

how many private sector employees face the risks of violence that NHS or 999 staff face ?

You do realise that the public sector isnt just NHS and you dont need to defend it every time something is mentioned about the public sector.

As for risks of violence, yes you may be right, but if you work in Farming/manufacturing/construction/rigs/private security you are at more risk of being injured or having a fatal accident. Plus is it all NHS or 999 staff that face violence or only a small % that risk having violence and you are just exaggerating?

[mph1977]

Du1point8 said:

You do realise that the public sector isnt just NHS and you dont need to defend it every time something is mentioned about the public sector.

other than the fact ' the public sector' is stereotyped on the basis of the worst excesses of Local authorities and the whims of it;s political masters and the general idiocy of their political masters in general

Du1point8 said:

As for risks of violence, yes you may be right, but if you work in Farming/manufacturing/construction/rigs/private security you are at more risk of being injured or having a fatal accident.

I think you are confusing the risks and effects of violence, aggression and abusive behaviour with injuries...

Du1point8 said:

Plus is it all NHS or 999 staff that face violence or only a small % that risk having violence and you are just exaggerating?

In my NHS experience I have had to deal with violence and aggression in all sorts of situations including on innocuous inpatient environments such as elderly care, such as seeing a powerfully built be-goateed 'company director' type ( not sure of PH membership status) being incredibly abusive and threatening violence to a 50 something 4 ft 11 in tall 8 stone wet through ward sister because ' you don't have the right to put my mother in a home ' ... oddly enough his mother had full competence and fully understood that a residential care interim bed with daily physio would be ideal for her to get her confidence back after breaking a bone in a wrist (needing a Pot) and also getting # pubic rami when she fell...

As for 999 staff , I think most people are aware of the violence that Police officer,s PCSOs and other public facing police staff have to deal with, there is well documented violence towards fire service personnel. AS for ambulance staff the 'night time environment' has it's own particular risks and there are personnel who have been attacked by patients or other people in private houses..

[Mr Snap]

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snap said:

What gets my goat now is how they still cling to half day closures and Sunday/Monday closing etc etc. In that way, it's still like stepping back to the 60's.

Do you think the way we operate is better? Long hours, with all the fall out such as high divorce rate and unhappy kids, and despite our long hours both people and state have massive debt?

No, I think there are plenty of things we do worse. However, I'm not aware of any statistics suggesting that our longer hours have a greater detrimental effect on family life. Personally, I would guess that people working long hours in our retail sector are more harshly affected by low wages and not so much by long hours - but that's only my guess.

It's strange, however, that here in PH being a (powerfully built) company director or a high powered lawyer etc etc working long hours is seen as good, whereas a shop worker doing long hours is bad...?

[turbobloke]

Mr Snap said:

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snap said:

What gets my goat now is how they still cling to half day closures and Sunday/Monday closing etc etc. In that way, it's still like stepping back to the 60's.

Do you think the way we operate is better? Long hours, with all the fall out such as high divorce rate and unhappy kids, and despite our long hours both people and state have massive debt?

No, I think there are plenty of things we do worse. However, I'm not aware of any statistics suggesting that our longer hours have a greater detrimental effect on family life. Personally, I would guess that people working long hours in our retail sector are more harshly affected by low wages and not so much by long hours - but that's only my guess.

It's strange, however, that here in PH being a (powerfully built) company director or a high powered lawyer etc etc working long hours is seen as good, whereas a shop worker doing long hours is bad...?

Is it though? One comment doesn't define PH and from various threads over the years if there's a common theme then to me it's that each individual needs to make their own informed decision on work-life balance. Working long hours may be what's needed to keep a family together at one time but may be non-essential and harmful at another time even with the same family.

[Mr Snap]

turbobloke said:

Mr Snap said:

heebeegeetee said:

Mr Snap said:

What gets my goat now is how they still cling to half day closures and Sunday/Monday closing etc etc. In that way, it's still like stepping back to the 60's.

Do you think the way we operate is better? Long hours, with all the fall out such as high divorce rate and unhappy kids, and despite our long hours both people and state have massive debt?

No, I think there are plenty of things we do worse. However, I'm not aware of any statistics suggesting that our longer hours have a greater detrimental effect on family life. Personally, I would guess that people working long hours in our retail sector are more harshly affected by low wages and not so much by long hours - but that's only my guess.

It's strange, however, that here in PH being a (powerfully built) company director or a high powered lawyer etc etc working long hours is seen as good, whereas a shop worker doing long hours is bad...?

Is it though? One comment doesn't define PH and from various threads over the years if there's a common theme then to me it's that each individual needs to make their own informed decision on work-life balance. Working long hours may be what's needed to keep a family together at one time but may be non-essential and harmful at another time even with the same family.

No argument with the need for an individual approach to work-life balance. Many have no choice in the matter, however.

[Russ T Bolt]

Pints said:

I worked for a company which was owned by the French. Getting anything meaningful from them for entire months at a time (July through September was a write off) was impossible, and conference calls had to be carefully arranged during small windows of opportunity.

I had the opposite experience, I worked for a very successful small software house that was taken over by a French IT company. They put in an aggressive Frenchman as Chaiman, he pushed like I have never seen.

Their whole operation in France was the same apparently, very aggressively ambitious for growth and efficiency.