2024-11-05 15:09:00
Aligning the public waiting period with the private sector as proposed by the Barnier government is a very obvious measure. And yet it ignores the numerous researches which show that so-called “common sense” is not the solution in this matter. Indeed, the damage from presenteeism must be integrated into the decision.
The introduction of waiting days in the event of sick leave is a political marker. The problem is that the reports available in France on which elected officials and governments rely do not measure all the consequences of waiting days even though there are numerous scientific publications.
At first glance, we can say that the introduction of one or more waiting days allows savings and reduces the number of days of absence due to illness. But such an assessment of achievable savings is particularly summary. The amendment supported by the government proposed in November 2024 to the National Assembly aiming to set the waiting period for civil servants at 3 days thus justifies the measure: “this amendment provides for aligning the waiting period in the public service with the private sector, currently set at three days. This difference today has no credible justification, while the cost of sick leave for civil servants for the State has remained at very high levels in recent years. This measure, in addition to encouraging work and limiting short stoppages, would generate savings of 300 million euros per year according to the IGAS and the IGF.”
Incomplete reports
Or, this report does not attempt to assess the negative effects of the measure. It is the same for the Court of Auditors which quantified in May 2024 the possible savings if we extended the waiting period, this time for all private sector employees (from 3 to 7 days). The negative impacts are not addressed and the magistrates limit themselves to pointing out that the possible savings are estimated “under the assumption of unchanged behavior”.
However, a study carried out by INSEE showed the short-term adjustments of civil servants to the new rules in force between 2012 and 2014 (the waiting day is required). The prevalence of short stops decreases, while the prevalence of long stops increases, neutralizing the expected effect. In national education, a another study of INSEE, however, notes a reduction of 23% in the number of stops and 6% in the number of days. To what extent will behaviors change by going from 1 to 3 days of deficiency?
The impact of caring management
The effects of the waiting day cannot be measured only in the short term. A search carried out in 21 European countries shows that generosity in terms of sick leave is not synonymous with an increase in sick leave. Restrictive policies can ultimately increase absences. This paradox was highlighted in France. In companies that are the most generous in not applying any waiting days, employees “do not have a higher probability of having a break during the year, but have significantly shorter total duration of sick leave » (on average 3 days less).
This apparent paradox can be explained in several ways: employees penalized for short stoppages compensate with longer stoppages, the management of firms applying common law is less benevolent, which generates dissatisfaction, deterioration of working conditions and illness. Finally, employees who come to work sick not only deteriorate their health but also that of others. Their work performance inevitably declines like that of their organization. What costs more in the medium and long term: paying employees to stay at home or encouraging them to work while sick?
The harmful culture of presenteeism
In a working document devoted to the effects of the waiting day within the Ministry of National Education, INSEE raises a question not covered in the document: “individual and collective productivity” or the performance of students with or without a waiting day. This may include performance gains when short-term absences are reduced but also presenteeism. What is the productivity or quality of work of sick agents who are present instead of absent or that of the organizations in which they work? Depending on the country, between 30 and 90% of employees went to work sick at least one day during the year, this is 42% in Europe and 62% in France in 2015 according to the Dares.
Scientific work establishes a correlation between presenteeism and reduced productivity. This is what emerges from a meta-analysis of 109 articles. Not only does productivity decline but also the emotional involvement, commitment and satisfaction of employees. This subject has been widely studied in other countries but very little in France. Moreover, if Dares was interested in the reasons for presenteeism, it did not address its consequences.
In addition, presenteeism can also prove catastrophic in jobs that require good health to avoid serious errors, for example for drive a train or a taxiwork at the hospitalor even be a prison guard. Presenteeism also aggravates the stress of the employees concerned and deteriorates their mental health: they are more depressed and anxious. It deteriorates the climate in work teams as well as sometimes the safety of colleagues.
A still poorly understood impact on health
In his 2023 working paperINSEE looked at another consequence of presenteeism which is the state of health of employees and contagion problems (flu, gastroenteritis). The authors cannot “completely exclude the existence of a short-term effect of the waiting day on health and use of care” but find it negligible. The authors add that “additional data would be necessary to assess the effect of this measure on longer-term health”. Indeed, it is in the long term that the effects on health must be measured. Thus, this study, which covers the period 2007-2019, does not allow us to know what effect maintaining the waiting day would have had on the spread of the pandemic while the health system was under pressure in 2020. During the Covid crisis , waiting days were suspended for everyone for several months to prevent the spread of the coronavirus. Should we then encourage employees to come to work? If the risk of contagion did not exist, why was such a decision taken?
Several scientific publications show that presenteeism deteriorates the state of health of employees due in particular to contagions and unhappiness at work which can depress employees. Presenteeism constitutes a risk factor for disease for employees who practice it.
In the United States, several cities and states have introduced mandatory sick leave compensation in recent years. By reducing presenteeism, this approach is beneficial for firms in terms of labor productivity and profits. A meta-analysis of 42 research studies confirms this performance factor for businesses. Taking care of sick leave generates staff satisfaction, loyalty, reduction in work accidents and contagions, improvement in firm performance.
The issue of attractiveness
Following the IGF and IGAS report of July 2024, the general inspectorate alerted in September 2024 in these terms: “The mission underlines that the measures it proposes to reduce absenteeism and which are based on the levers linked to the remuneration of agents absent for health reasons are intended to be understood by decision-makers with regard to the issues of attractiveness of the public service, acceptability for public agents and equity with the private sector. The report is not more precise on these questions.
The civil service is experiencing a crisis of attractiveness and the level of remuneration is a key element in the recruitment difficulties of a public service in competition with the private sector. The comparative evolution of private and public salaries shows a drop in the public service. And the government this year put an end to the individual purchasing power guarantee which partially compensated for the freezing of the index point. In this context, what will be the impact of waiting days on the reduction in the level of treatment of public officials?
Perceived fairness
The extension of the waiting period is justified by the gap in public-private absences. It’s not that simple.
In their rapportthe IGF and the IGAS show that if we take into account in particular the sex, the age of the people or even their qualification and type of contract then the difference between the number of days of absence from the private sector and from the public service no longer exists for the state civil service and the hospital civil service. It is only for the territorial that the difference remains, although reduced by more than half. We therefore penalize public agents (Hospitals, state) or 2/3 of civil servants who are no more absent than their private sector counterparts. On the other hand, the hunt for short-term absences penalizes all employees, including those who are absent for serious health problems.
In addition, the Minister of the Civil Service announced that he wanted to proceed “as in the private sector”. In reality, 2/3 of private sector employees have their waiting days covered by their employer and this is80% in establishments with more than 250 employees. For a public sector executive, the comparison with his private sector counterpart is enlightening since 82% of private sector executives have no waiting days. The civil service is actually aligning itself with SMEs. However, if the rules are perceived as unfair, staff disengage.
France is definitely late in adopting so-called Evidence-Based Policy Making and Evidence-Based Management approaches.
1730922392
#Aligning #waiting #days #public #service #private #sector #ideological #measure
Unfortunately, it seems that your message was cut off. However, from the content provided, it appears you are exploring the various implications of sick leave policies, specifically the effects of introducing waiting days for sick leave among civil servants in France, referencing various studies and their findings.
**Summary of Key Points:**
1. **Short-term vs. Long-term Impact**: Short-term adjustments show a reduction in short sick leaves but an increase in long-term absences, suggesting a potential negative effect of strict sick leave policies.
2. **Management Practices**: The effect of management styles is crucial. Companies with more generous sick leave policies experience shorter total durations of sick leave, indicating that restrictive practices may lead to dissatisfaction and long-term health consequences.
3. **Presenteeism**: A significant concern highlighted is presenteeism—workers attending work while sick, which can lead to reduced productivity, increased health issues, and negative coworker interactions.
4. **Health Implications and Contagion Risks**: Studies suggest presenteeism can lead to a decline in overall health and increased risk of contagion in workplaces, especially crucial during health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
5. **Comparative Analysis of Sick Leave Policies**: The comparison of sick leave strategies between the public and private sectors poses questions regarding equity, attractiveness, and overall efficacy in managing employee health.
6. **Economic Implications**: Research indicates that substituting presenteeism with appropriate sick leave compensation can enhance labor productivity and overall company performance, which suggests that supportive policies might offer long-term economic benefits.
7. **Attractiveness of Civil Service**: The potential impact of waiting days on the appeal of public sector jobs is significant, particularly in light of current remuneration trends and competition with the private sector.
8. **Perceived Fairness**: Justification for extending waiting days hinges on perceptions of fairness between public and private sector absenteeism rates, which may not capture the complete picture.
If you would like to explore any specific aspect further or if there is more content you wish to discuss, please let me know!
