Federal Public Service Compensation & Benefits

[drunknsubmrnr]

Public ( City ).

There ya go. You'd never get that in the private sector.

 

[mariomike]

You'd never get that in the private sector.

But, how many City of Toronto residents would vote to have their Emergency Services privatized?

( That would likely include the right to strike. )

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Depends on the employer. We were allowed six weeks "Vacation Carry-Over" each year.

Coast Guard used to and may still encourage banking of time to cover ship layups and courses.

 

[cupper]

It's not a cost cutting measure, as there is no net reduction in salary or wages. Because they cannot retroactively go back and recoup the 2 week hold back, or take it all at once, spreading over a long period of time is the only fair and equitable way of doing it.

The other reasoning for doing a 2 week hold back is to ensure that any outstanding accounts are recovered in part or in whole.

 

[mariomike]

Coast Guard used to and may still encourage banking of time to cover ship layups and courses.

The Department encouraged banking of vacation ( and sick ) time because it saved them money. They did not have to call in so many crews on overtime. Especially for Special Events.

Keeping the OT under control was a higher priority than the vacation and sick banks. 

 

[charlesm]

The BC Government did this a few years ago. Everyone thought the sky was falling. They did take 1 year for the adjustment, they also allowed vacation, CTO, and archived vacation to be used to pay for this.

Our difference is that we only had to do a week.

Became a nothing event.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The other reasoning for doing a 2 week hold back is to ensure that any outstanding accounts are recovered in part or in whole.

They can't already take it out of leave?

 

[foresterab]

This was common when I worked private sector...pay 2 weeks after date worked with initial time covered off by a custom issued paycheck and thereafter direct deposit.  Also no carry over of vacation time (if I got it at all due to games played with length of employment).   

Working public sector now it's pay 2 weeks after earned still which makes for fun with overtime or end of calander payouts showing up on the mid-Jan check (with higher taxes) instead of the end of December. 

Overall...a non-issue and 2 years is actually pretty generous for implementing.

 

[cupper]

They can't already take it out of leave?

Yes, assuming you have leave to take it from (and if that was the policy). I was speaking in a general principle for a hold back, not public vs private sector.

It's the same concept as taking taxes out of your paycheck each pay period, rather than having you send a check every April when you do up your tax return. To make sure that the money is there when it is required.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

They can't already take it out of leave?

Now THEN I'd scream.......

 

[McG]

Exploiting sick-leave on the eve of retirement (ie. the 1 – 2 years just prior) is something I have seen too much of.  It would be good to see this looked at, but not just to address the abusers.  It would be nice to see new employees looked after longer if they become struck by some unpredictable tragic illness.

Managers complicit in allowing a few long-time employees to abuse sick leave: experts
Kathryn May
Ottawa Citizen
29 Nov 2013

Some of the biggest abuses of sick leave in the federal public service come from long-time employees who use their banked sick leave on the eve of retirement and managers who do nothing to stop them, say experts who follow the issue.

At last count, Treasury Board estimated 15 per cent of public servants accumulated more than 34 weeks of sick leave and the average among this group had 61 weeks of banked leave. The retiring cohort used an average of 18.3 sick days two years before they retired and 44.6 days the year of retirement.

Andrew Graham, a former senior bureaucrat who now teaches at Queen’s University, called misuses of sick leave a “dirty little secret” within Canada’s bureaucracy that’s grown out of a poorly designed system that “is an open invitation” to problems and misuses.

It’s a minority of public servants who do it, but the time they take off in the year or two before they retire drives up absenteeism and gives a bad name to the majority of bureaucrats who legitimately book off sick a few days a year and retire with months of untouched sick leave.

One senior official said the abusers are typically in their mid- to late 50s who use their sick leave “because they feel entitled to it and no one tells them otherwise.”

“It’s negligent management that people come to believe this,” he said.

Older workers heading into their retirement years are more likely to be sick than their younger colleagues, but an internal disability management study concluded additional illness is not enough to account for the increase in sick leave as retiring public servants go out the door.

Stories abound of managers sidelining problem employees by letting them go on sick leave or allowing poor performers to use up their accumulated sick leave as they near retirement so they can get them out of the workplace earlier. There are those who use sick days as discretionary personal days to attend to an ailing parent or take care of sick toddler who can’t go to daycare.

Then there is what Graham said is dubiously called “sick of work leave,” when employees facing stress, anxiety or conflict on the job end up on sick leave. These are worrisome cases because mental health claims, led by depression, stress and anxiety, now account for 48 per cent of all claims. Mental health advocates argue the existing system is ill-equipped to help them and is even part of the problem.

“What’s wrong is that it can be systemically abused by a small number and that abuse, when managers fail to act upon it, leads to overall corruption of the system and the unions won’t acknowledge that,” said Graham.

The abuse of sick leave is one of the reasons that Treasury Board President Tony Clement wants to replace accumulated sick leave with a short-term disability plan like much of the privates sector uses. It will be the government’s key demand at the upcoming round of collective bargaining in 2014.

The federal unions say that managers have tools at their disposal to ensure people are using sick leave properly, and argue employees shouldn’t lose a benefit because managers aren’t doing what it takes to stop misuse.


“If they have a management problem, they shouldn’t be coming after my members,” said PSAC President Robyn Benson.

But the system is flawed at the other end of the spectrum for public servants who fall ill with no banked sick leave to cover their salaries.

They may be new employees who develop cancer and haven’t banked enough to cover the 13-week waiting period before they can go on disability. Or they are chronically ill, have used all their sick leave, and have nothing to fall back on but employment insurance sick benefits.

The government estimates 12 per cent of bureaucrats have no sick leave credits at all and two-thirds don’t have enough for the 13-week waiting period and will have to rely on employment insurance.

“The sad part is there is essentially no coverage for a new, young employee who may be struck with a sudden illness and needs to be off work for three months, but has not had time to accumulate sick days,” Clement said in a defence of his planned reforms.

“Banked sick days, voluntary severance and pensions fully funded by employers are relics of another generation — another century — that is out of step with the times we live in today.”

Public servants get 15 days of sick leave a year which they can accumulate and carry over year to year. Sick employees must exhaust accumulated sick leave before they qualify for disability which covers 70 per cent of their salary. Federal employees can’t cash out their sick leave when they retire.

The government is considering a plan similar to that at Canada Post, where employees get seven days of personal leave and once those are exhausted they go on short term disability and 70 per cent of their salaries are covered.

Sick leave was introduced as insurance to offer employees salary protection when ill. A Treasury Board study on disability management concluded some people consider sick leave an “entitlement” or right because the accumulation of credits is tied to the number of days worked. This means some feel they have the right to use them whether sick or not.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/managers+complicit+allowing+long+time+employees+abuse+sick+leave+experts/9225006/story.html

 

[Occam]

As the unions have stated, it's not a problem with the policy, it's a problem with enforcement.  If managers enforced the sections of the collective agreements which allow for the employer to request a doctor's note (at cost to the employer), then there wouldn't be a problem.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I wouldn't have a problem going on EI sick benefits briefly until disability kicked in, if I didn't have enough sick leave.  After two years in the PS, I don't have a lot of sick leave banked...I have a six-year old in the petri dish primary school, and a wife who teaches at the same school, so I get exposed to all of the current plagues and take time off or work from home as necessary.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On top of that is a HR system that is afraid of dealing with an issue. If you have a problem employee your HR 'adviser" will not be much help. In fact it would be good if at a certain stage of the issue, the employee file is handed off to HR to be dealt with and not sucking up most of the managers time. But I dream, hell HR can't seem to hold on to employees, yet they are the "specialist" telling us how to manage, when they clearly can't themselves.

 

[The Bread Guy]

On top of that is a HR system that is afraid of dealing with an issue. If you have a problem employee your HR 'adviser" will not be much help.

Making management even less likely to pounce, feeling their six isn't covered.

Then again, if HR is support, SOME levele of "command" should be able to tell HR to make things happen.  And that doesn't appear to be happening.

And it's not just in one department, either.

 

[captloadie]

As the unions have stated, it's not a problem with the policy, it's a problem with enforcement.  If managers enforced the sections of the collective agreements which allow for the employer to request a doctor's note (at cost to the employer), then there wouldn't be a problem. 

I just heard a grievance from a member who grieved the fact a Dr's note was requested from him. He asked his supervisors why, they said because we can, so he filed a grievance. Granted, I did find in his favour, because there was no real grounds for management to ask for a note (no history of abuse, an apparent valid illness, etc.) other than the collective agreement says we can.

I would say that the problem with the policy is there is no mandatory requirement to ask for a note after so many days, which allows management to make all sorts of back room deals with employees. What rights would the employee be giving up by agreeing to insert this into the collective agreement?

 

[Occam]

I'm puzzled as to why you would find in his favour.  The CA clearly grants the Employer the right to ask for proof, and doesn't go into what constitutes valid grounds for asking...so it should be fair game to demand one as required?

Personally, I wouldn't see a problem with adding in a requirement that a note becomes mandatory after X days.  Our current CA says:

19.02 An employee is eligible for sick leave with pay when he or she is unable to perform his or her duties because of illness or injury provided that:

a.he or she has the necessary sick leave credits, and
b.he or she satisfies the Employer of this condition in such manner and at such time as may be determined by the Employer.

{...}

19.04 Unless otherwise informed by the Employer, a statement signed by the employee stating that because of illness or injury he or she was unable to perform his or her duties shall, when delivered to the Employer, be considered as meeting the requirements of paragraph 19.02(b).

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm puzzled as to why you would find in his favour.  The CA clearly grants the Employer the right to ask for proof, and doesn't go into what constitutes valid grounds for asking...so it should be fair game to demand one as required?

Personally, I wouldn't see a problem with adding in a requirement that a note becomes mandatory after X days.  Our current CA says:

19.02 An employee is eligible for sick leave with pay when he or she is unable to perform his or her duties because of illness or injury provided that:

a.he or she has the necessary sick leave credits, and
b.he or she satisfies the Employer of this condition in such manner and at such time as may be determined by the Employer.

{...}

19.04 Unless otherwise informed by the Employer, a statement signed by the employee stating that because of illness or injury he or she was unable to perform his or her duties shall, when delivered to the Employer, be considered as meeting the requirements of paragraph 19.02(b).

Similar wording in our contract.  Around the workplace, though, "common practice" has been that documentation is needed for more than 2 days of sick leave.

 

[GR66]

My personal experience (and it may obviously be different in other units) was that many public service employees viewed Sick Leave as additional holiday days rather than insurance against illness.  I don't think I took a single sick day during my time with DND but when my contract wasn't extended many people told me to make sure I used them up before I left.  There was definitely a concerted effort by some retiring employees to make sure that their accumulated sick time was used before they left.

As bad as that was, you should see people's heads explode when you tell them you didn't use up (and lost) a family-related or volunteer day because you didn't have a family-related emergency or work-day volunteer activity to attend!

 

[Harris]

As bad as that was, you should see people's heads explode when you tell them you didn't use up (and lost) a family-related or volunteer day because you didn't have a family-related emergency or work-day volunteer activity to attend!

My former employees used the volunteer day as a shopping day at Christmas.  I asked HR and was told that I was not allowed to ask them for proof that they actually volunteered with an organization.  I stopped asking questions about that particular leave after that.

 

[mariomike]

Public sector unions, I guess, likely compare collective agreements to their federal, provincial and municipal counterparts when the time comes to negotiate.

Public servants get 15 days of sick leave a year which they can accumulate and carry over year to year.

Municipal ( the union I was a member of ) are allowed to carry over 18 days per year. There was no limit on how many days you could accumulate in your sick bank.

Sick employees must exhaust accumulated sick leave before they qualify for disability which covers 70 per cent of their salary.

We only had to exhaust six months of sick leave to go on 75 per cent disability. At that point, to make up the difference, the remaining 25 per cent is deducted from your sick bank.

Federal employees can’t cash out their sick leave when they retire.

We cashed out our sick bank when we retired. It topped out at nine months pay for members with 35 years of service. 

Changes were made in 2009, but they only affect employees hired after 2009. All others were grand-parented.