Christie: Sick Leave Payouts for Public Employees is Garbage

[red states rule]

Another reson why working for the government is a Gravy Train paid for by the over taxed taxpayers





There are a myriad of reasons why Americans across the country pleaded, begged and nearly burst into tears (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/09/27/video_woman_begs_christie_to_run_for_president) urging New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to run for President this year, not the least of which is his refusal to comply with the demands of public sector unions in his home state. In their latest push for more governmental assistance, Liberal Democrats in the state legislature lobbied the Governor to appropriate money for public employees who don’t use up all their sick time.

“There is no intellectual efficacy to their argument,” he said. “So now they have to go to ‘well, people will commit crimes and commit fraud if we don’t pay them more money for not being sick’…Let me tell you something, the people of New Jersey know that [this line of reasoning] is a complete pile of garbage.”

Indeed, Christie challenges the cogency of the opposition’s argument in several different ways. His most persuasive point, not unexpectedly, is that Democrats in the legislature are playing politics – at the expense of New Jersey taxpayers – to placate the political donors and lobbyists who funded their re-election campaigns last year. These “gifts,” he argues, would cost $7,500 per person totaling more than $3 billion. Moreover, if he were to sanction such an unnecessary and wasteful proposal, he would essentially raise taxes on upper income earners. This, in effect, would betray the conservative principles on which he ran for office as well as threaten the solvency of the state of New Jersey.

“Every dollar that accumulates from here forward is the responsibility of the Democrats in the legislature,” he said.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2011/12/24/chris_christie_sick_leave_payouts_for_public_emplo yees_is_a_complete_pile_of_garbage







<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2Ga3yT55-zY" frameBorder=0 width=560 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[ConHog]

They should tell these people you can by the end of the year sell all of your sick leave time back to the government for fifty cents on the dollar or lose them, and from now the hours can only accumulate for one year, after that they will bought back for fifty cents on the dollar.

[Missileman]

They should tell these people you can by the end of the year sell all of your sick leave time back to the government for fifty cents on the dollar or lose them, and from now the hours can only accumulate for one year, after that they will bought back for fifty cents on the dollar.

Fuck that...use em or lose em.

[ConHog]

Fuck that...use em or lose em.


That doesn't make sense. And besides don't most private companies offer the buyback option?

Seems to me that by NOT offering it, you are encouraging employees to call in sick when they are not sick, so as not to lose their days.

[Missileman]

That doesn't make sense. And besides don't most private companies offer the buyback option?

Seems to me that by NOT offering it, you are encouraging employees to call in sick when they are not sick, so as not to lose their days.

It's called integrity. The sick days are made available for the times they are too sick to go to work, not for supplemental vacation days. I don't get any sick days where I work. I do however earn paid time off at a generous rate. If I have to call out sick, the time out is deducted from my PTO.

[ConHog]

It's called integrity. The sick days are made available for the times they are too sick to go to work, not for supplemental vacation days. I don't get any sick days where I work. I do however earn paid time off at a generous rate. If I have to call out sick, the time out is deducted from my PTO.

Hmm, I guess I'm just basing my thoughts of what my brother and sister have. They just get so many days a year. They aren't called sick days or vacation days, they are simply personal days, doesn't matter what you use them for.

[red states rule]

Most private sector workers no longer get sick pay. They get a set amount of time off for the entire year which includes sick days.

Also most private sector workers cannot carryover an excesive amount of of time off. The most I can carryover is 5 days - period. Sups start sending out email in October reminding people to use their time off or they will LOSE it

Once again we see what the taxpayers are paying for when it comes to the gravy train government workers are on

[darin]

Federal employees cannot carry-over more than 240 hours of vacation. Sick leave is different - it's earned money, really, because yeah - if I quit or retire un-used, earned sick leave is paid to me because, well, I earned it.

You folks want to keep sticking it to gov't employees - you're going to be left with all the GOOD workers working elsewhere. We do NOT do this for the money.

[red states rule]

Federal employees cannot carry-over more than 240 hours of vacation. Sick leave is different - it's earned money, really, because yeah - if I quit or retire un-used, earned sick leave is paid to me because, well, I earned it.

You folks want to keep sticking it to gov't employees - you're going to be left with all the GOOD workers working elsewhere. We do NOT do this for the money.

You would not have a conflict of interest on this issue would you? Once again the over taxed (and broke) taxpayer is footing the bill

As I said, this is another example the gravy train government workers are on. Please consider most private sector workers do NOT get all these handouts government workers are getting - which the taxpayers are paying for

[red states rule]

More on how government workers are soaking, and bleeding the taxpayers dry.






They take your cash . . . in so many ways.

Port Authority toll collectors not only grab your money at New York-New Jersey crossings, they’re now pulling down stunning six-figure salaries funded by the levies you pay at bridges and tunnels.

Twenty-four toll collectors at the bi-state agency have made more than $80,000 so far in 2011 — payments pumped up by massive overtime. Seven of those workers took in $90,000 or more.


Warren Stevens has made $102,670 so far this year — $40,614 of it OT.


With overtime paid at time-and-a-half, Stevens averaged about 20 hours of OT per week, or about 130 extra eight-hour shifts per year, an analysis of PA data shows.


Karen DuPree is the No. 2 highest-paid toll taker, making $97,621 — more than a third of it from overtime pay of $37,470.

The annual salaries will only swell since the figures released Friday for all 6,777 PA employees do not include December paychecks.

Princesella Smith, 51, who has made $89,599 working the toll lanes at the George Washington Bridge this year, understandably loves her profession.

“I’m blessed,” she told The Post. “I have a great job, and in this economy it’s great that I can cover everything with my eight hours a day and overs.”

The driving public is a little less enthused, especially after the PA hiked tolls $4 this past summer at its six crossings.

“Any commuter is going to be outraged,” said Cathleen Lewis, a spokeswoman for AAA New Jersey. “Any toll increase should be paying for infrastructure . . . It shouldn’t be paying for excessive salaries.”

Toll collectors — whose ranks have dwindled to 147 as they are replaced by the electronic E-ZPass system — aren’t the only ones cashing in.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/high_pay_pa_crew_taking_their_toll_fow7ejUj111RDLH eZkGhbI#ixzz1heTxcxhg

[ConHog]

Federal employees cannot carry-over more than 240 hours of vacation. Sick leave is different - it's earned money, really, because yeah - if I quit or retire un-used, earned sick leave is paid to me because, well, I earned it.

You folks want to keep sticking it to gov't employees - you're going to be left with all the GOOD workers working elsewhere. We do NOT do this for the money.


how many sick days are you allotted a year? 240 hours is 6 weeks of vacation a year? That's pretty damned generous. But no moreso than teachers receive I suppose.Oh cue the "teachers aren't paid year round" loons.

[ConHog]

You would not have a conflict of interest on this issue would you? Once again the over taxed (and broke) taxpayer is footing the bill

As I said, this is another example the gravy train government workers are on. Please consider most private sector workers do NOT get all these handouts government workers are getting - which the taxpayers are paying for

So what if he does? He's entitled to his opinion. And in fact you are wrong. The most successful private companies DO offer similar perks to attract the best employees.

Your like the guy who gets mad cuz the Army pays a guy with 10 years in a $50K signing bonus to re up for 8 years (thanks uncle sam I appreciated that) well it was either that, or watch that guy takes his skills to the private sector for money per year.

[pegwinn]

Fuck that...use em or lose em.

I work for Texas and where I work the policy is X number of hours of Vacation and X number of hours of Sick Leave per month. You can use vacation to cover a sick day but not the other way around. When someone leaves he or she is paid for unused vacation but not for sick time.

Yes, some people will catch a short timers epidemic and burn sick days prior to giving notice.

Of course the hourly rate is below the private industry average. So it all evens out in the end.

[ConHog]

I work for Texas and where I work the policy is X number of hours of Vacation and X number of hours of Sick Leave per month. You can use vacation to cover a sick day but not the other way around. When someone leaves he or she is paid for unused vacation but not for sick time.

Yes, some people will catch a short timers epidemic and burn sick days prior to giving notice.

Of course the hourly rate is below the private industry average. So it all evens out in the end.

I like personal days better. Use them for whatever. If you're taking a day off, you damn sure shouldn't have to explain yourself to anyone. Of course the ones who abuse such systems once again ruin it for everyone I suppose.

[sundaydriver]

The vast majority of private sector companies do not have a buy back for sick days. Most will buy back a partial amount of vacation time or allow you to accumulate it for a special reason for the next year but that's about it. Most companies also do not give you a set number of days that are to be used as either personal days or sick time off.

I also have 6 weeks of vacation a year ( the company will buy back half of your vacation time per year and if you do not take the remaining or receive permission to carry it into the next year, you lose it), 3 personal days (for anything I choose to use them for in days or hours increments with no buyback) 13 holiday days in a good year or 11 as the holidays fell this year, and 6 months sick time per year. The usual 2 or 3 sick days a year most of us take off come out of this 6 months sick leave but anything over 5 days out consecutively goes to disability payments. This 6 months is for major medical and the company certainly does not pay you for them or accumulate them for you. It just means if you can't be back in 6 months time, you are out of a job.

Unless I am the CEO then none of this applies!

[Jeff]

I worked for the state of N.J. years ago you received 15 sick days a year 12 vacation and 3 personal days a year every January first , you had to use the personal days that year , you could carry the vacation days for one year and sick days you could accumulate for as long as you worked there, this may seem like quite a bit of time but the employees there were not paid as much as the private sector, that was one of the benefits that kept good employees working there. of course your employees that weren't worth a flip would use them all by the middle of February , but those where the workers that didn't last to long.

My Dad retired from the state of N.J. with almost enough sick days that he received a extra years pay , he wound up retiring as a regional supervisor but when he actually worked in the field he ran heavy equipment for half of what he could of gotten with some construction companies, but the benefits at the state made up the difference , in some cases the benefits paid to these workers where to balance out the lack of pay

[red states rule]

So what if he does? He's entitled to his opinion. And in fact you are wrong. The most successful private companies DO offer similar perks to attract the best employees.

Your like the guy who gets mad cuz the Army pays a guy with 10 years in a $50K signing bonus to re up for 8 years (thanks uncle sam I appreciated that) well it was either that, or watch that guy takes his skills to the private sector for money per year.

Where did I say he could not express his opinion

Now you are an HR expert CH?

I am saying the over taxed taxpayers can no longer to fund the perks of government employees. How long do you think this can go one when the people paying the bill (taxpayers) earn LESS then the people who are being paid? (government employees)

Or is that to over the top of a concern CH?

[pegwinn]

I am saying the over taxed taxpayers can no longer to fund the perks of government employees. How long do you think this can go one when the people paying the bill (taxpayers) earn LESS then the people who are being paid? (government employees)

Assuming you are talking about Federal employees then reduction in the physical size of the Government would be a great start.

Even if Ron Paul is elected, the Department of Education won't simply disappear overnight. Instead there will be a transition period. Some of those employees will be leaving then and there. Others might opt for retraining and movement to critical jobs elsewhere. It's not like anyone will suddenly be unemployed.

For the rest of the government there will be a period where jobs are consolidated and non-essential jobs will go unfilled.

Eventually the .gov wold be the right size to actually be of service to the people paying the bills. However, I bet those that remain will be very well compensated. The bottom line is that if you want top notch services you have to put out good pay and allowances.

[ConHog]

Where did I say he could not express his opinion

Now you are an HR expert CH?

I am saying the over taxed taxpayers can no longer to fund the perks of government employees. How long do you think this can go one when the people paying the bill (taxpayers) earn LESS then the people who are being paid? (government employees)

Or is that to over the top of a concern CH?

Please stop with the expert bullshit. I am entitled to posting my OPINION just the same as you are. The fact that you don't like my OPINION does not mean I am claiming to be an expert in anything.

[shattered]

You would not have a conflict of interest on this issue would you? Once again the over taxed (and broke) taxpayer is footing the bill

As I said, this is another example the gravy train government workers are on. Please consider most private sector workers do NOT get all these handouts government workers are getting - which the taxpayers are paying for

I earn 12 hours of sick pay a month, 3 weeks of vacation a year, do not lose any of my sick pay, and can roll 80 hours a year of vacation. I also get 7 paid holidays a year, and have 90 days to take each one..I do not work for the government. Should I lose all of my sick pay and/or vacation simply because I choose not to use it, just in case something drastic happens, knowing that after 7-1/2 years, I can take as much time as I'm likely to need, and still be paid for it?

[jimnyc]

I worked for the state of N.J. years ago you received 15 sick days a year 12 vacation and 3 personal days a year every January first , you had to use the personal days that year , you could carry the vacation days for one year and sick days you could accumulate for as long as you worked there, this may seem like quite a bit of time but the employees there were not paid as much as the private sector, that was one of the benefits that kept good employees working there. of course your employees that weren't worth a flip would use them all by the middle of February , but those where the workers that didn't last to long.

My Dad retired from the state of N.J. with almost enough sick days that he received a extra years pay , he wound up retiring as a regional supervisor but when he actually worked in the field he ran heavy equipment for half of what he could of gotten with some construction companies, but the benefits at the state made up the difference , in some cases the benefits paid to these workers where to balance out the lack of pay

Yep, that was my initial thought when reading this thread. I knew Dad accumulated a lot of sick pay but didn't know it was that much! But I do know he worked there for like 40 damn years, got paid enough to get buy, NEVER ever abused his sick time or any other benefits - but the sick time accrual was part of those benefits. He EARNED them as he KNEW that was part of the package, in addition to his pay.

You make a deal with the "state" when gaining employment, some abuse it and get fired or have no accrued "benefits", others play it smart and use their benefits wisely.

[ConHog]

Yep, that was my initial thought when reading this thread. I knew Dad accumulated a lot of sick pay but didn't know it was that much! But I do know he worked there for like 40 damn years, got paid enough to get buy, NEVER ever abused his sick time or any other benefits - but the sick time accrual was part of those benefits. He EARNED them as he KNEW that was part of the package, in addition to his pay.

You make a deal with the "state" when gaining employment, some abuse it and get fired or have no accrued "benefits", others play it smart and use their benefits wisely.

I've heard this whine before Jim. I've even seen myself and other vets be called leaches for enjoying our retirement benefits. :laugh:

[logroller]

I don't think the roll over should be allowed because these days are meant to offset the financial burden of taking time off, which has been shown to be beneficial to mental and physical health, not a retirement plan or bonus. Not to mention the accounting nightmare and potential for abuse--lets say I work for 20 years, and accumulated 140 days or whatever, when I retire, at what rate am I paid out? One would assume that I am paid higher at twenty years than when I started. That seems wasteful, I say just lump the personal/sick days, with a maximum accumulation of x hours; once you reach the maximum, then you have to take days off, paid of course. Isn't that what these days were meant for--taking time off?

[ConHog]

I don't think the roll over should be allowed because these days are meant to offset the financial burden of taking time off, which has been shown to be beneficial to mental and physical health, not a retirement plan or bonus. Not to mention the accounting nightmare and potential for abuse--lets say I work for 20 years, and accumulated 140 days or whatever, when I retire, at what rate am I paid out? One would assume that I am paid higher at twenty years than when I started. That seems wasteful, I say just lump the personal/sick days, with a maximum accumulation of x hours; once you reach the maximum, then you have to take days off, paid of course. Isn't that what these days were meant for--taking time off?

I do agree with this approach, and think they should not be bought back at full value. I mean the employee is still getting what amounts to a bonus. Thirty minutes pay for every unused hour is more than generous.

[logroller]

I do agree with this approach, and think they should not be bought back at full value. I mean the employee is still getting what amounts to a bonus. Thirty minutes pay for every unused hour is more than generous.

Why buy them back at all? That'd be like going into a store with a coupon for a dollar off and asking for a dollar, or as you purpose, 50 cents. Not the way it works is it? They're 'paid days off'= take a day off, get paid! Seems pretty straight forward.

[shattered]

I don't think the roll over should be allowed because these days are meant to offset the financial burden of taking time off, which has been shown to be beneficial to mental and physical health, not a retirement plan or bonus. Not to mention the accounting nightmare and potential for abuse--lets say I work for 20 years, and accumulated 140 days or whatever, when I retire, at what rate am I paid out? One would assume that I am paid higher at twenty years than when I started. That seems wasteful, I say just lump the personal/sick days, with a maximum accumulation of x hours; once you reach the maximum, then you have to take days off, paid of course. Isn't that what these days were meant for--taking time off?

Why? If one doesn't need to take time off, one shouldn't be forced to take time off, It's bad enough I'm forced to take vacation, or lose it However, one should also be covered should something drastic happen, and they NEED to take time off. If I ever get around to not chickening out, and actually getting my back surgery, I'll be covered in full, and won't lose a dime. Why? Because I chose not to abuse it, and didn't take time off just to take time off.

[logroller]

Yep, that was my initial thought when reading this thread. I knew Dad accumulated a lot of sick pay but didn't know it was that much! But I do know he worked there for like 40 damn years, got paid enough to get buy, NEVER ever abused his sick time or any other benefits - but the sick time accrual was part of those benefits. He EARNED them as he KNEW that was part of the package, in addition to his pay.

You make a deal with the "state" when gaining employment, some abuse it and get fired or have no accrued "benefits", others play it smart and use their benefits wisely.

I get that companies make these deals, but it certainly complicates a rather simple perk. I think there is definitely a benefit to providing people with paid time off, simple as that. Why such things need accrue violates the reasoning for having paid days off to begin with-- mental and physical health. I say he should have taken days off and spent some time with little Jimmy. But I would draw the line at a what I see as abuse when somebody has nearly a full year of sick leave accumulated, that when taken, is paid out at current rates of pay. There are a variety of ways what you purpose could be fairly compensated, such as where x amount of holiday/personal/sick dollars are earned per number of hours worked and paid to the employee at year's end; but when classified as sick or personal, it should be used for THAT purpose only.

[ConHog]

Why buy them back at all? That'd be like going into a store with a coupon for a dollar off and asking for a dollar, or as you purpose, 50 cents. Not the way it works is it? They're 'paid days off'= take a day off, get paid! Seems pretty straight forward.

Why? Here's why. We all know the good workers are going to have days left at the end of the calender year (on average of course) while the shitty workers are the ones who make sure they use all their days. Buying them back at 50% rewards and encourages good workers for not taking days off that they don't need to take off. If I have 6 sick days a year off and am only sick 1 day, why should I not be rewarded for not taking the other 5 days off like the guy who doesn't give a shit did?

[logroller]

[b]

Why? If one doesn't need to take time off, one shouldn't be forced to take time off, It's bad enough I'm forced to take vacation, or lose it However, one should also be covered should something drastic happen, and they NEED to take time off. If I ever get around to not chickening out, and actually getting my back surgery, I'll be covered in full, and won't lose a dime. Why? Because I chose not to abuse it, and didn't take time off just to take time off.

I get what you're saying; but why not just have a stipend for days off? You get paid out every year, and you can invest that for a rainy day. That works too, right?

As to abuse, taking time off isn't abuse. Its been shown to be beneficial to mental and physical health, and in turn, job satisfaction and productivity.

What I see as abusive, is when people accumulate 250 days off paid which they take at retirement. Which seems benign, only those days are paid out at higher rates than they were accumulated at. Its a quasi investment, only at wage earnings rates. Like a said, its an accounting nightmare, prone to abuse and I say 'no' to loopholes.:laugh:

[logroller]

Why? Here's why. We all know the good workers are going to have days left at the end of the calender year (on average of course) while the shitty workers are the ones who make sure they use all their days. Buying them back at 50% rewards and encourages good workers for not taking days off that they don't need to take off. If I have 6 sick days a year off and am only sick 1 day, why should I not be rewarded for not taking the other 5 days off like the guy who doesn't give a shit did?

I didn't know that. Perhaps, its not true.:poke:

[ConHog]

I get what you're saying; but why not just have a stipend for days off? You get paid out every year, and you can invest that for a rainy day. That works too, right?

As to abuse, taking time off isn't abuse. Its been shown to be beneficial to mental and physical health, and in turn, job satisfaction and productivity.

What I see as abusive, is when people accumulate 250 days off paid which they take at retirement. Which seems benign, only those days are paid out at higher rates than they were accumulated at. Its a quasi investment, only at wage earnings rates. Like a said, its an accounting nightmare, prone to abuse and I say 'no' to loopholes.:laugh:

At the number of days you're talking about I agree. One calender year . Use them in one year, or have them bought back at 50% IMO.

[logroller]

At the number of days you're talking about I agree. One calender year . Use them in one year, or have them bought back at 50% IMO.

How's that fair to the "good workers" who don't use their days?

[ConHog]

I didn't know that. Perhaps, its not true.:poke:

So it doesn't make sense that the best employees don't abuse sick days?

[jimnyc]

I get that companies make these deals, but it certainly complicates a rather simple perk. I think there is definitely a benefit to providing people with paid time off, simple as that. Why such things need accrue violates the reasoning for having paid days off to begin with-- mental and physical health. I say he should have taken days off and spent some time with little Jimmy. But I would draw the line at a what I see as abuse when somebody has nearly a full year of sick leave accumulated, that when taken, is paid out at current rates of pay. There are a variety of ways what you purpose could be fairly compensated, such as where x amount of holiday/personal/sick dollars are earned per number of hours worked and paid to the employee at year's end; but when classified as sick or personal, it should be used for THAT purpose only.

I'll have to call and ask my Dad how it's paid out and at what rate. But I'm sure these "benefits" were spelled out in the State benefits plan, whether they pay at the rate he retired or the rate when hired. You know this information going in and it's how each employee handles it. If you get a crappy pay, but the state benefit plan states you get 70% of the current rate upon retirement - then that's a "contract", and each employee will determine how they use these days. But if you don't get paid a great deal, and you get a good benefits package, that's part of the deal. You take this away from potential candidates and they'll want a much higher rate/salary that will even things out mostly anyway.

As for the bolded portion - no employee, whether state or private, should be using sick days as personal time (I did!). My Dad had a great benefits package with the state, including awesome medical... His vacation time increased with the years and he was a very honest employee, so he took a lot of vacation but didn't abuse sick time. Then according to the benefit plan in which he paid into and agreed to "buy", he accrued sick time by not abusing it, and was paid well for not doing so. The "state" shouldn't make such benefits available and pay their workers thousands and thousands more per year. It's about "appearance" to people like us, outside of that it's simply an employee who got paid lower than the private sector for 4 decades and then got a great buyout and retirement for his years of loyalty and honesty.

[logroller]

So it doesn't make sense that the best employees don't abuse sick days?

Using sick days doesn't constitute abuse.

[ConHog]

Using sick days doesn't constitute abuse.

Using sick days when you aren't sick does. At least IMO.

[gabosaurus]

It's called integrity. The sick days are made available for the times they are too sick to go to work, not for supplemental vacation days. I don't get any sick days where I work. I do however earn paid time off at a generous rate. If I have to call out sick, the time out is deducted from my PTO.

Sick days are offered to public school employees to keep them from coming to school and possibly spreading illnesses to kids. The idea that sick days and vacation days can be turned into cash is beyond me. In both my job and my husband's job, any absence of more than one day consecutively requires a doctor's note. My husband works a high stress job where employees are required to take their vacation time. Which I think is a good thing.

[logroller]

I'll have to call and ask my Dad how it's paid out and at what rate. But I'm sure these "benefits" were spelled out in the State benefits plan, whether they pay at the rate he retired or the rate when hired. You know this information going in and it's how each employee handles it. If you get a crappy pay, but the state benefit plan states you get 70% of the current rate upon retirement - then that's a "contract", and each employee will determine how they use these days. But if you don't get paid a great deal, and you get a good benefits package, that's part of the deal. You take this away from potential candidates and they'll want a much higher rate/salary that will even things out mostly anyway.

As for the bolded portion - no employee, whether state or private, should be using sick days as personal time (I did!). My Dad had a great benefits package with the state, including awesome medical... His vacation time increased with the years and he was a very honest employee, so he took a lot of vacation but didn't abuse sick time. Then according to the benefit plan in which he paid into and agreed to "buy", he accrued sick time by not abusing it, and was paid well for not doing so. The "state" shouldn't make such benefits available and pay their workers thousands and thousands more per year. It's about "appearance" to people like us, outside of that it's simply an employee who got paid lower than the private sector for 4 decades and then got a great buyout and retirement for his years of loyalty and honesty.

I've seen it set up a lot of different ways. But what I think everybody can agree upon, is some allowance for paid time off is beneficial. What I have an issue with how easily abused the system can become. I don't think such things need be policed, that just becomes an additional burden; so it becomes necessary to put free market fixes in place which put the onus upon the employee. The operators union local here has a pretty good system IMO. They get x amount of vacation, holiday, and sick pay, paid out in one lump sum. Bam, there you go; you take 6 days off, OK; You take 50 days off, well that's OK too. You still get the same regardless, and those who want to work and earn more are free to do so without having to subsidize the guy who gets sick...perhaps of work.

WOW to the emboldened Jim. I would disagree, not that it isn't, but that it shouldn't be. I mean, to me, it seems reasonable that workers, even public, deserve time off.

[ConHog]

Sick days are offered to public school employees to keep them from coming to school and possibly spreading illnesses to kids. The idea that sick days and vacation days can be turned into cash is beyond me. In both my job and my husband's job, any absence of more than one day consecutively requires a doctor's note. My husband works a high stress job where employees are required to take their vacation time. Which I think is a good thing.

My brother's boss requires all his employees to take their vacation time as well. Right down to the lowest guy on the ladder.

[logroller]

Using sick days when you aren't sick does. At least IMO.

In your opinion, what is sick? It varies by person. Some people considerate mental health to be justified for taking a sick day. Others still, work through colds or sore muscles, maybe the occasional hangover. To say one person is abusing the sick days, while another is not, becomes rather subjective. There are exceptions for serious illness, with legal protection through FMLA, but by and large, people who abuse sick days should be fired. If you don't, good on you, your job is probably secure. But the motivation for not taking sick days shouldn't be some big payday; it should be having a job. If sick pay is a perk, then it should be divested, not invested. Same goes for health insurance IMO, give me the money and let me invest it where I see fit.

[jimnyc]

I've seen it set up a lot of different ways. But what I think everybody can agree upon, is some allowance for paid time off is beneficial. What I have an issue with how easily abused the system can become. I don't think such things need be policed, that just becomes an additional burden; so it becomes necessary to put free market fixes in place which put the onus upon the employee. The operators union local here has a pretty good system IMO. They get x amount of vacation, holiday, and sick pay, paid out in one lump sum. Bam, there you go; you take 6 days off, OK; You take 50 days off, well that's OK too. You still get the same regardless, and those who want to work and earn more are free to do so without having to subsidize the guy who gets sick...perhaps of work.

WOW to the emboldened Jim. I would disagree, not that it isn't, but that it shouldn't be. I mean, to me, it seems reasonable that workers, even public, deserve time off.

I'm unsure what you're "wowed" by? People bitch about the payouts because of the appearance of the one lump sum, that they don't deserve it... When someone calls in sick, they are being paid to stay home, as per their benefits plan. When someone gets paid out for unused sick days, they are getting paid for that day, as per the benefits plan. Both employees are being "paid" for these sick days allotted to them. People like my father will be paid for these days at a lesser rate on the dollar since it's a lump sum payment, I'll guarantee you that. But the employee who uses his sick time year in and year out, are getting paid their actual wages when they do so.

I would also like to add that state/government jobs are generally paid much less than private sector jobs, and most of those state employed will tell you that the main perks are the benefits packages. I'm unsure why many take such a stance against those reserving their days. Let's assume this on a 2 year basis and 10 sick days per year. The employee who uses all 20 days, and gets paid for those days at a rate of 30k per year figured out to the hourly rate. The employee who saves the days, will cash out the days at a reserved and lower rate. The cost "to the state" is lower to those who don't use the sick days.

[gabosaurus]

How's that fair to the "good workers" who don't use their days?

How does not getting sick make you a better worker?
First of all, adults with small children are more likely to get sick. Also, some people have better immune systems than others.
I'm not in favor of "mental health days," or deciding that you just don't want to go to work. That constitutes abuse to me.

[jimnyc]

Here's my issue with not offering such a package to people like my Dad who worked for the state... If you tell them "use them or lose them" - they will do just that, use them. If you won't pay me down the road for what I accrued as part of my benefits package, the majority of people will likely find ways to use these days. Now the state just paid more for these sick days than they would have if they allowed them to get paid out at a reduced rate as per the benefits plan. And don't anyone kid yourself by saying that most people won't use these days if they disappear at some point.

[darin]

You would not have a conflict of interest on this issue would you? Once again the over taxed (and broke) taxpayer is footing the bill

As I said, this is another example the gravy train government workers are on. Please consider most private sector workers do NOT get all these handouts government workers are getting - which the taxpayers are paying for

Of course I don't. I have common sense. Accrued sick leave is commonplace. Most private sector workers also get paid more, AND deal with far less bullshit than do Gov't workers. It's called civil SERVICE for a reason. Last job you had, did you have to take an oath?

This whole issue is like attacking the smallest enemy and claiming victory. It's like attacking 1 terrorist, killing him, and proclaiming you won the war. Want to stop paying taxes without regard to return-on-investment? There are MUCH larger fish to fry than gov't employees.

Here's what may make you happy: Everyone PAY THE STATE for the privilege of working. That'll do, right? I mean, I could start writing checks to the Feds for the pure joy of having a job! If that's unreasonable, continue in your witch hunt to make gov't employment as least-attractive an option as possible. We should pay only slugs and incompetents to work for our Gov't, right?

After 15 years full-time employment with the feds, and after 19+ years working for, in, around the feds, I get 13 days of sick leave per year, but not given up-front. I (gasp) earn them. If I get injured on the job, and have to use sick leave, I have to BUY BACK the sick leave from the Feds, based on workman's comp, (etc?) at only about 66% value. So, when I faced renal failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhabdomyolysis) from a reaction to a job required-immunization, I could have filed to have the two weeks (I was in the hospital) returned; but only 2/3rd of what it cost. Swimming deal, eh? Millions of government employees have given more - just last week- to secure the blessings of liberty to this nation than some of you have in a lifetime. Doesn't stop you from bitchin about them, I guess. Sucks people are suffering; some aren't happy unless EVERYONE suffers the same.

[jimnyc]

Of course I don't. I have common sense. Accrued sick leave is commonplace. Most private sector workers also get paid more, AND deal with far less bullshit than do Gov't workers. It's called civil SERVICE for a reason. Last job you had, did you have to take an oath?

This whole issue is like attacking the smallest enemy and claiming victory. It's like attacking 1 terrorist, killing him, and proclaiming you won the war. Want to stop paying taxes without regard to return-on-investment? There are MUCH larger fish to fry than gov't employees.

As you've said in the past - "word" :thumb:

[logroller]

I'm unsure what you're "wowed" by? People bitch about the payouts because of the appearance of the one lump sum, that they don't deserve it... When someone calls in sick, they are being paid to stay home, as per their benefits plan. When someone gets paid out for unused sick days, they are getting paid for that day, as per the benefits plan. Both employees are being "paid" for these sick days allotted to them. People like my father will be paid for these days at a lesser rate on the dollar since it's a lump sum payment, I'll guarantee you that. But the employee who uses his sick time year in and year out, are getting paid their actual wages when they do so.

I would also like to add that state/government jobs are generally paid much less than private sector jobs, and most of those state employed will tell you that the main perks are the benefits packages. I'm unsure why many take such a stance against those reserving their days. Let's assume this on a 2 year basis and 10 sick days per year. The employee who uses all 20 days, and gets paid for those days at a rate of 30k per year figured out to the hourly rate. The employee who saves the days, will cash out the days at a reserved and lower rate. The cost "to the state" is lower to those who don't use the sick days.

I misunderstood you, I thought you were promoting the 'appearance' justification, rather than simply stating it. Anyways though. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, I just don't see a reason why such things need to accrue. It seems to me such benefits should be paid out yearly, as that's how they are awarded. Regardless, these payouts need to be guaranteed, meaning money needs to be there to cover the days, whether or not, as you've said, they offer some discounted rate. What I've seen happen is some new contract comes into effect and things change-- guess where they get the money to cover new benefits? It just seems like it would be far simpler to divest those monies of the public trust and settle up, pay go.

In addition, as per perks of public jobs, public jobs are far more secure than private ones. Also, public employees don't pay into SSI. Both are significant perks IMHO.

[logroller]

How does not getting sick make you a better worker?
First of all, adults with small children are more likely to get sick. Also, some people have better immune systems than others.
I'm not in favor of "mental health days," or deciding that you just don't want to go to work. That constitutes abuse to me.

See CH's definition of "good workers"

Obviously you've never worked with somebody who is such an emotional wreck they should be committed...there's an expression about knowing who the village idiot is...if you don't know, it's you!:laugh2:

[ConHog]

See CH's definition of "good workers"

Obviously you've never worked with somebody who is such an emotional wreck they should be committed...there's an expression about knowing who the village idiot is...if you don't know, it's you!:laugh2:

Your definition of good worker appears to be " a worker who gives up benefits that he had been given previously"

[gabosaurus]

I don't believe in accrued sick days. Because if you build up enough, workers start treating them like vacation days. In some occupations (don't know if civil service is among them), employers are not allowed to question why employees use sick days. Which shifts the burden of production on to those who actually do get sick.
Use sick days if you need them. But no one should be able to treat them like normal days off.

[pegwinn]

I don't believe in accrued sick days. Because if you build up enough, workers start treating them like vacation days. In some occupations (don't know if civil service is among them), employers are not allowed to question why employees use sick days. Which shifts the burden of production on to those who actually do get sick.
Use sick days if you need them. But no one should be able to treat them like normal days off.
Since I started working for civilians, both private and public sector, I found a truism.



The average employee will only be productive enough to keep the boss from firing him. The boss will only pay enough to keep that 'hard workin' employee from actually walking off the job.


Personally now that I'm working for the state I think they complicate it with all the different categories of leave. But, all those categories of leave are meant to keep placating you. As long as you substitute bennies for bux, you are a great deal for the taxpayers.

[Jeff]

I get that companies make these deals, but it certainly complicates a rather simple perk. I think there is definitely a benefit to providing people with paid time off, simple as that. Why such things need accrue violates the reasoning for having paid days off to begin with-- mental and physical health. I say he should have taken days off and spent some time with little Jimmy. But I would draw the line at a what I see as abuse when somebody has nearly a full year of sick leave accumulated, that when taken, is paid out at current rates of pay. There are a variety of ways what you purpose could be fairly compensated, such as where x amount of holiday/personal/sick dollars are earned per number of hours worked and paid to the employee at year's end; but when classified as sick or personal, it should be used for THAT purpose only.

logroller I actually spoke to my Dad today, I posted what I thought but in actuality he had around 400 days accumulated when he retired and at the time of his retirement the deal was they would pay you for half of your days up to $15000 , so by not using them he lost a lot of money but had piece of mind that god forbid a lengthy illness he could still feed his family. so the state made out by him not taking time off he had piece of mind and a little bonus when he retired

AS for spending time with little Jimmy he had personal and vacation time for that :laugh:

[Jeff]

How does not getting sick make you a better worker?
First of all, adults with small children are more likely to get sick. Also, some people have better immune systems than others.
I'm not in favor of "mental health days," or deciding that you just don't want to go to work. That constitutes abuse to me.


I agree with ya Gabby but when one talks of abusing sick time it isn't the Mom or Dad that is truly sick it was the guy that got paid on Thursday and spent his entire check on crack and called out every Friday and Monday of the weeks they where paid, sick time is given so you may still collect a pay check when you are sick, many abused it buy using it as vacation time and or personal time, the way you said both yours and your husbands job requires a Doctors note if you are out 2 consecutive days that would of fixed the issue of abuse at the state job I worked but then ya had those folks that said they weren't going to pay a Doctors bill for a cold, see my point here it was a no win situation with some

But as I stated in my last post if you accumulated them and they paid you for half up to a certain amount everyone wins that way

[pegwinn]

There is one guy at work that will tell you up front that he will use every hour that he is entitled to. At his paygrade he gets 8 hours of each vacation and sick leave per month. So as far as he is concerned his real pay is xx.xx + about half and hour of time. Since Texas is a right to work state, we are reminded that any day can be your last day (for any or no reason at all). As far as he's concerned if you don't have a way to bank it at full value, then you better use em as you get them.

So, the question I am posing is: Does the above change your opinion if the gov employee is an at-will employee?

[Jeff]

There is one guy at work that will tell you up front that he will use every hour that he is entitled to. At his paygrade he gets 8 hours of each vacation and sick leave per month. So as far as he is concerned his real pay is xx.xx + about half and hour of time. Since Texas is a right to work state, we are reminded that any day can be your last day (for any or no reason at all). As far as he's concerned if you don't have a way to bank it at full value, then you better use em as you get them.

So, the question I am posing is: Does the above change your opinion if the gov employee is an at-will employee?

Honestly myself when I worked for the state in Jersey and had a secure job I used all my sick time due to like Gabby mentioned a sick child I didn't abuse them but used everyone of them traveling with my son to Doctors visits and such, then I moved to S.C. a at will job and I went to work for the state there also, but the pay was a 1/3 of N.J. and benefits , none really to speak of and of course no job security so I lasted about 3 months there before I moved on, so I can't honestly say what I would do but I feel sure with no security your darn right I would use them :laugh:

[ConHog]

Honestly myself when I worked for the state in Jersey and had a secure job I used all my sick time due to like Gabby mentioned a sick child I didn't abuse them but used everyone of them traveling with my son to Doctors visits and such, then I moved to S.C. a at will job and I went to work for the state there also, but the pay was a 1/3 of N.J. and benefits , none really to speak of and of course no job security so I lasted about 3 months there before I moved on, so I can't honestly say what I would do but I feel sure with no security your darn right I would use them :laugh:

The issue of course is that many start to believe they are entitled to benefits. if a company is gracious enough to pay you for time you're sick you're not really entitled to use those days if you aren't sick, but that's how many think of it.

[Jeff]

The issue of course is that many start to believe they are entitled to benefits. if a company is gracious enough to pay you for time you're sick you're not really entitled to use those days if you aren't sick, but that's how many think of it.


I agree that's what I call abusing them, if a employee only gets sick on Mondays and/or Fridays chances are they are abusing them, but as I stated I used mine due to my son having serious health issues and that's what they are for and my Dad was lucky enough to save his and have them in the bank in case of a tragedy but I do believe he was entitled to his lump some of being paid for half up to a certain amount

Like I stated earlier in this thread state workers are paid less then private sector employees so the benefits where the selling point to work there and as long as the contract ( offer made at time of employment ) offered the time and offered to pay half of any saved I still feel both the state and the employee (my Dad) made out great , but yes your right whether the company is gracious enough or it is part of a job offer you shouldn't be taken off if your not sick but unless there is a pattern there is no way to tell if ppl are abusing, as stated by a few others different ppl can work threw different illnesses

Now if it was a company that said I had to use them, yes I would use them, I have went to work many times where I probably should of stayed home and rested so yea if I had to take them I would

[ConHog]

I agree that's what I call abusing them, if a employee only gets sick on Mondays and/or Fridays chances are they are abusing them, but as I stated I used mine due to my son having serious health issues and that's what they are for and my Dad was lucky enough to save his and have them in the bank in case of a tragedy but I do believe he was entitled to his lump some of being paid for half up to a certain amount

Like I stated earlier in this thread state workers are paid less then private sector employees so the benefits where the selling point to work there and as long as the contract ( offer made at time of employment ) offered the time and offered to pay half of any saved I still feel both the state and the employee (my Dad) made out great , but yes your right whether the company is gracious enough or it is part of a job offer you shouldn't be taken off if your not sick but unless there is a pattern there is no way to tell if ppl are abusing, as stated by a few others different ppl can work threw different illnesses

Now if it was a company that said I had to use them, yes I would use them, I have went to work many times where I probably should of stayed home and rested so yea if I had to take them I would

I wouldn't consider taking sick days to care for a sick child to be abusing anything. Might be just me though.

[logroller]

... I could have filed to have the two weeks (I was in the hospital) returned; but only 2/3rd of what it cost. Swimming deal, eh? ...

Legitimate beef DMP, but using sick leave for work related injuries is commonplace in the private sector as well.


Since I started working for civilians, both private and public sector, I found a truism.




Personally now that I'm working for the state I think they complicate it with all the different categories of leave. But, all those categories of leave are meant to keep placating you. As long as you substitute bennies for bux, you are a great deal for the taxpayers.

I think your truism was an extension of peter principle,no?


Your definition of good worker appears to be " a worker who gives up benefits that he had been given previously"

I never stated or even alluded to what i thought a good worker was; but since you're beset on putting words in mouth, allow me to speak for myself. To me, a good worker is someone who shows up ready to work and does so. You can't work, don't show up. I'd appreciate a little notice, but do the best you can. Whatever benefits or wages which are negotiated have zilch to do with whether someone is actually a good worker, but rather what is expected from the employer as compensation for what is expected of the employee's time and commitment.

All this talk about peace of mind and gracious employers is rubbish to me. I've been on both sides of the fence, employer and employee, and maybe there are those who like others taking care of them, but I prefer to be control of my own finances. I like working and expect to be compensated for my time and expertise. If, in the unfortunate event i need to take time off, I have a safety net in place that has nothing to do with what my employer has promised me, but rather what I earned, saved and invested. Maybe that's not for everybody, but how many people have actually had the opportunity to be compensated fully for their benefits? My wife's medical benefits alone cost the State of CA $14000 per year. That's a pretty healthy outlay which is nontaxable, over 30% of her net income. Hey sweet deal for us, but that's a huge loophole as far as taxable compensation goes and who knows what else I might find which offers the same level of service for less money, and I could keep the remainder, save and invest it, for unforeseen circumstance. If one day they said, "Here's $14000, buy your own insurance", I'd support that because that puts me in the driver's seat. It doesn't mean I've given up my benefits, far from it CH, I've gained the choice as to what is most beneficial.

[darin]

Legitimate beef DMP, but using sick leave for work related injuries is commonplace in the private sector as well.


It's terrible. Work-related injuries shouldn't be deducted from sick-leave accounts; that's part of my point.

http://theislamicstandard.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ied3.jpg

See that folks? That's designed and built and shipped and repaired by Civilian employees.

[ConHog]

It's terrible. Work-related injuries shouldn't be deducted from sick-leave accounts; that's part of my point.

http://theislamicstandard.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ied3.jpg

See that folks? That's designed and built and shipped and repaired by Civilian employees.

You ever watch one of those shows where they show em building those things? Pretty cool really.

Or maybe I'm just easily entertained.

[darin]

I get to see design phase first-hand. Mules everywhere around here.

[jimnyc]

logroller I actually spoke to my Dad today, I posted what I thought but in actuality he had around 400 days accumulated when he retired and at the time of his retirement the deal was they would pay you for half of your days up to $15000 , so by not using them he lost a lot of money but had piece of mind that god forbid a lengthy illness he could still feed his family. so the state made out by him not taking time off he had piece of mind and a little bonus when he retired

AS for spending time with little Jimmy he had personal and vacation time for that :laugh:

Damn, Dad saved FOUR HUNDRED sick days and they paid out a measly $15k? So much for people bitching about the accumulation!! Dad got robbed! LOL

[logroller]

It's terrible. Work-related injuries shouldn't be deducted from sick-leave accounts; that's part of my point.


You'd mentioned the 66%, which is close to the net after top tax rates. hmmmm. I get what you're saying, its just a part of the convoluted tax scheme; which is the problem.

[darin]

You'd mentioned the 66%, which is close to the net after top tax rates. hmmmm. I get what you're saying, its just a part of the convoluted tax scheme; which is the problem.

No, I'm saying if I get hurt at work, I have to take leave first, then am only re-imbursed about 2/3rds of the time it cost me.

[pegwinn]

If you get hurt where I work you get a choice of using up your sick time and vacation at full pay or you can save it all and get workers comp. Workers Comp only pays 80%.

[Abbey Marie]

I misunderstood you, I thought you were promoting the 'appearance' justification, rather than simply stating it. Anyways though. I'm not saying they don't deserve it, I just don't see a reason why such things need to accrue. It seems to me such benefits should be paid out yearly, as that's how they are awarded. Regardless, these payouts need to be guaranteed, meaning money needs to be there to cover the days, whether or not, as you've said, they offer some discounted rate. What I've seen happen is some new contract comes into effect and things change-- guess where they get the money to cover new benefits? It just seems like it would be far simpler to divest those monies of the public trust and settle up, pay go.

In addition, as per perks of public jobs, public jobs are far more secure than private ones. Also, public employees don't pay into SSI. Both are significant perks IMHO.

I didn't know that. That's a pretty big perk.

[jimnyc]

I didn't know that. That's a pretty big perk.

They have a different system. Most federal employees, as well as our politicians, do in fact pay into SSI. State employees, and those not paying into SSI, pay into what is called "PERS" Public Employee Retirement System. So while some may not pay into SSI, they won't be using it either as they utilize an entirely different system. It's different at various levels and different states, but don't believe the hype that public employees get "free" SSI, as it's not true.

[jimnyc]

Here's an example in NJ, what my Dad utilized, and the current setup. I honestly don't know what differences there are between now, and when my Dad started into it, but this is current:

http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pers1.shtml

Additionally, many believe the president and congress get free SSI and don't pay into it - but as of the early 80's this is no longer true, anyone after that pays into it now.

[logroller]

No, I'm saying if I get hurt at work, I have to take leave first, then am only re-imbursed about 2/3rds of the time it cost me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but workers comp, like all entitlements that I'm aware of, is paid into before tax; when paid out, it is non-taxable income. Hence, the deduction. If indeed you must use sick pay first, that is odd (What State are you in?); more commonplace is what pegwinn said...


If you get hurt where I work you get a choice of using up your sick time and vacation at full pay or you can save it all and get workers comp. Workers Comp only pays 80%.
Laws vary by state.

[jimnyc]

I didn't know that. That's a pretty big perk.

Just realized, the SSI is federal and the PERS is state. Federal employees were SSI free until 1983, and anyone employed since then pays into it. Hope that makes sense? LOL

[logroller]

They have a different system. Most federal employees, as well as our politicians, do in fact pay into SSI. State employees, and those not paying into SSI, pay into what is called "PERS" Public Employee Retirement System. So while some may not pay into SSI, they won't be using it either as they utilize an entirely different system. It's different at various levels and different states, but don't believe the hype that public employees get "free" SSI, as it's not true.

An alternate system to SSI is nice though. There's PERS, and also STRS (State Teachers Retirement System). Benefits are way better, and its solvent!

[jimnyc]

An alternate system to SSI is nice though. There's PERS, and also STRS (State Teachers Retirement System). Benefits are way better, and its solvent!

Yep, my Dad may have only made $15k off of the sick days, but I know he brags to me often about how he gets to live well off of his pension. I think the old goat makes more now than he did when he was working!!

[Abbey Marie]

It's terrible. Work-related injuries shouldn't be deducted from sick-leave accounts; that's part of my point.

http://theislamicstandard.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ied3.jpg

See that folks? That's designed and built and shipped and repaired by Civilian employees.

I think Christie is thinking more DMV-folks than the people involved with delivering this.

[darin]

I get it, Abbey; What spawns from Christie's speak, however, is general hatred, disdain, and wont-rest-until-they-SUFFER attitudes with all in the public sector. Freeze our pay? SURE! Let's do it! Even if there are NO 'real' savings. Nobody's tax bill gets lighter because the Gov't makes political statements with policy regarding public employees.

[Abbey Marie]

I get it, Abbey; What spawns from Christie's speak, however, is general hatred, disdain, and wont-rest-until-they-SUFFER attitudes with all in the public sector. Freeze our pay? SURE! Let's do it! Even if there are NO 'real' savings. Nobody's tax bill gets lighter because the Gov't makes political statements with policy regarding public employees.

I think there is truth in what you say.

It's unfortunate that the face of gov't employees that most of us see tend to be the ones who sleepwalk through their jobs and/or have bad attitudes. If you go into any gov't office building in Philadelphia that deals with the public, it's not generally a pleasant experience. These tend to be State offices, though.

At your level, I'm sure it's a whole different thing.

[ConHog]

I get it, Abbey; What spawns from Christie's speak, however, is general hatred, disdain, and wont-rest-until-they-SUFFER attitudes with all in the public sector. Freeze our pay? SURE! Let's do it! Even if there are NO 'real' savings. Nobody's tax bill gets lighter because the Gov't makes political statements with policy regarding public employees.

Do you mean sort of like "fuck the goddamn police (which includes ANYONE with a badge) all they want to do is violate people's rights" when in fact most are just doing their best to do their jobs?

[logroller]

Yep, my Dad may have only made $15k off of the sick days, but I know he brags to me often about how he gets to live well off of his pension. I think the old goat makes more now than he did when he was working!!

I hate to add insult to injury, but of that $15k, how much was withheld for taxes? I'd guess almost half. My Brother in law retired from the Highway Patrol as a captain after 20 or 30 years, got paid out something outrageous,iirc, like $90k on top of his $120+k salary, putting him into another tax bracket with AMT and what not; once he calculated taxes, he ended up paying something $95k in tax. I don't know, the whole payout thing seems bogus, I'd rather have it at year end, where its more easily sheltered. Anytime govt, or anybody else for that matter, keeps track of your money you get shafted.

[Jeff]

Damn, Dad saved FOUR HUNDRED sick days and they paid out a measly $15k? So much for people bitching about the accumulation!! Dad got robbed! LOL

I would say so , but then again he had piece of mind back then with all those days saved and heck whats he been retired like 20 plus years so I guess the 15 grand wasn't all that bad back then

[fj1200]

I get it, Abbey; What spawns from Christie's speak, however, is general hatred, disdain, and wont-rest-until-they-SUFFER attitudes with all in the public sector. Freeze our pay? SURE! Let's do it! Even if there are NO 'real' savings. Nobody's tax bill gets lighter because the Gov't makes political statements with policy regarding public employees.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Christie was railing against a new perk for state employees was he not? There is also a backlash against the government sector never being "downsized" while the private sector is subject to downturns in the economy.

[gabosaurus]

I am fairly appalled at the concept of placing a cash value on sick days. In my opinion, sick days should have no cash value. They shouldn't be treated as vacation or personal days. Sick days should not accumulate and certainly should not entitle the bearer to a lump sum payout.
I certainly would not want someone in my workplace to come to work sick just because they don't want to use sick days.
If a large portion of the civil service work force cashes in sick days, how much does that cost the government? I would like an answer from someone who complains that the government wastes too much money.

[ConHog]

I am fairly appalled at the concept of placing a cash value on sick days. In my opinion, sick days should have no cash value. They shouldn't be treated as vacation or personal days. Sick days should not accumulate and certainly should not entitle the bearer to a lump sum payout.
I certainly would not want someone in my workplace to come to work sick just because they don't want to use sick days.
If a large portion of the civil service work force cashes in sick days, how much does that cost the government? I would like an answer from someone who complains that the government wastes too much money.

Perhaps a better solution would be to not provide a set number of sick days instead telling employees that if they are sick enough to see a dr that wages will be paid, no doctor's note, no pay, and if at any time an employer feels an employee has too many unexcused absences from work they can be terminated.

[gabosaurus]

Perhaps a better solution would be to not provide a set number of sick days instead telling employees that if they are sick enough to see a dr that wages will be paid, no doctor's note, no pay, and if at any time an employer feels an employee has too many unexcused absences from work they can be terminated.

Dang, I've been agreeing with you a lot lately. I hope this doesn't mean I'm becoming a Republican. :eek:

[jimnyc]

I am fairly appalled at the concept of placing a cash value on sick days. In my opinion, sick days should have no cash value. They shouldn't be treated as vacation or personal days. Sick days should not accumulate and certainly should not entitle the bearer to a lump sum payout.

And I guarantee you that you will lose a TON of employees wanting to work for the government without the benefits, they will just demand a higher salary to make up for the loss in potential benefits. AND, I'll also guarantee that if you tell employees they lose all of their sick days at years end if they don't use them, they will use them. Now you're paying someone to sit at home, and paying a temp to do his job, or having the workload suffer as a result of the "sick" person not being there. You guys need to understand that state employees get paid crappy, and the main bargaining chip that the state has is the awesome benefits. The minute you chop away at them, you have the salaries going up and the potential applicants going down.

[pegwinn]

Perhaps a better solution would be to not provide a set number of sick days instead telling employees that if they are sick enough to see a dr that wages will be paid, no doctor's note, no pay, and if at any time an employer feels an employee has too many unexcused absences from work they can be terminated.

Interesting I keep coming back to this thread. At my job even though we get paid sick days separate from paid vacation they will write you up if you establish a pattern of abusing the system.

If you consistently take the last friday of the month off every month for example by calling in sick.

Even though we are right to work, Texas as an employer rarely exercises that part of the law. But, they make dang sure you are well aware of the "any reason or no reason" clause.

[Abbey Marie]

How about reimbursement at full pay for allotted sick days taken with a doctor's note, and zero reimbursement for sick days not taken? This way people will only take sick days when they are actually sick, won't use them when they are not, and will stop stockpiling them for an unintended payout down the line. The state/feds won't have to use taxpayer money to pay people for unused sick days, and sick days will only be used for the important purpose they were intended.

[ConHog]

And I guarantee you that you will lose a TON of employees wanting to work for the government without the benefits, they will just demand a higher salary to make up for the loss in potential benefits. AND, I'll also guarantee that if you tell employees they lose all of their sick days at years end if they don't use them, they will use them. Now you're paying someone to sit at home, and paying a temp to do his job, or having the workload suffer as a result of the "sick" person not being there. You guys need to understand that state employees get paid crappy, and the main bargaining chip that the state has is the awesome benefits. The minute you chop away at them, you have the salaries going up and the potential applicants going down.

Jim, surely you admit that a system that lets a person accrue over a year's worth of sick days is pretty silly.

[ConHog]

Dang, I've been agreeing with you a lot lately. I hope this doesn't mean I'm becoming a Republican. :eek:

No, it means you are sane and understand that not everything is black/white , left/white. AKA a middle roader, you know that group of people who has for too long been letting the whack jobs from the far end of either side of the political spectrum dictate the agenda.

[jimnyc]

Jim, surely you admit that a system that lets a person accrue over a year's worth of sick days is pretty silly.

Compared to a system that allows people to use the sick days and get paid for them immediately? And the state pays LESS to those who accrued and cashed out - hence the taxpayers bill is lower. Not that silly to me.

[ConHog]

Compared to a system that allows people to use the sick days and get paid for them immediately? And the state pays LESS to those who accrued and cashed out - hence the taxpayers bill is lower. Not that silly to me.

No offense, but you sound like my wife trying to justify buying things onsale simply because they were on sale by saying she's saved us money. No matter how many times I explain to her that since she NEVER would have spent $100 on a pair of leapord skin boots, we didn't save $50 when she buys them at $50, we in fact lost $100.

[jimnyc]

No offense, but you sound like my wife trying to justify buying things onsale simply because they were on sale by saying she's saved us money. No matter how many times I explain to her that since she NEVER would have spent $100 on a pair of leapord skin boots, we didn't save $50 when she buys them at $50, we in fact lost $100.

Do you think that if someone calls in sick that the work they are getting paid for just magically gets done?

Where my Dad worked, the NJ DOT, let's look at a typical night of snow work. You have 20 trucks that need to be out on the road, and my Dad as the supervisor. Someone calls in sick that day. He gets paid, and now the State has to bring in another employee to cover the now empty truck. 2 guys getting paid for the going wage. Those getting a payout down the road instead will cost about 25% of what the state pays in the other scenario.

[ConHog]

Do you think that if someone calls in sick that the work they are getting paid for just magically gets done?

Where my Dad worked, the NJ DOT, let's look at a typical night of snow work. You have 20 trucks that need to be out on the road, and my Dad as the supervisor. Someone calls in sick that day. He gets paid, and now the State has to bring in another employee to cover the now empty truck. 2 guys getting paid for the going wage. Those getting a payout down the road instead will cost about 25% of what the state pays in the other scenario.

Of course Jim, but when we're talking about 400 hours we're talking about 50 sick days, almost 2 months. How many years does it take to accumulate that much time? Let's say we allow to accumulate for 2 years then either bought back of they expire, doesn't that sound more reasonable?

[jimnyc]

Of course Jim, but when we're talking about 400 hours we're talking about 50 sick days, almost 2 months. How many years does it take to accumulate that much time? Let's say we allow to accumulate for 2 years then either bought back of they expire, doesn't that sound more reasonable?

My Dad worked there for about 40 years. And I have no problem with your scenario, but they'll then pay about 50% of the sick days every 2 years, which in the long run will cost them a whole helluva lot more than 15k. Even if they paid out yearly, it's still a 50% payout as opposed to 150-200% payout when people call in sick.

[ConHog]

My Dad worked there for about 40 years. And I have no problem with your scenario, but they'll then pay about 50% of the sick days every 2 years, which in the long run will cost them a whole helluva lot more than 15k. Even if they paid out yearly, it's still a 50% payout as opposed to 150-200% payout when people call in sick.

I don't think it would be more expensive. I think that far more people would end up using their sick days rather than saving up for some payout if they expired yearly or biannually. And for all the talk about how extra help has to be paid to makeup for when people call in sick, that just isn't true. Let's say an office has 20 people and on average 3 of them call in sick a month (and that sounds pretty high to me) Wouldn't that office just work short handed for those times? I doubt they would hire temporary employees to make up that little bit of slack.

[Kathianne]

While working in parochial schools, personal days, (2) had to 'use or lose,' while sick days, (6) could accumulate. However, while you could use the saved 'en bloc' if faced with a major illness or give some or all to another covered employee who was seriously ill, they didn't have 'cash value' until retirement-thus I lost those when rif'd. Now if I were to return to that diocesan school system, they would be reinstated.

Other than the year my dad died, I never used more than 2 sick days a year. If one accumulated their sick days over a 30 year career, they'd have 1 full school year of sick days.

While this is a debatable policy in a private system where a teacher at most today with a Masters and 20+ years might make close to $40k, in public system where both salaries and other benefits are much higher, not so much. Not on the back of taxpayers who are struggling.

I know of few private employees that can accumulate personal or sick days, it's pretty much a use them or lose them scenario. Some companies may allow for accumulating vacation time, though how many today, I don't know.

[jimnyc]

I don't think it would be more expensive. I think that far more people would end up using their sick days rather than saving up for some payout if they expired yearly or biannually. And for all the talk about how extra help has to be paid to makeup for when people call in sick, that just isn't true. Let's say an office has 20 people and on average 3 of them call in sick a month (and that sounds pretty high to me) Wouldn't that office just work short handed for those times? I doubt they would hire temporary employees to make up that little bit of slack.

Well, I was talking about my Dad and where he worked, and when they go a man down, another man has to come in to cover. And the same goes for anywhere, when someone calls in sick, the person "doing their work" is now obviously NOT doing something else.

Calling in sick is one of the largest wastes in ANY company and any business owner with a fair amount of employees and up will agree. Not the actual sick days, but the days that people just use to utilize them. Even private companies have incentives now to keep this from happening. I worked at the worlds 5th largest law firm in NYC. They gave out $500 bonuses to those who went an entire year with perfect attendance. 40 years at the initial rate would be a tidy little sum, but I imagine this rate will increase in years to come.

When I worked at Cadbury Schweppes, our boss converted our left-over sick days into PTO days so we wouldn't lose them, as per company policy. His reason was that the sick days were hurting the tech department, and allowing the PTO's, which were always scheduled, was much better than having unforeseen days of being short-handed.

Anyway, back to the beginning, and I repeat - if you take away the incentive, watch the sick days skyrocket! Furthermore, watch the line of people trying to get jobs like this, for benefits, drop like lead weights.

[ConHog]

Well, I was talking about my Dad and where he worked, and when they go a man down, another man has to come in to cover. And the same goes for anywhere, when someone calls in sick, the person "doing their work" is now obviously NOT doing something else.

Calling in sick is one of the largest wastes in ANY company and any business owner with a fair amount of employees and up will agree. Not the actual sick days, but the days that people just use to utilize them. Even private companies have incentives now to keep this from happening. I worked at the worlds 5th largest law firm in NYC. They gave out $500 bonuses to those who went an entire year with perfect attendance. 40 years at the initial rate would be a tidy little sum, but I imagine this rate will increase in years to come.

When I worked at Cadbury Schweppes, our boss converted our left-over sick days into PTO days so we wouldn't lose them, as per company policy. His reason was that the sick days were hurting the tech department, and allowing the PTO's, which were always scheduled, was much better than having unforeseen days of being short-handed.

Anyway, back to the beginning, and I repeat - if you take away the incentive, watch the sick days skyrocket! Furthermore, watch the line of people trying to get jobs like this, for benefits, drop like lead weights.

And I'm not suggesting we take away the incentive. I'm suggesting we roll it back to something reasonable.

[jimnyc]

And I'm not suggesting we take away the incentive. I'm suggesting we roll it back to something reasonable.

You don't think $15,000 for 400 Days of sick time is reasonable? Especially now with everything being computerized, it's only a matter of the computer tallying the days and spitting out a number at the end. But if you force it yearly, at say $100 a day for the general 6 days per year - that's $300 per year paid out. Do that 40 times and you have $12,000, without accounting for inflation - which would make it larger than what was paid out. But I have no problem with simply paying them out yearly or every 2 years. I just don't think they should try the "use'em or lose'em" - as they'll surely be used.

[Kathianne]

You don't think $15,000 for 400 Days of sick time is reasonable? Especially now with everything being computerized, it's only a matter of the computer tallying the days and spitting out a number at the end. But if you force it yearly, at say $100 a day for the general 6 days per year - that's $300 per year paid out. Do that 40 times and you have $12,000, without accounting for inflation - which would make it larger than what was paid out. But I have no problem with simply paying them out yearly or every 2 years. I just don't think they should try the "use'em or lose'em" - as they'll surely be used.

Giver personal days and sick days. Make the personal days 'use or lose', but very low number, (some companies call these floating holidays). Make sick days, 'use or lose' but with 5 year cap, if more than 3 days duration, dr's advisory needed. Remember, these are in addition to vacation pay, disability.

[ConHog]

You don't think $15,000 for 400 Days of sick time is reasonable? Especially now with everything being computerized, it's only a matter of the computer tallying the days and spitting out a number at the end. But if you force it yearly, at say $100 a day for the general 6 days per year - that's $300 per year paid out. Do that 40 times and you have $12,000, without accounting for inflation - which would make it larger than what was paid out. But I have no problem with simply paying them out yearly or every 2 years. I just don't think they should try the "use'em or lose'em" - as they'll surely be used.

do I think the dollar per day is reasonable? Sure. But do I think that allowing someone to build up that many hours is unreasonable.

[jimnyc]

Giver personal days and sick days. Make the personal days 'use or lose', but very low number, (some companies call these floating holidays). Make sick days, 'use or lose' but with 5 year cap, if more than 3 days duration, dr's advisory needed. Remember, these are in addition to vacation pay, disability.

I could go with that.

[jimnyc]

do I think the dollar per day is reasonable? Sure. But do I think that allowing someone to build up that many hours is unreasonable.

If you employed a man for 40 years - would you rather he be a man that saved aside 400 days, or one that called in that many times? That's 10 times someone is calling in sick, for 40 years. I'd rather pay out the $15k than employ someone that would use that much time. I know it's not the greatest analogy, but paying out peanuts in the long run looks better to me than rewarding the guy who uses his sick days like they were crack cocaine!

[Kathianne]

The costs of municipal and state employees are unsustainable. A word to the wise, "That which is unsustainable, will not be."

In this case I guess the real blame should go to Philadelphia's ignorant voters.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/philly-councilwoman-will-retire-for-one-day-collect-a-478k-pension-and-return-on-monday/


Philly Councilwoman Will ‘Retire’ for One Day, Collect a $478K Pension, and Return on Monday

Posted on December 29, 2011 at 4:19pm by http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/userphoto/becketadams.thumbnail.jpg Becket Adams (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/author/becketadams)

Philadelphia is known as the city of brotherly love and, apparently, paying out massive pensions to public employees who will continue working for the city.

Marion B. Tasco, who has been described as being “politically savvy,” will retire from her sixth term as councilwoman, collect $478,057, and then be sworn in on Monday to serve her seventh term, Catherine Lucy and Chris Brennan of the Philadelphia Daily News (http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/cityhall/DROP-participants-will-retire-and-return.html?nlid=4085018).
How does she get away with this?


Tasco, along with many of her fellow Council members, is enrolled in Philadelphia’s Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). DROP allows city workers to collect salary and build up pension money during the last four years of their employment, writes Aaron Kase of Philadelphia Weekly (http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/phillynow/2010/08/09/committee-of-seventy-explains-drop-program/).
Naturally, when DROP was originally introduced, it was touted as being “revenue neutral.” It’s been anything but that. SInce its introduction, Philadelphia’s DROP program has cost the city $258 million in extra pension costs over a decade, according to a 2010 Boston College study.
Philadelphia’s Mayor Nutter has tried on numerous occasions to eliminate the DROP program.
“In September, Council voted to override Nutter’s veto of a bill, sponsored by Tasco that would preserve the DROP program, while reducing its cost,” writes Jan Ransom of the Daily. Nutter has vowed to work “tirelessly” to abolish the program.


And his attempts didn’t deter Tasco.


“While many of Tasco’s fellow council members dropped out of the re-election race after controversy broke out over their enrollment in DROP, Tasco stayed in the race and won,” writes Robert Johnson of Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/this-philadelphia-councilwoman-will-collect-a-478k-pension-friday-and-go-back-to-work-monday-2011-12#ixzz1hx7lAJ5u).


That means, come Monday, she will be elected as City Councilwoman for Philadelphia’s Ninth District (http://www.phila.gov/citycouncil/maps/dist9map.html), with all the pay and benefits that come with that position — as well as an additional $478,057...

[red states rule]

Since the Gov is now in re-election mode I wonder if his position on this issue will "evolve"?