Harper Government to crack down on public servants -- again

[cybercoma]

This is not designed to save the government money. It's designed to show how 'tough' the Conservatives are on those lazy, overpaid, pampered, miserable public servants everyone hates.

Right, but it's through the thin veil of "saving the taxpayers' dollars," facts notwithstanding.

Edited September 16, 2014 by cybercoma

[Peter F]

Addressing Moonbox and his worries about employee's abusing sick leave by taking vacations...

Managers have all sorts of powers to control such things. They can actually require employees to bring in doctors certificates - believe it or not - to show they actually were in fact sick. Of course they can't do so retroactively but should the manager feel that a certain employee is abusing the sick leave benefit the manager can require medical certificates from that employee for all future sick leave taken. Such action results in one of two things: either the abuser is really sick (produced doctors note - and what manager is qualified to dismiss a doctors opinion?) or the use of sick leave by that employee significantly declines.

So you see, there really is no need for governments to attack sick leave benefits. Managers have the capability and power to do so right in their comfy chairs.

[Boges]

I think the big problem is using sick days as a commodity. People may want to come to work sick because those days they are a lotted are worth real money.

Or people using days they are a lotted because they disappear after the year even if they aren't sick.

[Peter F]

Yes, under the proposed new system where there is no banking of sick leave then at the end of the fiscal year I would expect a spike in use of sick leave by the unscrupulous 'use it or lose it' crowd. Then there is the evil temptation amongst to the virtuous for the same reason.

IE: the new system will actually encourage abuse of sick leave allotments. But then what does the government care? They fork out less in the long term.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Peter F

[Argus]

Yes, under the proposed new system where there is no banking of sick leave then at the end of the fiscal year I would expect a spike in use of sick leave by the unscrupulous 'use it or lose it' crowd. Then there is the evil temptation amongst to the virtuous for the same reason.

IE: the new system will actually encourage abuse of sick leave allotments. But then what does the government care? They fork out less in the long term.

Let's not forget the buildup of resentment, even anger on the part of public servants who've been constantly attacked by this government, and who would havenot only lost two thirds of their yearly allotted sick days but had their banked sick days stolen. It's a well know, well proven aspect of the workplace that angry and unhappy employees book off sick a lot more than happy ones. So yes, I would assume a great many of those employees would make sure they took every last day of that five day allotment.

[PIK]

If you are sick ,stay home, if you are not, go to work. What do they not understand about that. And then cashing them out, when they retire, nothing but stealing from the tax payer. And that it self should be against the law.

[cybercoma]

Let's not forget the buildup of resentment, even anger on the part of public servants who've been constantly attacked by this government, and who would havenot only lost two thirds of their yearly allotted sick days but had their banked sick days stolen. It's a well know, well proven aspect of the workplace that angry and unhappy employees book off sick a lot more than happy ones. So yes, I would assume a great many of those employees would make sure they took every last day of that five day allotment.

Not to mention the very important point that you made earlier: these sick days and the banking feature exist as the result of other concessions made.

[The_Squid]

If you are sick ,stay home, if you are not, go to work. What do they not understand about that. And then cashing them out, when they retire, nothing but stealing from the tax payer. And that it self should be against the law.

Please provide a link that shows federal workers can cash out their banked sick leave. I have seen the opposite said in this thread. Do you know something that they don't?

[Moonbox]

Moonbox, with all due respect, that's ludicrous. First, I have never been anywhere in the government where you could take extra sick days and have your manager not make an issue of it.

I offered it as a possibility. I also offered the possibility that people are taking extra days unpaid.

I would suggest to you the figure of over 18 days a year is nonsense based on bullshit statistics put together by the Tea Party (aka the Canadian Federation of Independent Business). I believe one of the things they did was count employees off on long-term disability (this is not the same as sick leave and is paid by an insurance company).

Yes, this is true. If you take long term disability out of the equation you're looking at federal public sector employees still taking 11.5 sick days a year. Regardless, the best estimates show public sector employees take at least 50% more sick leave than private sector ones, particularly when they're unionized. Interestingly, sick days for unionized private sector employees are almost identical to public sector union employees. This leads us to the conclusion that unionized employees take more sick leave simply because, well, they can.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/public-servants-take-average-of-11-5-paid-sick-days-a-year-watchdog-finds-1.1673262

In addition to the points already discussed, this article brings back the issue of banked sick days as well as long-term disability expenses. The article states:

Public servants currently get 15 sick days per year, which they can carry over from one year to the next. If they use up their banked sick days, they can then take unpaid sick leave for up to 13 weeks, at which point they could qualify for long-term disability insurance.

So can someone clarify this for me?

Also, when we discuss the cost of benefits paid for 'illnesses', I don't think we can completely ignore long-term disability. The long term disability plans of federal public servants (from what I've seen) pays 70% of wages - far better than the vast majority of private sector ones, if they have any at all. It's fascinating (again) that nearly 50% of LTD claims in the federal public service are stress/depression/anxiety or vague "other mental health issues". These afflictions (for some crazy reason) are interestingly 20% less common in the private sector. I wonder why...

Edited September 16, 2014 by Moonbox

[Peter F]

The disability insurance kicks in no sooner than 13 weeks after the employee went off work. Now maybe that employee had enough banked sick time to pay him his full wage for 13 weeks or even longer. Once all that banked sick time is used up then the employee applies for disability insurance which henceforth, for the duration of the illness, will pay 70% of the wage they would normally have made.

If the employee did not have enough banked sick time to carry through tip the 13 week mark then they are shit out of luck and get paid nothing until the 13 weeks have passed since the last day worked. At which time application is made for disability insurance and if accepted (as it usually is) they too go on

70% of their normal wage until the illness passes.

Example: fellow I know who worked with the CG. Never took a day off sick for 19 years. All that untaken sick time was banked. Then the heart attack struck and he was off for 3-4 months for the bypass and a hip-replacement thrown in. When he recovered it was back to work without ever applying for the disability insurance because he enough banked sick time to keep him at his full pay throughout the period.

Under the proposed system buddy would have used up his 5 day sick leave then be dumped onto disability and 70% pay on the second week in.

Hellofaway to treat a loyal hardworking employee who never took a day off sick for 19 years. Cut his pay by 30% as if it was nothing.

And yes, the present system is a hellofalot better than the majority of private sector plans. That is a good thing by the way.

And, again, yes such afflictions are obviously 20% more common than in the private sector for the simple reason that employees in the private sector have

shitty employment conditions and simply cannot afford to take long term disability when they elfin well should!

[Peter F]

If you are sick ,stay home, if you are not, go to work. What do they not understand about that. And then cashing them out, when they retire, nothing but stealing from the tax payer. And that it self should be against the law.

I guess a larger font is needed: Federal civil servants cannot cash out sick leave. Upon leaving the

Federal public service any banked sick leave is lost. It vanishes into thin air. Not one dime

is cashed out.

ETA: Other accumulated leave is cashed out however. Unused vacation time is about the only one actually. Perhaps you are conflating the two into one.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Peter F

[Bonam]

The government is continually hiring outside consultants and lawyers because such people refuse to work for the lousy wages and under the stifling working conditions which now permeate the government.

Sounds like a good solution. Hire outside people on an as needed basis, rather than maintaining an expensive, unproductive workforce in what you call a poisonous, boring, and soul-destroying work environment.

[Moonbox]

I guess a larger font is needed: Federal civil servants cannot cash out sick leave. Upon leaving the

Federal public service any banked sick leave is lost. It vanishes into thin air. Not one dime

is cashed out.

but you can (as far as I've been able to determine) bank your sick days and take an extended vacation prior to leaving/retirement, which is little different than 'cashing' them out.

[Peter F]

Sure you can take an extended vacation prior to retirement....you just gotta find a doctor in whose opinion you shouldn't be returning to work for a few months and that doctors opinion has got to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of another Health Canada doctor and, in practice, the scrutiny of another doctor appointed by Health Canada to review the first doctors opinion. Easy Peasy.

[cybercoma]

Sure you can take an extended vacation prior to retirement....you just gotta find a doctor in whose opinion you shouldn't be returning to work for a few months and that doctors opinion has got to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of another Health Canada doctor and, in practice, the scrutiny of another doctor appointed by Health Canada to review the first doctors opinion. Easy Peasy.

You forgot the sarcasm font. haha

[PIK]

Please provide a link that shows federal workers can cash out their banked sick leave. I have seen the opposite said in this thread. Do you know something that they don't?

My mistake on the cashing out, got it mixed up, but still.

[overthere]

And, again, yes such afflictions are obviously 20% more common than in the private sector for the simple reason that employees in the private sector have

shitty employment conditions and simply cannot afford to take long term disability when they elfin well should!

Thanks for the admission that public service workers take fraudulent sick leave because they can.

[overthere]

Sure you can take an extended vacation prior to retirement....you just gotta find a doctor in whose opinion you shouldn't be returning to work for a few months and that doctors opinion has got to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of another Health Canada doctor and, in practice, the scrutiny of another doctor appointed by Health Canada to review the first doctors opinion. Easy Peasy.

Yeah right, like any of that ever happens.

Other than the fraudulent end-of-service leave.

We both know that is common.

[Argus]

Sounds like a good solution. Hire outside people on an as needed basis, rather than maintaining an expensive, unproductive workforce in what you call a poisonous, boring, and soul-destroying work environment.

Are you seriously involved in this topic or do you just want to make stupid sniping comments?

First of all, a lot of those contractors make $1000 a day minimum. Second, you can't hire contractors to do the day-to-day dull, boring crap which involves wading through masses of red tape only insiders understand. And before you blame the public service for the red tape you better bear in mind that it's doubled under the Tories. Why? Because they don't trust the public service, so right from the start they've demanded MASSES of documentation and oversight on every single thing being done, all of which is incredibly time consuming and expensive.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Yes, this is true. If you take long term disability out of the equation you're looking at federal public sector employees still taking 11.5 sick days a year. Regardless, the best estimates show public sector employees take at least 50% more sick leave than private sector ones, particularly when they're unionized.

Waldo explained that most of this (post 10) is due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is the public service is generally older. There are also a variety of ailments which routinely come about due to the sedentary nature of much of the work, and how close the working conditions are (the government has reduced the allotted space required for public servants three times in the last twenty years, reducing the size of cubicles accordingly). All those people jammed tightly together every day in a closed environment touching the same doors, elevator buttons, photocopy machines, etc., is an excellent environment for passing on sicknesses.

And btw, one of the things you're ignoring is the cost of coming to work sick and passing it on so everyone's sick. Everyone works - technically - since there's no sick leave, but how productive are they really? How do you document the cost of that?

Interestingly, sick days for unionized private sector employees are almost identical to public sector union employees. This leads us to the conclusion that unionized employees take more sick leave simply because, well, they can.

But you're assuming that means they take it when they're not sick. I think you're leaving out the fact many in the private sector will simply come to work sick or not, because they don't get paid otherwise.

Public servants currently get 15 sick days per year, which they can carry over from one year to the next. If they use up their banked sick days, they can then take unpaid sick leave for up to 13 weeks, at which point they could qualify for long-term disability insurance.

So can someone clarify this for me?

I don't see the complaint with unpaid sick leave. There is a disability plan which employees contribute to with Sun Life for longer term disability, and requires multiple medical reports from multiple doctors.

It's fascinating (again) that nearly 50% of LTD claims in the federal public service are stress/depression/anxiety or vague "other mental health issues". These afflictions (for some crazy reason) are interestingly 20% less common in the private sector. I wonder why...

Maybe the private sector isn't so full of jobs which have zero job satisfaction, tons of pressure, a heavy workload, and an employer who treats them like garbage. Added in the fact that management in the public service suck about as badly as you'll find anywhere in this country, and that it sucks more the higher they get and you have a workplace rife with miserable people.

[Argus]

Thanks for the admission that public service workers take fraudulent sick leave because they can.

He didn't say it was fraudulent.

I only saw one case where an employee took a pile of stress leave just before retirement. It was a director, a miserable shrew of a woman universally hated by everyone in our directorate, and having her leave early probably profited us as it led to better working conditions and thus more productivity.

[cybercoma]

Are you seriously involved in this topic or do you just want to make stupid sniping comments?

First of all, a lot of those contractors make $1000 a day minimum. Second, you can't hire contractors to do the day-to-day dull, boring crap which involves wading through masses of red tape only insiders understand. And before you blame the public service for the red tape you better bear in mind that it's doubled under the Tories. Why? Because they don't trust the public service, so right from the start they've demanded MASSES of documentation and oversight on every single thing being done, all of which is incredibly time consuming and expensive.

More expensive and time consuming, while demanding the departments make cuts mind you.

[Big Guy]

Not to mention the very important point that you made earlier: these sick days and the banking feature exist as the result of other concessions made.

I agree. Workers negotiate with their employees to get the best deal that they can get. If they do not then they are nuts. Once they get the best deal they can get then they take full advantage of the negotiated contract. If they do not then they are nuts. When you sign a contract you are "entitled" to the conditions and/or benefits of the contract.

Yes, the term "entitlements" has been spun into a dirty word but you are entitled to your entitlements.

Some people may choose not to accept the entitlements that they have fought for - I think they are nuts.

If, for example, when you fill out your income taxes and choose not to take the deductions which you are entitled to and end up paying more in taxes then you are nuts.

If you feel that public employees get a better deal than anyone else then get a job in the public sector.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Big Guy

[guyser]

The disability insurance kicks in no sooner than 13 weeks after the employee went off work. Now maybe that employee had enough banked sick time to pay him his full wage for 13 weeks or even longer. Once all that banked sick time is used up then the employee applies for disability insurance which henceforth, for the duration of the illness, will pay 70% of the wage they would normally have made.

The person could very well have gone on Short Term Disablity if that is in the plan they have at work. No need to wait that long.

Most LTD's start at 120 days, not 91 as you counter (IIRC)

If the employee did not have enough banked sick time to carry through tip the 13 week mark then they are shit out of luck and get paid nothing until the 13 weeks have passed since the last day worked. At which time application is made for disability insurance and if accepted (as it usually is) they too go on

70% of their normal wage until the illness passes.

Part 1-See above.

Hellofaway to treat a loyal hardworking employee who never took a day off sick for 19 years. Cut his pay by 30% as if it was nothing.

Wait a sec Peter. His pay isnt really cut at all. The benefit paid is non-taxable unless the employer contributes 100%, which I find isn't many. If the employer pays 50% then its a 50% taxable benefit.

[Bonam]

Are you seriously involved in this topic or do you just want to make stupid sniping comments?

What does it mean to be "seriously involved" in a topic? I don't have a personal stake in the topic if that's what you mean.

First of all, a lot of those contractors make $1000 a day minimum. Second, you can't hire contractors to do the day-to-day dull, boring crap which involves wading through masses of red tape only insiders understand.

Dull boring crap? Sounds like you should hire a contractor to automate that. One of my friends works at a trading firm, her job is to look for errors in their accounts by going through their numbers, literally, with a calculator and checking things. I told her I could write a program to do what she does in about an hour. Don't think she was interested, lol. Same thing could be done for verifying that forms are filled in correctly and otherwise satisfying red tape requirements, with only the occasional exception sent to a real human to deal with.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Bonam