Absenteesim Costs Canadian Economy $16.6 Billion/Annum

[Anonymous]

Snivel serpents are absent more often than the private sector. Unionized workers are absent more often than their non-unionized counterparts. Neither one is a surprise.

The Canadian economy lost an estimated $16.6 billion last year due to absenteeism, according to a study by the Conference Board of Canada.



The report, released Monday, says the average full-time Canadian worker was absent for 9.3 days in 2011, with the highest absenteeism rates found in the health care and social assistance sector.



The workplace absences resulted in the economy losing an estimated 2.4 per cent of the gross annual payroll, or an estimated $16.6 billion in 2012, the study said. The estimate does not include any indirect costs associated with a worker being away, like finding a replacement, delays and missed deadlines, and a reduction in employee morale.



"Absenteeism is more than a human resources issue," wrote author Nicole Stewart in the 12-page report, titled Missing in Action: Absenteeism Trends in Canadian Organizations. "It costs the Canadian economy billions of dollars each year."



Using Statistics Canada figures from 2011 and results of a 2012 Conference Board survey of 401 medium-to-large-sized companies, the report noted that the reasons given for the missed work ranged from illness to long-term leave of absences.



Workers in health care and social assistance had an average of 14 missed days, which the report says, may be attributed to the industry being commonly known for shift work, overtime, high stress and workers coming in contact with the sick.



Those in the professional, scientific and technical services industries had the lowest rates of absenteeism, with an average of 5.8 days.

[Anonymous]

I have a problem with the whole idea of civil servants being part of a collective bargaining unit.

[Anonymous]

I know one lady in particular that abuses her sick days, but most of us in our department are conscientious workers and only call in sick when we are sick.



What I see more of is people checking Facebook during work hours.

[Anonymous]

I know one lady in particular that abuses her sick days, but most of us in our department are conscientious workers and only call in sick when we are sick.



What I see more of is people checking Facebook during work hours.

I find that hard to believe considering snivel serpents like yourself are far more likely to absent than their private sector counterparts.



BTW, anyone who works for me and uses social media on my time had best look for another job.

[Anonymous]

Rich, unsustainable public pension plans are bankrupting governments at all levels. We cannot keep burdening future generations in order to appease greedy public sector unions.

The pension plans that cover more than 200,000 current and former public-sector workers have billions in unfunded liabilities. Horner is wisely proposing to hold the line on new pension benefits for eight years, increase the amount public workers must contribute (marginally), reduce the size of cost-of-living adjustments and discourage civil servants from retiring early. Horner should also end defined-benefit pensions for new public sector hires. And he should insist, by law, that pensions for public workers being fully funded through employer and employee contributions, the way most private-sector pensions plans must be.



Frankly, most public-sector pensions plans are so rich (relative to the amount of money the government and workers put into them) that private companies would risk sanctions, fines or even prosecutions if they offered the same sweet deals.



The only reason governments and their unions can get away with these arrangements is they know they can force taxpayers to make up any shortfall. The four pension plans Horner is attempting to reform — the Local Authorities Pension Plan, Public Service Pension Plan, Management Employees Pension Plan and Special Forces Pension Plan — are underfunded by at least $7 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for nearly $3 billion of that sum, very likely more.

There is an unfair element in Horner's plan. It does amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The high-benefit, low-contribution pensions were promised to professors, nurses, clerks, municipal employees, grader operators, janitors, lab workers and tens of thousands of other civil servants when they were hired. Most of them have planned their retirements around what they have been promised, underfunded or not.



But the truth is such unsustainable pensions were never justifiable. And it has been widely known for 20 years they were grossly underfunded. If they are allowed to continue untrimmed, they will eventually become a huge burden for all Albertans. Think Greece and the way its overpromised public pensions led the national government to the verge of bankruptcy.



Public-sector workers already tend to enjoy higher pay, better benefits, shorter hours, greater job security, earlier retirement and richer pensions than their privatesector counterparts. To have to accept slightly reduced pension benefits doesn't seem to be unreasonable, particularly since the alternative is sticking privatesector taxpayers with the bill — private-sector taxpayers who themselves cannot enjoy similar pension benefits.



The reaction to Horner's suggestion by the province's largest public unions has been the stuff of drug-induced hallucinations, though.



To their credit, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta and Canadian Union of Public Employees have not immediately dismissed the province's proposal. But their counter suggestion — that every Albertan be given the same pension benefits they enjoy — is as impractical and unaffordable as to be laughable. Public pensions have to be made more realistic. And the sooner that is done the less painful it will be for public workers and taxpayers.

http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/tim ... iewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx

[Anonymous]

Rich, unsustainable public pension plans are bankrupting governments at all levels. We cannot keep burdening future generations in order to appease greedy public sector unions.

The pension plans that cover more than 200,000 current and former public-sector workers have billions in unfunded liabilities. Horner is wisely proposing to hold the line on new pension benefits for eight years, increase the amount public workers must contribute (marginally), reduce the size of cost-of-living adjustments and discourage civil servants from retiring early. Horner should also end defined-benefit pensions for new public sector hires. And he should insist, by law, that pensions for public workers being fully funded through employer and employee contributions, the way most private-sector pensions plans must be.



Frankly, most public-sector pensions plans are so rich (relative to the amount of money the government and workers put into them) that private companies would risk sanctions, fines or even prosecutions if they offered the same sweet deals.



The only reason governments and their unions can get away with these arrangements is they know they can force taxpayers to make up any shortfall. The four pension plans Horner is attempting to reform — the Local Authorities Pension Plan, Public Service Pension Plan, Management Employees Pension Plan and Special Forces Pension Plan — are underfunded by at least $7 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for nearly $3 billion of that sum, very likely more.

There is an unfair element in Horner's plan. It does amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The high-benefit, low-contribution pensions were promised to professors, nurses, clerks, municipal employees, grader operators, janitors, lab workers and tens of thousands of other civil servants when they were hired. Most of them have planned their retirements around what they have been promised, underfunded or not.



But the truth is such unsustainable pensions were never justifiable. And it has been widely known for 20 years they were grossly underfunded. If they are allowed to continue untrimmed, they will eventually become a huge burden for all Albertans. Think Greece and the way its overpromised public pensions led the national government to the verge of bankruptcy.



Public-sector workers already tend to enjoy higher pay, better benefits, shorter hours, greater job security, earlier retirement and richer pensions than their privatesector counterparts. To have to accept slightly reduced pension benefits doesn't seem to be unreasonable, particularly since the alternative is sticking privatesector taxpayers with the bill — private-sector taxpayers who themselves cannot enjoy similar pension benefits.



The reaction to Horner's suggestion by the province's largest public unions has been the stuff of drug-induced hallucinations, though.



To their credit, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta and Canadian Union of Public Employees have not immediately dismissed the province's proposal. But their counter suggestion — that every Albertan be given the same pension benefits they enjoy — is as impractical and unaffordable as to be laughable. Public pensions have to be made more realistic. And the sooner that is done the less painful it will be for public workers and taxpayers.

http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/tim ... iewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx

Shen Li, one of the reasons I stayed with the provincial government is because of the security my pension will give me when I retire..



A large deduction is taken from my pay for my pension..



I don't get it for free you know.

[Odinson]

Rich, unsustainable public pension plans are bankrupting governments at all levels. We cannot keep burdening future generations in order to appease greedy public sector unions.

The pension plans that cover more than 200,000 current and former public-sector workers have billions in unfunded liabilities. Horner is wisely proposing to hold the line on new pension benefits for eight years, increase the amount public workers must contribute (marginally), reduce the size of cost-of-living adjustments and discourage civil servants from retiring early. Horner should also end defined-benefit pensions for new public sector hires. And he should insist, by law, that pensions for public workers being fully funded through employer and employee contributions, the way most private-sector pensions plans must be.



Frankly, most public-sector pensions plans are so rich (relative to the amount of money the government and workers put into them) that private companies would risk sanctions, fines or even prosecutions if they offered the same sweet deals.



The only reason governments and their unions can get away with these arrangements is they know they can force taxpayers to make up any shortfall. The four pension plans Horner is attempting to reform — the Local Authorities Pension Plan, Public Service Pension Plan, Management Employees Pension Plan and Special Forces Pension Plan — are underfunded by at least $7 billion, with taxpayers on the hook for nearly $3 billion of that sum, very likely more.

There is an unfair element in Horner's plan. It does amount to changing the rules in the middle of the game. The high-benefit, low-contribution pensions were promised to professors, nurses, clerks, municipal employees, grader operators, janitors, lab workers and tens of thousands of other civil servants when they were hired. Most of them have planned their retirements around what they have been promised, underfunded or not.



But the truth is such unsustainable pensions were never justifiable. And it has been widely known for 20 years they were grossly underfunded. If they are allowed to continue untrimmed, they will eventually become a huge burden for all Albertans. Think Greece and the way its overpromised public pensions led the national government to the verge of bankruptcy.



Public-sector workers already tend to enjoy higher pay, better benefits, shorter hours, greater job security, earlier retirement and richer pensions than their privatesector counterparts. To have to accept slightly reduced pension benefits doesn't seem to be unreasonable, particularly since the alternative is sticking privatesector taxpayers with the bill — private-sector taxpayers who themselves cannot enjoy similar pension benefits.



The reaction to Horner's suggestion by the province's largest public unions has been the stuff of drug-induced hallucinations, though.



To their credit, the Health Sciences Association of Alberta, Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, United Nurses of Alberta and Canadian Union of Public Employees have not immediately dismissed the province's proposal. But their counter suggestion — that every Albertan be given the same pension benefits they enjoy — is as impractical and unaffordable as to be laughable. Public pensions have to be made more realistic. And the sooner that is done the less painful it will be for public workers and taxpayers.

http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/tim ... iewer.aspx">http://www.pressdisplay.com/staging/timesonline/viewer.aspx

Shen Li, one of the reasons I stayed with the provincial government is because of the security my pension will give me when I retire..



A large deduction is taken from my pay for my pension..



I don't get it for free you know.

Works like all our pensions.

[Gary Oak]

Most of the people that are absent must be chugaboos. As soon as they get a paycheque they disappear.

[Anonymous]

Most of the people that are absent must be chugaboos. As soon as they get a paycheque they disappear.

Gary that is an unfair and inaccurate racial stereotype of our Aboriginal people.