![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyAccording to the most recent figures released by the Health and Safety executive, the average worker in the United Kingdom takes seven days off work sick every year, at a cost to the economy of £10-12bn per annum. Upon closer examination, these figures show some startling discrepancies; if we look at the figures for the public and private sectors in isolation, we quickly see that the average public sector worker takes 10.2 days off every year, compared to the private sector workers’ average of 4.5.
The worst employer in the UK for illness is Birmingham City Council (an average of 19.3 days off sick per employee per annum) quickly followed by London Underground and the Prison Service (an average of 18 days per worker per annum).
Occasionally people blame work-related stress on these absences, but anyone who has ever had the misfortune to deal with a local authority bureaucrat will have quickly become aware that no council employee would ever allow themselves to work so hard as to become stressed; and , more tellingly, the industry sector with the lowest worker:illness ratio is the famously stressful occupation of banking, which sees a mere 3.1 days lost per employee per annum.
This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that there must be a reason why workers in the public sector are more than twice as likely to fall sick than their private sector counterparts. Even comparing like-for-like sectors, such as public and private healthcare organisations or public and private infrastructure project management the disparity remains.
Some might suggest that the public sector, with its culture of jobs for life and a lack of public accountability, might, in some rare instances, attract workshy layabouts who can rely upon their union to back them up even when caught out pulling fake sick leave.
I would like to refute this accusation completely. Instead I’d like to propose an alternative; namely that working in the public sector is actively detrimental to the health of the workers within it. As such, there is an obvious, simple panacea to the wave of illness which has swept through the public working places of our nation: Privatisation.
Now, I’m aware that some stick-in-the-mud luddites have certain lefty reservations about the benefits of privatisation, but look at it like this – if it were demonstrated that living in decrepit and dilapidated housing made someone twice as likely to become ill, would the social services sit still? If there were twice as many accidents on the M1 as on the M25, would there not be an enquiry as to why? Surely the illness inflicted upon our fellow citizens does not call out for radical solutions? As it is demonstrable that working in the private sector results in less illness, does it not make sense to place our sick workers into the private market?
I’m sure that the mass privatization of our public sector institutions could be presented to the population in an acceptable way; perhaps using images drawn from the old Guinness Advertising, simply swapping the word “Guinness” for “Privatisation”, and depicting and happy, smiling worker in the bloom of health striding to work beneath the caption “Privatisation is Good for You!”, content in the knowledge that not only is his local Court of Law or Police Station no longer the hive of sickness and misery it once was, but it’s also adding to the wealth of society by generating shareholder value.
The cost to the nation of lost sick days would drop, saving upwards of £3bn a year in lost work and the health of the nation would improve dramatically, meaning happier and longer lives for all.
Join me in my new campaign to improve the health of the British Nation.
The worst employer in the UK for illness is Birmingham City Council (an average of 19.3 days off sick per employee per annum) quickly followed by London Underground and the Prison Service (an average of 18 days per worker per annum).
Occasionally people blame work-related stress on these absences, but anyone who has ever had the misfortune to deal with a local authority bureaucrat will have quickly become aware that no council employee would ever allow themselves to work so hard as to become stressed; and , more tellingly, the industry sector with the lowest worker:illness ratio is the famously stressful occupation of banking, which sees a mere 3.1 days lost per employee per annum.
This leads us to the inescapable conclusion that there must be a reason why workers in the public sector are more than twice as likely to fall sick than their private sector counterparts. Even comparing like-for-like sectors, such as public and private healthcare organisations or public and private infrastructure project management the disparity remains.
Some might suggest that the public sector, with its culture of jobs for life and a lack of public accountability, might, in some rare instances, attract workshy layabouts who can rely upon their union to back them up even when caught out pulling fake sick leave.
I would like to refute this accusation completely. Instead I’d like to propose an alternative; namely that working in the public sector is actively detrimental to the health of the workers within it. As such, there is an obvious, simple panacea to the wave of illness which has swept through the public working places of our nation: Privatisation.
Now, I’m aware that some stick-in-the-mud luddites have certain lefty reservations about the benefits of privatisation, but look at it like this – if it were demonstrated that living in decrepit and dilapidated housing made someone twice as likely to become ill, would the social services sit still? If there were twice as many accidents on the M1 as on the M25, would there not be an enquiry as to why? Surely the illness inflicted upon our fellow citizens does not call out for radical solutions? As it is demonstrable that working in the private sector results in less illness, does it not make sense to place our sick workers into the private market?
I’m sure that the mass privatization of our public sector institutions could be presented to the population in an acceptable way; perhaps using images drawn from the old Guinness Advertising, simply swapping the word “Guinness” for “Privatisation”, and depicting and happy, smiling worker in the bloom of health striding to work beneath the caption “Privatisation is Good for You!”, content in the knowledge that not only is his local Court of Law or Police Station no longer the hive of sickness and misery it once was, but it’s also adding to the wealth of society by generating shareholder value.
The cost to the nation of lost sick days would drop, saving upwards of £3bn a year in lost work and the health of the nation would improve dramatically, meaning happier and longer lives for all.
Join me in my new campaign to improve the health of the British Nation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: So...much...fury*
Date: 2004-04-22 05:03 am (UTC)I'm working on a better system, OK? Give me a chance, I'm still an undergraduate!
The fact that socialism is yet to be done properly (hell, the Americans must think it works because they keep assassinating the leaders of or fomenting rebellion against republics who look likely to succeed under left-wing governments) is telling, but then we don't live under free-market capitalism either.
Re: So...much...fury*
Date: 2004-04-22 05:07 am (UTC)Alternatively the US keeps knocking off Socialist Dictators and teh like because they have a tried & tested track record of Murdering their own people and banning free & fair elections. You know, things that are frowned upon in our Western-Liberal-Democratic-Capitalism with Social influences thing.
I'm sure that if Commie governments allowed regular open elections with, you know, more than one candidate in them they'd give us a lot less trouble - primarily because they'd be voted out after one term.
Governments only tend not to hold elections when they know they'll lose them.
Re: So...much...fury*
Date: 2004-04-22 05:12 am (UTC)Obviously your name's snappier, of course, but I prefer the more accurate "Western reactionary media-ruled culture of fear where nice middle class people can vote capitalism with WTO domination and US imperialism" I just made up.
Yours makes it an easier pill to swallow, though, I'll admit. Mine explains the sticking-our-noses-in-entirely-undemocratically-to-other-countries'-business-because-we-know-best.
Re: So...much...fury*
Date: 2004-04-22 05:27 am (UTC)By 'the system we've got' I mean our system. Here, now, in this country. (Actually Australia does it better than us, but I've made that point before.) I'd dearly love for the benefits (like the ones I've listed above) to be enjoyed by the rest of the world, and perhaps they would be if moral relativists didn't continue to insist that female circumcision and torture of political dissidents are just quaint local colour and we really shouldn't go interfering.