NHS staff - 50% higher rate of sickies

[macroban]

> it does have to be down to one of those three things

Not so if the data are non-comparable.

[annaj]

ps what is says in the Telegraph article is true, but they've taken it rather out of context. Doctors are paid a basic salary plus a banding supplement that reflects the total hours worked and antisocial hours. Each job is banded and the supplement recieved is based on the band of the job. It's a fixed and guaranteed supplement. If a doctor is off sick they are paid their full salary based on the basic and the banding supplement, which I think is reasonable because that is the salary the doctor is used to living on and ongoing expenses, like mortgages, will be based on it and will still have to be paid.

Nurse pay works differently, as I understand it, the antisocial hours supplement varies monthly depending on how many antisocial hours are worked. So when someone is sick they are paid an avaerage of the last three months, because that probably represents a normal month.

I actually don't think that's unreasonable or scandalous.

[????]

Thanks all, intereting points worthy of a thought out response (and not necessarily disagreement) rather than my sleepy head at midnight - genuinely going off to bed now so will reply tomorrow at some point. Night night.

[macroban]

Median pay data for NHS staff can be had here.

Pulling a pension of ?30k pa out of the air for a comparison is a bit rich.

Perhaps ???? could point out how many NHS staff would achieve this level of pension if they had 40 years unbroken service.

[????]

Macroban - i was taking ?30,000 as an arbitary amount using ?500,000 as the starting point as an example of an unachievamle pot for all but mega earners- it is also one that probably nearer on the whole to sort of level of nice middle class SE22 pensioners would be hoping for and will be a pension probably well within the reach of middle level management and grades within the public sector, of which there are 1000s but almost unatainable by anyone in equivalent positions in the private. In fact the median earnings in the private sector aren't hugely different and huge swathes of private sector workers have no pension provision at all. Of course doctors and consultants, high grade civi servants, senior council staff, high ranking officers etc are on 3/4 final salary pensions that we can only dream of

In terms of 'lazy' and sloppy journalism - she quotes the facts, as Anna backs up, and then some direct quotes from some Private sector bodies which you may or may mot disgree with - deep analyis, no, but I don't see why it's sloppy or lazy, other than you don't like it.

It is difficult arguing numbers with someone who just shouts 'false' and, from memory, doesn't believe there was a recession in the early 1990s

[????]

annaj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ps what is says in the Telegraph article is true,

> but they've taken it rather out of context.

> Doctors are paid a basic salary plus a banding

> supplement that reflects the total hours worked

> and antisocial hours. Each job is banded and the

> supplement recieved is based on the band of the

> job. It's a fixed and guaranteed supplement. If a

> doctor is off sick they are paid their full salary

> based on the basic and the banding supplement,

> which I think is reasonable because that is the

> salary the doctor is used to living on and ongoing

> expenses, like mortgages, will be based on it and

> will still have to be paid.

>

> Nurse pay works differently, as I understand it,

> the antisocial hours supplement varies monthly

> depending on how many antisocial hours are worked.

> So when someone is sick they are paid an avaerage

> of the last three months, because that probably

> represents a normal month.

>

> I actually don't think that's unreasonable or

> scandalous.

It may not be, but we don't get it and yours is paid for by all of us - what makes you unique? shift work, overtime and financial commitments are for all of us and not just NHS workers!...now go and look at what eqivalent statuory sickness pay we in the private sector get. This is a real incentive to get well and back to work to earn your proper money....if this was replaced with your deal, i expect we'd see an increase in private sector sickness as, financially, there is no incentive to do get back to work.

[SeanMacGabhann]

So what is the sickness policy at your work quids?

[????]

i'll have to look at my conract, from memory it's 2 weeks continous on basic, then half pay and then on statutory - exclusion from bonuses, overtime (if i was so lucky). It's not great fella....i expect your mob is more generous

[macroban]

I had spotted that the ?30,000 was an arbitary figure pulled out of the air in the attempt to support an argument.

The also arbitary and speculative pension pot of ?500,000 said to be out of reach of all but mega earners anounts to ?143.73 per week after tax-relief over a 40 year working life. I have no objections to the private sector middle management middle class of SE22 making the life-style choice of spending this amount on things such as alcohol and eating out.

The details of the current HNS pension scheme are here.

To get a 75% pension as quoted by ???? you would need to be in the scheme for 45 years before the age of 75.

[SeanMacGabhann]

"my mob" being as comprehensively private sector as it gets

Ok so your terms are, I would say, about average. And they allow for the levels of absence being quoted in the NHS (10ish days)

I don't see how the private sector are handling this better. If I think of anyone I know across all private sectors, several of them I would classify as skivers, and all of them know serial off-sick people at their work. No doubt there are organisations which are super-efficient at dealing with the serially-ill - but are they better organisations? Do they last longer? Do they provide better long term gains to customers and/or shareholders? Or are they just macho "we don't tolerate any bullshit" operations which come and go

I genuinely do not believe the "private sector" as a whole is better at this

I think one of the reasons the NHS (that is the thread topic after all) has higher rates is the size of the organisation. The bigger any organisation the harder it is to micro-manage things like this. Price of doing business and all of that. And don't quote me back as some liberal, East Dulwichite - I have been of the same opinion wether I was unemployed, working on 3 grand a year or where I am now - it's not a question of "well, you can afford to say that"

2 points there - 1) I'm only saying that is ONE possible reason. and 2) I'm not using that point to suggest the NHS should be scaled down

But what I'm finding it harder to understand is the willingness to ascribe the figures quoted to "skiving" and to have this whole feeling of "I'm being robbed - I'm being abused - I'm a tax payer!" and to then come across like the archetypal beancounter. There is an absence of generosity-of-spirit in this debate

Everytime an NHS person defends their position and talks about shift-work, stress, heavy lifting etc, the retort is "well, these exist in the private sector too darlin' "

(I added the darlin myself - maybe I'm misreading the subtext)

But the average private sector job does not combine these things, and not over 30 or 40 years. So if you were to look at comparable jobs in the private sector and extract the absence figures from that I'd be willing to bet it's higher than the average quoted. I could be wrong on that for sure.. but I'd be interested

What would make people complaining happy? Does the NHS have to get rates down to the private sector levels? You are sure that can be done?

[????]

Sooo puting away ?600 a month on average for 40 years is just a matter of making some adjustments to your eating out habits......laughable. Seriously, if the public sector pension is such a poor deal scrap it and come abd join us putting aside ?600 a month

[SeanMacGabhann]

Geez quids if it bothers you that much would it not be easier fir you to join the nhs?

[annaj]

I'm happy to admit that the benefits in the NHS are good, namely sickness, maternity and pensions, but I don't see why they shouldn't be. This is a national organisation paid for by all of us (and note that it's us not you, I do pay taxes too) for the good of all of us. All of the benefits are linked to length of service and I think that's how it should be. A doctor, for example, could still earn a whole lot more in the private sector or overseas, so why shouldn't there be some incentive to stay loyal to the NHS?

Sickness pay may well contribute to absences though, but not in the way you're thinking. When a nurse goes off sick, for example with an injury or back problem, they are paid their full salary. If they then return to work on restricted duties (office work, shortened shifts or days only) they loose all of their antisocial hours bonus. So, the system is actively discoraging an graded return to work. As I've already said, pressure to return to work after sickness is one of the factors associated with further absence. So, what you're suggesting, that we make sickness benefit less good, is likely to make the situation worse not better as it'll force people back to work before they're fit.

[????]

Once again.....

PUBLIC-SECTOR DOESN'T=NHS

NHS WORKERS AREN'T ALL NURSES AND PORTERS LIFTING BEDS

if we could get beyond these emotive positions we could discuss this...

but these positions are taken up whenever the PS is questioned; in politics, the media on here etc

the whole thing is a sacred cow

[SeanMacGabhann]

It's Orwellian and evil isn't it ?

[????]

Finally for now, as i'm off out, my use of WE All as in taxpayers was deliberately inclusive...but you seem to have missed this Anna

[annaj]

Quids, I'm getting really tired of being patronised and called over emotional.

I know that PS doesn't just mean NHS, but this thread and the report that started it are about the NHS. I don't know anything about the rest of the public sector and I don't have a report to hand with current figures, so I'm sticking to the topic of the thread and trying to discuss how we can improve sickness in the NHS. I'm also aware that not all NHS workers are clinical, but the report (have you read it?) does focus mostly, although not entirely, on clinical and clinical support workers.

Have a look back through my last few posts and tell me, honestly, if what you see is an emotional defence or a discussion of evidence.

Please try and listen to what I'm saying. The NHS is an organisation with problems and one of them is a high level of sickness. I see no evidence that the level of sickness is down to skiving, but I do see evidence that it's contributed to by factors intrinsic to the organisation and I would like to know, just as the OP wanted to know although from a completely different perspective, how we can improve that.

[????]

The CAPS post addressed to Sean the We to you I've been consistently talking PS if that's off topic then so be it- i'm bot starting a new thread

[annaj]

Apologies over the "we" I didn't read it as inclusive, my mistake.

[louisiana]

When I worked for the NHS (80's), it seemed to be standard to 'charge' 12 days of 'sickness'. I'm sure times have changed.

I would also point out that public services are far, far better than private sector on complying with disability legislation, and employing people with disabilities. I *hardly ever* come across people with disabilities in private sector, whereas I come across them and work with them all the time in public sector organisations. (My work involves working with hundreds of people in each of a couple of hundred major organisations, public and private.)

This may well affect the data.

The most hours I have ever worked were:

- BT, 36-hour shifts back in the late 80's/early 90's (with sleeping bag in boot of car so I could sleep under desk in distant computer centre, which was never taken out 'cos there was no time to sleep at all during that time)

and

- self-employed, similarly doing 24-36-hour shifts

[MrBen]

Whilst this thread focuses on the NHS, wider public sector data IS relevant. Because previous surveys and dataindicate that an absence rate of +50% is common across public office. Which doesn't exactly support the supposedly NHS specific contributory factors to absence outlined above.

Sean thinks it?s because the NHS is too big, Keef thinks it?s targets, AnnaJ heavy lifting and stress and Lulu ? a combination of all of the above.

I?m not dismissing these. I fully accept that conditions in frontline public heath care can be tough. But it is patronizing for you AnnaJ, to suggest that as the ?junior IT guy? at the start of my career I?m somehow ill qualified to understand or to comment on this working environment when I was required to support all functions ? from A&E trauma to the various outpatient clinics ? perform shift work and multiple locations for 2.5 years in public sector (1 NHS, 1.5 in Sydney). How can you dismiss that?

Tough environments to earn a crust in? Yes.

But? they can also a cushy number for those removed from the necessities of front line action (back office functions = approx half the NHS payroll) with a less than honorable work ethic. And don?t expect to see this portion of the NHS or PS workforce posting here to admit it. Appreciate my lack of "generosity of spirit" here but I'm only being direct and honest.

And what documented stats do we have to support my suggestion of widespread dishonest absenteeism? Well none. And therein lies the problem. How would you expect anyone to feasibly gather the data? And after incurring the wrath and protective self interest of middle management and the trade unions how would you practically get an independent doctor in to verify every claim to prove it?

Instead we are left to console ourselves with the impotent yet valid anecdotal evidence of many, a massive loss to the tax payer (and to end patient care), and always the misplaced, shrill indignation from the genuinely hardworking NHS staff who miss the point and rush to the defense of the Sacred Cow at the slightest challenge.

Focus on improving working conditions, diet, etc by all means but until the take it easy culture that prevents large parts of the public sector from pulling its full weight is addressed we?re always going to pay heavily for it.

[annaj]

So, despite the fact that I have focused on nothing but facts, figures and evidence, whilst admitting throughout that there is a problem, I have been called hysterical, emotive, defensive and now misplaced and shrill?

Whilst those who have joined the debate with only anecdotes from their own experience, sometimes decades out of date, are being taken entirely seriously.

I give up.

[brum]

Anna, it does seem that the reasoned arguments put by you and those actually at work in the Public Sector, are not going to change the views of those on the other side of the debate.

I do think though that before we accept that it is just down to the perceived 'take it easy' culture in the NHS and other public organisations - the question that needs to be answered is why do those in the private sector have much less sickness than those in the public sector? Is it to do with the 'profits before people' work ethic in the private sector, exploiting employees, many of whom do not get fair representation and are all too aware that if they take time off when they are genuinely sick they may still lose pay or even get the boot??

[MrBen]

Don't give up AnnaJ. What "hard" evidence would you expect to see for skiving? And how would it have been collected? I don't think it's feasible.

Other than the strength of real life experience what else have we got to rely on?

Your equally valid view is that the 50% difference is almost entirely down working conditions. I don't agree and so I guess we'll have to kindly disagree on that which is fine.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Oi oi oi

I was at pains to point out that the size of the NHS was ONE factor. So much so I repeated the point! How dare you pick that one point out of the argument I made... not on. If I am completely wrong in my argument than so be it but I won't be misrepresented like that

MrBen - I don't normally have a problem with you but you are bang out of order on this thread. If nothing else you are disrespectful to all the, clearly, commited and professional NHS staff who are taking the time to respond to you

i don't take kindly to being misquoted either

As for quoting Sir Digby foookin Jones - WTF??? Any wanker who thinks that ?4.85 an hour in the 21st century is sufficient is someone I don't need to listen to

You are only being direct and honest?? Really? You talk about data, and yet I asked for data breaking down different sections of the private sector. Nothing from you on that score

as for

"Instead we are left to console ourselves with the impotent yet valid anecdotal evidence of many, a massive loss to the tax payer (and to end patient care), and always the misplaced, shrill indignation from the genuinely hardworking NHS staff who miss the point and rush to the defense of the Sacred Cow at the slightest challenge."

A massive loss to the taxpayer? Sacred Cows? misplaced, shrill indignation ???

You started the debate in shrill, misplaced tones - don't you dare target other people with that

And always with the bleating taxpayer - simply put, you are one of the welloff privileged few on this planet. You want for nothing. If the absence rate WAS reduced to 2 days a year, the savings in your pocket, or most of our pockets would be minimal - but here you are, seriously pissing away goodwill and morale in an already beleagured frontline to score some brownie points with some CBI-friendly buddies?? Oh but wait, no - you are more worried about money being diverted from the frontline of services right? if you want serious welfare-dodgers look at the people domiciled elsewehere because of "punitive" tax rates

(boo hoo - if the nasty government is mean to us we will leave the country. And still complain about the nurses)

Rank

You sound like SteveT in is "we are all gagged from telling the truth thread"

Look it - the NHS staff posting on here have said, there plenty of discussion to be had about high absence rates. But your continual, snidey, petty, insinuations ("you are the creme de la creme but your colleagues in the back room let the side down....") are really out of order

The NHS has PLENTY of room for improvement. It is not a sacred cow. Your year working there no doubt was an eye opener. But it ain't special. It happens everywhere

Now - direct question to you Mr Ben- what is your purpose in picking on the NHS specifically(esp in light of the transatlantic debate in recent weeks)