4 2 mins 10 yrs

When you work for the State the first thing you learn is that you don’t have to work. Not everyday, anyway.

Sammy Wilson, the hamster-look-a-like who finds time to be Finance minister has hit out at civil service workers who “betray their own colleagues” after new figures show that sickness rates are costing the taxpayer £22.9m a year. He whined that the huge cost was “unacceptable in a time of austerity”. He hit out at those who take sick leave when they are healthy.

The figures show staff took an average of 11 days off a year. But the Department of Social Development had the worst record. Staff in the DSD took 14 days a year. The Civil Service has failed to meet its targets on absence levels.

Listen, it FAILS to meet figures every year and every year we get ritualistic condemnations from political frontmen whilst nothing changes behind the scenes.

The Trade Unions ritually claim that the reason so many in the Civil Service become sick (esp on Friday and Monday) is because of the “stress”. And anyway, it is only a very small number who are defrauding the taxpayer…

It’s obvious that there are some – not all but more than a few – within the Civil Service who have a very poor work ethic. One could extend this right across the Public Sector where we find that the number of days taken off “sick”  are substantially beyond those taken in the evil capitalistic Private Sector.  Obviously life in the wealth-generating sector is so much less stressful than working for the State!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

4 thoughts on “AN UNCIVIL SERVICE

  1. The report states that 50% of all civil servants took some sick leave. In the private sector the figures are far lower. But in the private sector, staff tend to be managed better and just as important, many private sector employees do not get occupational sick pay. Instead they get statutory sick pay which is about £18 per day and is not payable for the first three days of absence.

    If the government is serious about getting absenteeism under control among its own employees, it should cut back on occupational sick pay entitlements. In particular, if there was no pay for the first three days there would be a miraculous drop in Friday and Monday absences. Of course there would be strikes, but that would also reduce the payroll cost!

  2. “Of course there would be strikes, but that would also reduce the payroll cost!”

    Whenever I see public sector unions threatening strikes that is always what I think- great that’ll save some money.

    If we could get them to walk out every Friday we’d have the deficit under control in no time.

  3. Even those who want to do something about it are unable to.
    My daughter recently took charge of an office which has about 12 staff, one has been off with stress for about 6 months, my daughter is said to be the cause of the stress by asking her to turn up on time. Another, following maternity leave has had constant “sick” leave, and is now pregnant again, requiring light duties (ie come and go when she feels like it). The relevant personnel department won’t do anything because firstly there are medical certificates and secondly they might be sued under the sex-discrimination rules. But as my daughter says, she has more than sufficient staff to cope, and would like to reduce numbers but her boss won’t let her. Seems that staff numbers are a matter of prestige (and salary).

  4. A lot of the time the ‘3 day’ rule dosen’t work.
    In the situation where it is in force no one takes 1 day off work if they are sick – they take 3 days off. It can be very counter productive.

Comments are closed.