COUNCIL staff have come under fire for taking the equivalent of five weeks off sick a year.
Employees at the adult services department of Rochdale Council have been warned they could price themselves out of a job by notching up one of the country's highest sickness rates.
The 1,092 staff took the equivalent of an annual 25 days off sick - the highest figure on record. The figure is based on their actual sickness for the last quarter of 2004. In the previous two quarters the figure was nearly as bad - the equivalent of 23 sick days a year.
If the figures for October, November and December had been repeated throughout the year, the department would have lost 27,300 working days - or 105 full-time staff.
The money lost in sick pay in Rochdale's adult services in 2003/04 was '750,000, which would have paid more than 900 Band A council tax bills.
The figures - which will be revealed at a council meeting on Monday - are part of a public-sector sick bill costing Greater Manchester taxpayers tens of millions of pounds a year.
Councillors warned staff in the department that absenteeism had become unacceptable and the work may be contracted out to private agencies. Coun Ashley Dearnley, leader of the Conservative group, said: "We have to be realistic and balance the council's books."
Coun Paul Rowen, the Lib Dem leader of the council, said: "We're looking at a possible budget deficit of '9m next year. If we had a 90 per cent attendance rate by staff we would save 10 per cent of that instantly."
Coun Allen Brett, the Labour group leader, said sickness cheats were pushing up council tax and warned services could be privatised.
Concerned
Helen Harrison, secretary of the Rochdale branch of public sector union Unison, said: "We're willing to work with the council on sickness levels, but we would be concerned if our members' jobs were at risk. More work needs to be done to find out why staff take time off."
The average numbers of days taken off sick by council workers across all departments in the ten Greater Manchester councils in 2003/04 varied between 14.7 days in Oldham to 10.1 days in Bolton.
That compares with a national average of 7.8 in the private sector. Manchester City Council, which has one of the lowest rates of sickness absence (10.2 days in 2003/04), loses the equivalent of 180,000 days to sickness at an annual cost of '10m.
Absenteeism is particularly high in frontline departments like Rochdale's adult services, which employs wardens for the elderly, drug workers, day-care staff, adult mental health workers and administrators.
Bolton's social services staff recorded an average 18.1 days off sick in 2003/04. In Tameside's adult services the figure was 15.7 days.
The Manchester Evening News reported last April how 1,600 staff in Manchester council's housing department faced door-knocks from their bosses after sickness absences hit an average of more than 14 days a year.
A report by the Cabinet Office in November last year found civil servants were taking 40 per cent more time off sick than their private-sector counterparts. More than 500,000 non-industrial civil servants cost the taxpayer '386m in sick leave.
The report said the problem "continues to be a significant operational and financial burden" on the functioning of government.
What do you think of the amount of sick leave being taken? Have your say.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
If these "sick" workers were put on state sick pay instead of getting paid their normal salary for days taken off "sick" it would soon put an end to days off "sick". No work no pay would soon cure these malingerers.
Great - council bills may have to go beacuse of this bunch of scivers. Is there any escape for us hard-working tax payers? I've worked for 21 years and had less than a day off a year on average - more fool me by the sound of it. I wonder how many of them will be sacked for persistent absence - I think we all know the answer to that don't we?
Get off your high horse, Dave. These people also pay tax, and work in many stressful and difficult situations. These are the people who are caring for your sick grandparents, your disabled children, for people with mental health problems.
This also does not mean everyone has lots of sick leave. A small number on long term sick will push up an average figure. They are not malingerers or skivers, they do hard jobs with vulnerable people for not great pay.
THIS WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN PRIVATE COMPANIES. THERE AGAIN IF THOSE INVOLVED IN THIS SCAM ONLY RECEIVED S.S.P.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW MANY TOOK 25 DAYS SICK THEN.
You will find that these staff pay tax too, Dave. These are staff in jobs where injury, illness and stress are more common than in other council jobs. They are neither skivers nor malingerers, but often employees doing difficult jobs for not great pay, working with vulnerable and needy people.
NO WONDER COUNCIL TAX KEEPS GOING UP. BUT THERE
AGAIN YOU HAVE TO BLAME THE SYSTEM IF ONE WAS NOT
AVAILABLE THEY COULD NOT
PLAY IT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW MANY TAKE 25 DAYS SICK IF ALL THEY RECEIVED WAS S.S.P.
The Lib Dems couldn't run a whelk stall never mind Rochdale Council. Why is sickness so high at Rochdale council? Because of Lib Dem incompetence and mismanagement , that's why!
I think it should only be paid sick leave if the person can produce evidence of a doctors appointment note/perscription to make it fair apply it to anyone who takes >5 days off a year. I have worked 4 years and not had a day off yet.
This type of abuse is rife throughout the public sector. The malingerers are easy to identify and should have the ability to self certify withdrawn and then sacked if there is no improvement.I have worked in the public sector for the last 24 years and not had a day off sick in 9 years. I am fed up with having to pick up the workload of the malingerers.A fair day's work for a fair day's pay I say. Get out of bed you lazy .................
Sorry but the headline reads
"Council sick leave shock" if you have ever dealt directly with the council, you'll already know that it isnt a shock, i had a long running dispute with the council & my case changed hands numerous times, as the person dealing was of on ick leave or just ill the day i happened to phone.
no shock to me, the council get paid a lot of money for very little work,,,
Job Advert: "Join the Council work nine years have a year off - no questions asked!" or "work 9 days have the 10th on us!"
Its a sick joke to people in the real world, Pensions up 1%, council tax 4% it make sense now doesn't it
Lets get one thing straight here - any public sector employee who takes more than one week off MUST be covered by a doctors certificate, or they wouldn't even be entitled to SSP, let alone occupational sick pay.
Most local authorotoes have very strict sickness monitoring procedures for frequent "uncertified" sicknesses, which frequently results in disciplinary action and dismissal for persistent offenders.
What is being reported at Rochdale (and it is one department at Rochdale that is being highlighted in this story), are a number of certified long-term illnesses, pushing up the stats.
I have worked in housing for 18 years for two local authorities in total, and didn't even take time off when I had skin cancer recently. My sister, also a local authority employee, worked virtually up until her death from bowel cancer in 1998.
The posters in this thread who speak of council employees in terms like "malingerers", would do well to remember the majority of decent, hard-working, tax-paying employees who spend their lives trying to make other people's (lives) better.
James of Rochdale, I take it that you're one of them that prefer to get paid to do minimal work. Typical working class attitude, want everything for nothing, get a life
James, seems to be a pretty clear consensus on this forum to me. We've all got stressful jobs - and we've not the protection of being unlikely to ever be sacked. Only difference is we get up and go to work even when we don't feel like it. Don't make out the council is a special case, because it's not.
If you think this is the only council with constant sickies, think again, I could name a worse one.
I NOTE THAT A LOT OF MESSAGES REFER TO COUNCIL EMPLOYEES AS SKIVERS, MALINGERERS, ETC FOR TAKING TIME OFF WORK SICK.
FIRSTLY IF YOU DONT KNOW WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, OR WHY THEY ARE OFF SICK YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE SLANDEROUS BLANKET COMMENTS LIKE THIS.
IF YOU DO KNOW OF COUNCIL EMPLOYEES WHO ARE MALINGERING OR ABUSING THE SICKNESS SYSTEM THEN ADVISE THE RESPECTIVE LOCAL AUTHORITIES THEY WORK FOR AND STEPS WILL BE TAKEN TO STOP THEM.( PUT UP OR SHUT UP)
SECONDLY IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT THE MESSAGES RECEIVED UP TO NOW ARE INDICATIVE OF THE VERBAL ATTACKS (ALSO PHYSICAL) FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY COUNCIL TAX (LIKE COUNCIL EMPLOYEES) FEEL THEY CAN SAY, OR DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO ATTACK THEM, BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEY OWN THEM.
IF YOU FEEL YOU CAN YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO WORK FOR THE COUNCIL BY ALL MEANS APPLY.
MANY DO, SOME ARE SUCCESFUL, BUT MOST LEAVE.
It would be interesting to see
the break-down of these sicks
days. I would not be surprised if the majority are made up in 3's as on the fourth
day a self cert is required and
each week thereafter a doctors certificate must be produced.
As for the comment they pay taxes, yeah great and they make sure they get some of it back in other ways by getting Joe Public to foot the bill.
At first sight this seems like a disgrace but hang on a momemt. I wonder just how many council employees are of on long term sick and on no pay who have been factored into the equation. It only takes 1 employee to be off on long term sick for 1 year -- probably on no pay to make it look as though over 15 employees have taken 25 days off each when they might actually have had no time off at all.
Who knows what the real truth is but I wouldn't trust the figures given and always wonder if there isn't in fact a hidden agenda
Perhaps the figures of sickness absence should be looked at more closely; maybe working conditions are part of the problem, as genuinely sick workers are genuinely unable to work, and that can't be helped.
My guess is, the government will privatise anyway, and will use any face value to back up their argument.
Knowing people who worked for Rochdale Council I have to say they are a bunch of skivvers. I'd like to tell you more but my backs starting to hurt and i'm under too much stress perhaps they'll give me a job?