Public Service Sick Leave - Split from: Pay Raise (2014 - 2016) & Back Pay

[ballz]

Neither yourself, nor the article, specified financial costs. An article titled "Civil servant sick leave costs minimal for taxpayers" and the first sentence is "It costs taxpayers almost nothing extra when federal civil servants call in sick," is arguing exactly that.... that there a minimal or negligible (total) costs.

The NDP came into it in your article when they asked for a new report because they didn't like what the first one said. And by the looks of it, he worded his request to reflect exactly what you are saying, financial costs.

Tories and Dippers alike, they're all a bunch of crooks... but I don't need a PBO report to tell me whether or not there are costs associated with having people not go to work.... and they aren't immaterial.

 

[Occam]

No argument with what you've said.  My focus was on the mysterious $900M in savings that were supposed to have been realized...smoke and mirrors.

 

[ballz]

Fair enough. I am not familiar with what the legislation was going to do with sick leave to save this $900 million dollars (although I'd be interested in seeing it)... it does seem like an extraordinary figure. Like I said, they're all crooks.

 

[CountDC]

I believe at least part of that was the same basis in which the military does not accumulate a large amount of annual anymore.  Instead of having someone taking a year of leave at the end of his career it has to be used in the same year.  For the military this means leave earned as a pte does not get used or paid out at the end as a CWO with 30 yearly pay increases factored in.  For the civilians I imagine it could be the same,  earned in 1980 when wages were low but used in 2020 after a lot of increases so a larger cost to the government.  Not allowing this to happen along with all the leave not taken becomes lost creates a savings.  At least in theory. 

 

[Occam]

Except that a civilian doesn't get to cash out the sick leave when they retire.  My boss is retiring in a couple of months, and his near 18 months of sick leave will magically go *poof* when he goes.  No cost.

 

[mariomike]

Except that a civilian doesn't get to cash out the sick leave when they retire. 

Some do. I got nine months pay ( sick bank gratuity ) when I retired.

 

[Flavus101]

Except that a civilian doesn't get to cash out the sick leave when they retire.  My boss is retiring in a couple of months, and his near 18 months of sick leave will magically go *poof* when he goes.  No cost.

Which is ridiculous, that just incentives people to be lazy. If buddy just calls in sick to burn leave days you have to shift his work to someone else or call another person in which just eliminates the savings that you "created" by not paying out sick days. Unless of course you get these "suckers" that don't use the sick days.  [

 

[Occam]

Some do. I got nine months pay ( sick bank gratuity ) when I retired.

I meant federal public servants, when contrasted against the military not being able to accumulate leave anymore.

Which is ridiculous, that just incentives people to be lazy. If buddy just calls in sick to burn leave days you have to shift his work to someone else or call another person in which just eliminates the savings that you "created" by not paying out sick days.

Not sure about other departments, but when I'm sick, nobody else picks up my work, and they don't hire a temp to do it.  It's there waiting for me when I get back.  Call that incentive to not take time off unnecessarily.

Unless of course you get these "suckers" that don't use the sick days.  [

Not sure what you mean here.

 

[Flavus101]

I suppose that all depends on the timeline for the work? If it can wait a few days there's no reason to shift it around or call in someone else to take care of it. If it was a more urgent task it would have to be shifted to someone else, no?

The suckers bit was completely tongue in cheek. That 18 months of sick leave goes poof and he doesn't get a cent from it (besides the wages he made for not taking the time off). A lot of the people in my age bracket (18-25) would have simply taken that time off and if their work had a tight deadline it would have been moved to someone else or they would have had to call someone in on their day off.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

A lot of the people in my age bracket (18-25) would have simply taken that time off and if their work had a tight deadline it would have been moved to someone else or they would have had to call someone in on their day off. lack any sense of work ethic and feel that the world revolves around them.

FTFY

 

[CountDC]

Except that a civilian doesn't get to cash out the sick leave when they retire.  My boss is retiring in a couple of months, and his near 18 months of sick leave will magically go *poof* when he goes.  No cost.

Because he was honest and didn't abuse it.  unfortunately not everyone is the same with many that I have worked with considering it an entitled benefit to be used regardless of if you are sick or not.  I mentioned it before in one of the threads how one worker submitted a leave pass for her vacation that included her sick leave and complained when us military wouldn't approve it.  She had a right (at least in her mind) to use the sick leave as she saw fit.  I also worked with a gentleman that the day after pay day was always a sick day - due to his hang over.  Everyone knew but as he took a sick day no one did anything as they didn't want the hassle of dealing with the union. 

There were abuses on the military side to - Figure out how a CWO clerk retiring when they have 35 years in has enough leave to take a year and a half off. 

 

[TCM621]

I don't have a problem with cashing out leave,  it makes a lot of sense if done right (yearly) and allowing for a couple of days  a month to stay home if you have the flu makes sense but sick days aren't leave. They are simply a method which allows the manager the ability to keep sick people out of the work place infecting others. When you treat them as leave that either accumulates or gets paid out,  you actually incentivize people coming in sick. Come in sick and underperform but keep that sick day in the bank for when you want to use it.

If I understand the military system correctly we get 2 days sick leave a month without needing to go to sick parade (with CoC approval). I have never used them, any sick leave I have ever taken has been signed by the Doc, that doesn't mean I have 6 months of unused leave,  it means I have 2 days in may just like I had in Apr. I think that is pretty sufficient.

OTOH, I hope they fight as long as they can and get a bigger raise in exchange for losing it. That means more money for me.

 

[Occam]

Getting back a little closer to the topic; sick leave for the Public Service is being fought for because it's a benefit that (I'm told) was gained through the collective bargaining process.  I'm told that at some point in the past, the unions forsook a monetary raise in order to gain sick leave provisions.  It therefore has value within the terms of collective bargaining.

Also, under the current system, one can use their sick leave (current entitlement + banked) in order to cover serious illnesses up to 13 weeks in duration at 100% salary, at which point the LTD plan kicks in at 70% of salary.  If you don't have enough sick leave to cover the time off, you can be advanced sick leave, use vacation leave, draw EI sick benefits, or any combination of the three.

Under the proposed plan, you would first use your six days of sick leave, then go on a two week waiting period at 0% of salary, then go on short term disability at 100% for some time (I think 3 weeks was proposed), then short term disability decreases to 70% until LTD at 70% kicks in at six months.

Giving up the existing plan is giving up two weeks of pay entirely, and then enduring a much sooner reduction in salary to 70%.  That's money out of one's pocket, at a time when one might really not be able to deal with it.  So again, it has value to the employee.

The unions have indeed signed a solidarity pact resisting any changes to the existing sick leave policy.  As you can see above, it has a financial impact upon the employee that most definitely places sick leave within the scope of the collective bargaining process.

That's just one of the things holding up negotiations for new collective agreements, and consequent raises to CF pay.

 

[CountDC]

Correct Occam - They did give up increase pay for sick leave and it certainly does have value so they should fight for it.  The only part I don't agree with is the unlimited banking, instead there should be a cap on it of 13 weeks to cover the period you indicated they could take in a serious case.

As for the military 2 day sick leave it is only the CO that may approve it at the unit and it is not restricted to days a month.  Check the LPM 6.1.03

Sick Leave - Approving Authority

The...          May approve an amount not exceeding… continuous calendar days            Subject to the following limitations...

CO                            2 (note 1)                                                                                      -

Note 1: a CF 100 form shall be completed and recorded in HRMS.

So the CO may approve you sick leave 2 days, you return to work 1 day and then he may approve another 2 days if he wants to (although I doubt any would do that but I have seen it approved twice in one month).

it is not an entitlement, as it says the CO may.  As CO he gets to set his own policy on what he will approve, some go with 2 days while others such as where I am at now go with no sick leave unless approved by an MO.  If I want to call in sick rather than go to the doc it will cost me a days annual.  The supervisor part in it is to recommend or not recommend it same as any other leave.  Had a problem case in the past, did not recommend sick leave be granted by the CO in that case and the CO did not approve it.  Mbr was required to see the MO.  Not fond of blanket policy that says no sick leave will be granted, I think it should be a case by case policy.  Blanket policies are a cop out so supervisors don't have to do their jobs, monitor their subs and maybe ID a possible problem that needs help.

 

[Occam]

Correct Occam - They did give up increase pay for sick leave and it certainly does have value so they should fight for it.  The only part I don't agree with is the unlimited banking, instead there should be a cap on it of 13 weeks to cover the period you indicated they could take in a serious case.

The ability to carry more than 13 weeks of sick leave serves to extend the time one can remain on 100% salary.  For someone who has not used much of their sick leave and therefore has lots banked, it doesn't seem fair to penalize them at the reduced rate of 70% (on LTD) if they have sufficient banked to cover a longer period.  I don't think the unions are guarding this aspect as closely, to be honest.  They're more concerned at TB's efforts to remove it from the table in collective bargaining, the waiting period, and the earlier reduction to 70% under short term disability.  Some unions have made pretty innovative offers (some that the government has accepted in the past from other unions) to come to agreement on something regarding sick leave, but TB keeps rejecting them.  I'm wondering if there's a disconnect between where government wants to go with this, and where the bureaucrats at TB want to go with this.  TB's reluctance to concede so much as an inch on issues such as the Home Equity Assistance issue make me wonder if there's a little empire of "NO" established there that needs to be shown the door.