NHS staff - 50% higher rate of sickies

[MrBen]

Not been able to give thread my this full attention but skimming over the latest (and calmer) posts - I think good points well put from Mr Carnell re Private sector, Lulu again and some fresh perspective and common sense from Timster. I'm not one bit upset at any of the flack I/quids took- I expected it (well most of it) and if nothing else it surely it shows we ALL care.

I also think posing a provocative question is not, surely, a bad thing in any forum of debate (even with the NHS as subject matter) but I will definitely be rather more specific in my arguments next time to avoid anyone taking it as personally as some have.

I stand by my experience of poor staff behaviour witnessed during my own NHS stint and other non NHS PS work - though I have to admit it was one of the most fun and rewarding jobs I've ever had. They even had a subsidised staff canteen where you got fish and chips for ?1.30 and Sponge and Custard for 75p - classic school dinners - sadly amiss in places I work now.

But (not talking specifically NHS here) I've always thought there surely has to be a hybrid. An economic model that combines the best of private sector efficiency and productivity with the ethics and social equalities found in many parts of the public sector. And where the benefactor of "profit" is a common social good rather than personal shareholder profit.

And such models do exist outside the public sector domain and the number of such initiatives like this one are slowly starting to grow- it's called Social Enterprise - and I find the prospect wholly and utterly exciting.

But I guess that will be a subject for another thread.....

[????]

Hi all - not neglecting this, I've just not had time to summarise my thoughts and I think this topic and indeed the Drwaing Room deserves more than the 'off the hip' posts that tend to be my MO.

[annaj]

Ok, I've held my tongue on for the greater good of the debate, but I really don't think I can any longer.

MrBen, do you really fail to see the hypocrisy in saying that you were deliberately provocative in your first post, but accusing anyone who responded to that deliberate provocation with a strong opinion of taking it too personally or being hysterical and rude?

In my opinion, phrases like "why should I, as a tax payer, be funding these skivers " and "how do you feel about funding these lazy people" were not just provocative, but offensive and justified a strong, but calm, response, which is what I feel I gave only to be brushed aside as shrill.

This complete double standard is what drove me from this thread initially and I only returned out of respect for Quids effort to bring order out of chaos and re-start a reasoned debate. It was a mistake.

[MrBen]

Whoa there annaJ - I see lots of that finger wagging BBW was on about! I don't think, if you read back carefully, I meant that YOU specifically or personally were "shrill". I then apologised for any offence caused in the OP by my wording which aimed to start a debate (a style if we're honest was no worse than any LBC or Radio 2 phone in) . I then followed up with some much needed clarification ( I'll try harder to be more sensitive next time with my OP) and have also restated my complete and genuine respect for the serious and hard work that you and many other NHS staff do daily.

And I thought we had, until your post above, restarted a reasonable debate - so do you accept my apology for any offence caused to you personally? And if so might we be able to move on now?

[Timster]

I think, to be fair to MrBen, he has come close to conceding that his original post was poorly worded and so the response it had was to be expected.

However, I am not certain I have witnessed an actual apology for his characterising people who work for the NHS as 'skivers' who take more 'sickies' than the rest of us (even if he was only using that language to provoke a debate).

I agree that there is a place for posing provocative questions, but that must fall short of using language that is deliberately inaccurate and misleading in its denigration of the 1.5m people who work for the NHS. There is a place for that sort of behaviour - it's the Daily Express.

[MrBen]

Hmmmm....I didn't say that ALL 1.5M people who work for the NHS are skivers Tim, - as that would clearly be both wrong and ridiculous....but I witnessed a higher than average number who were happy to take a day off every other week without good reason on full pay and without serious challenge and these were the "skivers" whom I refer to. And yes - having worked both sides of the fence, it was a lot worse than I've seen than anywhere I've worked in the private sector so I think I'm allowed to suggest it's a serious contributory problem?

Perhaps my personal experience does not reflect the bigger picture (which many of you have pointed out) - if so I stand corrected and the problem of sickness dishonesty in the NHS and wider public sector is no worse than anywhere else given the many environmental and social factors given above.

[Timster]

But you can understand why anyone who works for the NHS would feel the '50% higher rate of sickies' comment was directed at them and their colleagues? People will rightly jump to the defence of something or someone they hold in high regard when they feel it is being misrepresented or unjustly attacked.

But I think what really rankled was that you misrepresented the substance (if not the tone) of the Times article. The only basis you had for thinking there were more people in the NHS skiving was your own experience - which, to be fair, you've conceded may not be representative of the whole institution.

There was nothing in the Times, or the report it quotes, to suggest that dishonest absenteeism was the reason for the higher average number of sick days in the NHS. Which is pretty much where I'm coming from - the whole debate was started from the false premise that dishonest absenteeism is more of a problem in the NHS than it is in the private sector and that the reason for this is that the NHS is in the public sector.

The discrepancy in levels of absenteeism (honest and dishonest) between the NHS and the private sector is probably far less marked than the statistics used by the report suggest. And to the extent there is a variation, it can be objectively explained by a number of factors (the nature of the work, length and time of shifts, inability to work from home etc) which would apply equally in the private sector. You wouldn't query why a scaffolding contractor had so many people off work with back problems. There was a sense of the NHS being targeted because it is in the public sector.

[Huguenot]

I was quite struck by one of the posters earlier who suggested that one influence on under-performance (if it existed) could be the lack of opportunities for NHS workers to improve their career, salary or bonuses based on good performance.

I guess that this could be a way of describing the NHS as an outfit that has neither carrot nor stick.

There would of course be massive irony in this, in that the situation has been created by collective pay bargaining and unionised negotiations on working environment and benefits.

So, by extension, the workers would have created this unsatisfying and demotivating experience themselves.... and yet they blame the management.

On another note, I do get extremely p*ssed off with public sector workers who claim that they don't get as much money or benefits as private sector workers, when the private sector workers would need to save a million quid to get the pension that public sector workers are going to reap.

[macroban]

Huguenot:

Looks like you fell for that spurious ?1m pension pot intervention too.

Even at current interest rates a 65 year old male can get an annuity of ?71,710 per year with that size of pension pot.

MacRoban

[Huguenot]

Darn it. Damned spuriosity.

I'll get that Quids.

[Timster]

And bear in mind that whilst most public sector workers will get a pension based on their final salary, they are likely to have a lower final salary than if they were working in the private sector. And if you are on a higher salary whilst you are working you can afford to stuff a lot more away into your pension. Also, certainly in the NHS, the pensions are contributory and based on the number of years you contribute. Bear in mind that a lot of NHS workers are women who will have taken time off to have children and may have to work part-time for a number of years, and the pension payout is unlikely to be a fortune.

The pensions are a good selling point for working in the NHS or other parts of the public sector - but they're not quite the golden riches that they're sometimes made out to be.

I'm not sure I understand Hugeunot's point otherwise - I think the main frustration for workers in the NHS whom I know isn't the salaries but management issues, under-staffing and general abuse from the public (some of whom think they can all retire when they're 50 on whopping pensions). The lack of potential for career development can stem from a lack of funding for the more senior or other roles.

And how exactly would a bonus scheme for hospital porters work?

[The Chair]

This seems to be veering away from the OP, somewhat. The lounge is only a door away.

[????]

???? Wrote:

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

> Keef - a pension pot of ?100,000 buys you an

> annuity of about ?6,000 at the moment. So to even

> have a pension of say ?30,000 pa, not a huge

> amount to run a car, go on holiday, travel and

> live on will require a private pension holder to

> have accumulated a pot of ?500,000! Now, let's

> compare that to a pension of a copper, NHS worker,

> er MP, etc etc

Spurioua?

[????]

And putting a a cool ?1 Million aside is a mere trifle of course

[Brendan]

Don?t NHS staff have a higher likelihood of being sick in the first place as a lot of them are in contact with sick people as part of their jobs?

Makes sense they would have more sickies.

[Huguenot]

Sure thang Brenda, a few people made the comment.

I'm not sure that we've strayed from the original debate, to paraphrase:

Amongst many hypotheses, one correspondent suggested that absenteeism may be part of a general malaise involving a lack of reward for good performance and lower pay.

Recent correspondents have refuted that by observing that the entire remuneration (including post-employment pensions) needs to be taken into account, not just the monthly salary.

I'm thinking the argument needs to revolve around the differences between the NHS environment and others, but can't agree with Timster that the lack of funding for more senior roles is unique. It's exactly the same in the private sector. We can't all be managers!

[Brendan]

A few people may have made it Huey but the important thing is, I made it.

[macroban]

I understand that the NHS will have a dire shortage of midwives within 10 years due to retirements.

Is the age distribution of NHS workers skewed towards older worker?

Do workers approaching retirement age have more sickness?

[Keef]

Are the public services more inclined to employ those with disabilities, thus leaving themselves open to more sickness absence?

[MrBen]

Keef Wrote:

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

> Are the public services more inclined to employ

> those with disabilities, thus leaving themselves

> open to more sickness absence?

Correct Keef - this was mentioned earlier, along with more female employees (in the NHS) who are also more likely to take time off for family responsibilities. Both are very good points likely to contribute to a higher rate.

But to summarise, does this forum feel that these extremely valid points, combined with all of the good contributory factors posted above, leave a rate of "duvet days" no higher than the private sector?

Back at my old place (MSW NHS Trust HQ and St Georges) one of many examples was systematic abuse of a generous sick pay policy at the time of 6 months full pay followed by 6 months half pay. One lady, a clerical manager, had taken 6 months off due to stress only to return two days before her six months were up to reset the clock and then take the next 6 months off. She was still absent when I left a year later, yet on full pay of about ?30K.

A good sick pay policy is an important benefit of security to those who need it but it also surely needs to have weight to address those who may be seen to abuse it.

If this is now no longer thanks to efficient "back to work" interviews introduced in 2004 then I stand down in my argument - for the NHS has cured any higher rate of dishonest absenteeism - and my dragons have been slain!

[Brendan]

macroban Wrote:

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

> I understand that the NHS will have a dire

> shortage of midwives within 10 years due to

> retirements.

Where did you hear that? Just interested as my wife is a midwife and what they are seeing at the moment is a shortage of midwives in the NHS. Colleges are however qualifying enough for requirements the problem is the NHS aren?t hiring them so many newly qualified midwives are having to change career due to not being able to find work while many hospitals (I may add Kings and London hospitals in general are apparently glowing exceptions) are understaffed.

[macroban]

Over 40% of experienced midwives in frontline practice are due to reach retirement age within the next five year

[Ann]

I'm a midwife and have been for 20 years now. It would seem to me that midwifery has in recent years had an increase in interest as a possible career, perhaps to the enhanced status perceived by Diploma/Degree status.

I am aware of numerous midwives who are working beyond retirement on a part time basis and others that have taken early retirement. It has not been my experience that my older colleagues have been guilty of 'sickies', quite the opposite.

To summarise, I have worked for many years for an NHS that I am totally committed to. My sickness record is ( I believe) exemplary and can say the same for many colleagues from all disciplines.

If the figures quoted are true it's a shame , but I'm very proud of the organization I work for.

[JDR]

I am also an NHS worker. I'm a physiotherapist with 11 years experience and used to have lots of time off due to chest infections, in retrospect due to smoking, which I have now stopped and had no infections since. In the team I work with the main reasons for abscence are either manual handling related ie either low back pain or shoulder problems, both directly contributable to lifting and handling. The only other significant abscences I know of are cancer related, two caes of breast cancer and one of non hodgkins lymphoma. They all attributed significant time off, though at least one had limited time off because despite the idea that we all get loads of time off, my colleage wasn't eligible for full sick leave and therfore had to minimise time off...we all had to avoid the office for when she was likely to pick up infections - really she shouldn't have been at work but we managed her sickness because our wages don't allow much leeway for planning around such major illness. The other two accrued virtelly no leave as they all felt such a lvel of obligation to thier colleagues and patients they came back within weeks. There are people that take the piss, but please DO NOT tar all staff with the same brush. Its unfair. We're not perfect, but we're not well paid for the skills we hold. I agreed to that when I signed up but don't expect abuse, do expect a fair days pay for a fair days work. Howver, higher risks of infectious disieses (including temporory ones such as swine flu plus permanent ones of hepaptitis/ non treatable TB ). These jobs are NOT comparable to the private sector either health or business. I've regretted my choice of career many times and think I should have prioritised my earnings and own family first, rather than the greater good. I keep trying to remind myself that this was the right decision anad that being a selfinsh banker type that has screwed everyone was way worse - tell me genuinly that you think we're worse, with lower pay and personnal injury rather than personnal gain and srcewing the economy. If you don't - you risk that many less people from this generation will bother with the vocatioanl choice and many more will go for the selfish one...

[SteveT]

If they compared these figures with the number of 'sick days' the self-employed take, it might shock every employee both in the public and private sector.

One chap I know who runs a cosmetics store has to employ 12 Saturday people to ensure he has a minimum of 9 on the shop floor.

Most employees do not take their jobs as seriously as the person employing them.

The NHS has some very dedicated professionals on its books, whom I admire immensely, but sadly it also has some who would be totally unemployable if the NHS did not exist.