CHUCK NORR1S Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 National agreements should be looked at then and have them re-negotiated to be more in line with the private sector. When I worked in the private sector if you were off sick for a week your wage for that week would be the statutory £50(?). And yes, some people are that devious when on the long term skive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted October 31, 2012 Report Share Posted October 31, 2012 Quite a lot of private sector organisations pay sick pay above the statutory minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I agree, every private company I have worked for has paid sick pay minus any bonus. Of course, you want to hammer everyone because of a VERY small minority. That is great forward thinking. I wonder, how much these folks, if able, will be able to claim a multitude of benefits on top of the SSP. How would that fit with the rest of the points I raised? I assume you would be very happy with a reduced level of staff commitment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'm talking about the people who take the Monday's and Friday's off, people who have repeated abscences off work who are never brought up, as said previously, the people pulling the p*ss on the long term sick. There are also some deptartments who issue their staff with sick days, I think possibly 5(?) per year, some, employees I know see these as holidays. On your other points, I do see what you are saying but I have no answers, maybe things would even themsleves out over time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 So now imagine you get injured and have to have say 2 months off could you cope on ssp. clearly those abusing the sickness system should face disciplinary action if found to be lying. this is were good management is needed. punishing the honest sick because of the cheats is wrong in the work place and on benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I have adequate insurance/mortgage cover if unfortunately that were to happen, granted some may not. It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult to dish out p45's to the leaches employed by this council, they know how to work the system. Unfortunately for the more conciencious(how do you spell that?), of which I believe I am one, they are the ones who sometimes have to take the hit to get shot of these leaches. This council paid out £3 million plus in sick pay last financial year, for the size of the workforce I just feel that is ridiculous. I doo understand where you PB and SP are coming from but as I said before, sometimes it's the honest worker who has to pay the price to get shot of the minority who ruin things for everyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 ****Double Post**** How do you 'delete' a post? I see no option for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 Chuck. You have just admitted that you are in a senario where you could do something about it. Shetland Islands Council has a Whistleblowers policy. It seems that you could address this on behalf of the tax payers who contribute to the running of the council. Part of the problem is the lack of reporting, understandably there could be fears. Alas, the ball is now in your court. Good Luck, that I mean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHUCK NORR1S Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I am well aware of the whistleblowing policy and it's been used before. The question is, does it make a difference? In a lot of cases I believe not. People seem to get punted to occupational health, then redeployed, spend some time back at work then back on the sick, then back to occupational health then back on the sick. Where does the p45 come in? It doesn't seem to happen. Anyway, thats just my view an input, I may be wide of the mark or missing the point somewhere, I don't know. On the whole it's an uncertain time being an SIC employee at the moment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twerto Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I know the council has a good working from home policy but surely yuns taking the proverbial a bit ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I've just watched this programme about how Stoke on Trent council dealt with a £36m shortfall in one year. It particularly focuses on old folks homes and childrens centres being threatened with closure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nr45q Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted November 1, 2012 Report Share Posted November 1, 2012 I just logged on to post that too. Very interesting, despite many differences the parallels are undeniable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironwithin Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I've just watched this programme about how Stoke on Trent council dealt with a £36m shortfall in one year. It particularly focuses on old folks homes and childrens centres being threatened with closure. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01nr45q It seemed to show those that shout the loudest get their own way. Actual facts went out the window. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 Isn't that how it works? Apparently the councillors were up for re-election after the budget was set. No doubt that influenced them as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted November 2, 2012 Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 I assume you would be very happy with a reduced level of staff commitment. The level of commitment in some departments regarding some of their duties is already zero, so whatever is cut cannot possibly make things any worse. From personal experience what little they have done was at best intended to brush the issue aside in the hope that it would just go away and they'd not have to deal with it, and at worst, intended to stall and create work for themselves in an attempt to justify their own employment position's existence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.