The Abbott Government

[noco]

Labor was legitimately elected on the basis of those promised reforms. .

In 2010 Labor was a one behind the 8 ball on two party preferred.......It was a minority government reliant on a hand full of conned independents....She conned them with extravaganza for their electorates and look where they are now....they ran behind the door in 2013 ashamed to show their faces.

Gillard broke her promise on the carbon tax which created inflation and costing householders $550 per year extra in living costs....She gave a miserly bit of compensation to the needy and the carbon tax did zero to reduce "GLOBAL WARMING"...er sorry, I mean "CLIMATE CHANGE".

 

[pixel]

In 2010 Labor was a one behind the 8 ball on two party preferred.......It was a minority government reliant on a hand full of conned independents....She conned them with extravaganza for their electorates and look where they are now....they ran behind the door in 2013 ashamed to show their faces.

Gillard broke her promise on the carbon tax which created inflation and costing householders $550 per year extra in living costs....She gave a miserly bit of compensation to the needy and the carbon tax did zero to reduce "GLOBAL WARMING"...er sorry, I mean "CLIMATE CHANGE".

noco, I'm not defending the carbon tax; RETs and incentives to phase-out dirty power plants would have been arguably more effective. But, as a wise old Statesman once said, "Politics is the art of the possible." PM Gillard was at least prepared to make stated goals possible, even if it meant partial compromise. Nothing but Ego prevented the then Opposition to make a better compromise possible.

That aside, I object to ignorance, denial, and double standards:
If "no carbon tax" rates as a broken promise, then "no changes to pensions", "no changes to medicare", etc. is exactly the same. And that is why I reckon the "can peep through a keyhole with both eyes" cliche applies to Abbott and his apologists at least as much as it does to Shorten.

 

[Julia]

Medicare co-payment seems like a good idea to stop waste and a sensible idea regardless of the budget situation. But then I'd argue that the practice of visiting doctors for the sole purpose of obtaining a medical certificate also needs a major overhaul as it's a significant unnecessary drain on the system - quite likely a bigger drain than any visits that would be stopped with the $7 payment.

So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?

 

[qldfrog]

So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?

you just have n days off for convenience per year;
the sick days are currently a premium to the people who do not mind taking them at any slightest reason against others employeesn who only use them when really needed

just have n days paid holiday per year + m days of convenience , transferable from year to year
free tio the employee to use them for a flu, a sick kid or go in holiday longuer
the only problem i see is the unplanned side of sick days.

 

[SirRumpole]

So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?

Or still require a certificate, but require the employer and employee to pay half the cost of obtaining it. They may then come to some agreement about not requiring one if the employee is not known to be a regular sick leave taker.

 

[moXJO]

you just have n days off for convenience per year;
the sick days are currently a premium to the people who do not mind taking them at any slightest reason against others employeesn who only use them when really needed

just have n days paid holiday per year + m days of convenience , transferable from year to year
free tio the employee to use them for a flu, a sick kid or go in holiday longuer
the only problem i see is the unplanned side of sick days.

Its just to easily open to abuse. Its amazing how far some employees are willing to go. Workers comp in the 90s was shockingly rorted. I knew entire families of 5 all rorting benefits.
Employers are already stretched without providing extra holidays for the workforce. If anything it will push the drive towards the 'casual workforce' even more. You want the day off pay the $7

 

[sydboy007]

You want the day off pay the $7

More like $65 less the medicare rebate

I've had incidences of being sick where the effort to get an MC has probably meant I needed an extra day to recover. I think some flexibility around this issue would help save a lot of $$ without opening it up to rorting.

Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.

I wouldn't mind if there was a provision made so that an employee who uses above the average could be asked to attend a company doctor on their next sick leave request. I don't see the employer has a right to know what illness you have, but they do have a right to confirm you are ill.

The current system is extremely expensive, especially if you are forced to go to an emergency department, as I have, so as to get an MC to get paid for the sick leave.

 

[drsmith]

So the refugees are no longer leaving their home countries? The turn back the boats policy has somehow managed to stop the persecution of minorities causing them to flee as refugees?

Oh dear!

You've started smoking IF's old feathers.

 

[Smurf1976]

You want the day off pay the $7

It's not about paying the $7.

It's about the reality that, should I fall genuinely ill during winter, there's no chance of getting a doctor's appointment within 2 - 3 days because the system is completely clogged up by people visiting doctors for no reason other than obtaining a medical certificate for a common cold.

I don't know how much that is costing the economy overall, but the answer would surely be hundreds of $ millions a year all up. Firstly due to the unnecessary doctor visits, secondly due to people turning up for work for 2+ days until they can get into a doctor and passing on their illness to half the people they work with who then also take days off. It's a terribly inefficient system to be visiting doctors simply to comply with an employment condition.

I don't have a silver bullet solution, but it's definitely a problem. That said, these days business seems to absolutely love the concept of user pays, so surely it's reasonable that business pays the cost of what is essentially an employee management provision rather than leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

So I'm thinking that someone sees a GP for any reason including minor colds etc = no charge (taxpayer pays) for the consultation. If they need a certificate for a treatable condition = no charge. If they need a certificate for a non-treatable minor condition, eg common cold = employer pays full cost.

Then leave it to employers to decide whether they want to pay for medical certificates for minor things like common colds or not. Most would likely choose not to pay unless they have a problem with a particular employee abusing sick leave, thus reducing unnecessary doctor visits and enabling genuinely sick people to get an appointment.

 

[Julia]

Possibly a statutory right to 2 days off each year without an MC would help those who don't abuse the system, while those who do want to try and use up their 10 days "entitlement" will still be required to provide some form of evidence.

Isn't this the sort of thing that you'd negotiate at interview stage before taking a job? You'd be negotiating a salary level, allowances etc, so why wouldn't you similarly come to an agreement on sick leave such as x number of days without a MC?

Wouldn't a doctor whom you see regularly and who knows you're genuine be prepared to do a MC and just leave it at the desk for collection if you phone and say you have a virus such as a cold?
Perhaps you go to a large medical centre where you see different doctors all the time in which case that wouldn't be practicable.

Maybe think about working in the public service. A friend of mine, teacher for 40 years, retired about six months ago. For most of her adult life she has had a medical condition which is completely managed by medication, requiring only three monthly biochemistry to ensure dose is correct. It has not stopped her working full time and travelling extensively.

Her job conditions entitled her to x days of sick leave each year which can accumulate if not used.
This apparently amounts to over a year of full time pay. So her doctor has simply provided a letter to say that she suffers from Y condition and therefore fulfils the requirements for fully paid sick leave as accumulated, ensuring that she is receiving full pay for the first year of her retirement.

Another friend is a supervising psychologist with the Health Dept. Similar sick leave provisions though she is still working. Also what seem to me to be huge number of 'personal development' days which are fully paid, even though she spends this time on a personal venture, nothing to do with her job.

Then there seems to be unlimited time available without pay.

We're pretty generous with the taxpayer dollar.

 

[overhang]

It's not an ideal system and the requirement to obtain a MC is a huge drain on the system but I feel if this wasn't required the loss of productivity would be enormous.

Personally I had my first sick days this year in about 7 years, I caught gastro and required 2 days off work. I'm lucky enough that my employer has full trust in me and didn't request a MC but I can't imagine anything worse than having to attend a doctor at that time only to obtain a MC when I required the toilet every 30 or so minutes and there is nothing a doctor can really give to assist gastro anyway.

The onus is on employers to be sensible about the policy imo. The amount of employees that rort the system for illegitimate sick days are in the minority in my experience. I think many people who may have a bad cold would take the day off sick if possible but would probably attend work if they required a MC as going to the doctor is a time consuming drain as well as a financial one, in this case they're just more likely to work sick which decreases productivity and risk infecting others which further decreases productivity.

 

[sydboy007]

Isn't this the sort of thing that you'd negotiate at interview stage before taking a job? You'd be negotiating a salary level, allowances etc, so why wouldn't you similarly come to an agreement on sick leave such as x number of days without a MC?

Wouldn't a doctor whom you see regularly and who knows you're genuine be prepared to do a MC and just leave it at the desk for collection if you phone and say you have a virus such as a cold?
Perhaps you go to a large medical centre where you see different doctors all the time in which case that wouldn't be practicable.

Maybe think about working in the public service. A friend of mine, teacher for 40 years, retired about six months ago. For most of her adult life she has had a medical condition which is completely managed by medication, requiring only three monthly biochemistry to ensure dose is correct. It has not stopped her working full time and travelling extensively.

Her job conditions entitled her to x days of sick leave each year which can accumulate if not used.
This apparently amounts to over a year of full time pay. So her doctor has simply provided a letter to say that she suffers from Y condition and therefore fulfils the requirements for fully paid sick leave as accumulated, ensuring that she is receiving full pay for the first year of her retirement.

Another friend is a supervising psychologist with the Health Dept. Similar sick leave provisions though she is still working. Also what seem to me to be huge number of 'personal development' days which are fully paid, even though she spends this time on a personal venture, nothing to do with her job.

Then there seems to be unlimited time available without pay.

We're pretty generous with the taxpayer dollar.

Not sure if there's much ability to work around the award conditions. My current employer seems to be the first I've worked for that enforces their "right" to not pay if you don't provide an MC.

Why would I try to get a job in the public service when there's 15,000 jobs being culled, and where when you tell someone what you do for a living they'd give me attitudes like yours? I don't know many people who have Govt sector jobs, but the few I do know seem to work reasonably hard and find things just as frustrating as I do in the private sector. 20 years working in the private sector has shown me it's definitely no paragon of efficiency.

Sick leave in every job I've had has been accumulated. I like the fact that after a few years I have a decent bank of sick leave, especially if something should go wrong. I've worked with people who've needed to have 3 to 4 months off work due to accidents. It's good to know my sick leave will cover most of the waiting time till my income protection kicks in.

 

[chode84]

So what would you suggest to validate an employee claim to be off work sick for a week if you don't require a medical certificate?

Do what this Canadian Doctor does.

 

[SirRumpole]

Do what this Canadian Doctor does.

View attachment 60996

Great idea.

 

[moXJO]

It's not about paying the $7.

It's about the reality that, should I fall genuinely ill during winter, there's no chance of getting a doctor's appointment within 2 - 3 days because the system is completely clogged up by people visiting doctors for no reason other than obtaining a medical certificate for a common cold.

I don't know how much that is costing the economy overall, but the answer would surely be hundreds of $ millions a year all up. Firstly due to the unnecessary doctor visits, secondly due to people turning up for work for 2+ days until they can get into a doctor and passing on their illness to half the people they work with who then also take days off. It's a terribly inefficient system to be visiting doctors simply to comply with an employment condition.

I don't have a silver bullet solution, but it's definitely a problem. That said, these days business seems to absolutely love the concept of user pays, so surely it's reasonable that business pays the cost of what is essentially an employee management provision rather than leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

So I'm thinking that someone sees a GP for any reason including minor colds etc = no charge (taxpayer pays) for the consultation. If they need a certificate for a treatable condition = no charge. If they need a certificate for a non-treatable minor condition, eg common cold = employer pays full cost.

Then leave it to employers to decide whether they want to pay for medical certificates for minor things like common colds or not. Most would likely choose not to pay unless they have a problem with a particular employee abusing sick leave, thus reducing unnecessary doctor visits and enabling genuinely sick people to get an appointment.

How many people do you and Syd employ out of interest?
Most bosses dont bother with medical certificates.But those that implement it do so for a reason. It was brought in for a reason.
Nsw prison guards got done for rorting about $40 mill, off the top of my head a while back. So watering it down is not the answer. A lot of employees did think sick days can be used as holidays before they changed it up. And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.

 

[SirRumpole]

A lot of employees did think sick days can be used as holidays before they changed it up. And sorry but business isnt your damn mother. Youre sick you pay.

Businesses aren't mothers, but they are breeding grounds for germs spread around by their employees. People dont want to get sick by mostly they get sick in the premises of their employers sitting next to sick people who are at work because employers are stingy about giving sick leave.

So as I suggested before, if employers paid a proportion of the cost of getting a certificate (this is called a price signal), then maybe they will get the idea that employee sickness is partly their fault too.

 

[sydboy007]

Yes Tony, your opposition to pokies reform is well and truly founded

Another Aussie world beating feat.

 

[sptrawler]

Yes Tony, your opposition to pokies reform is well and truly founded

Another Aussie world beating feat.

I've been away, good to see you're still blaming Tony for everything, at least I didn't miss anything.

 

[Julia]

Why would I try to get a job in the public service when there's 15,000 jobs being culled, and where when you tell someone what you do for a living they'd give me attitudes like yours?

I don't have any particular attitude about it. If people can snaffle conditions like those I described then that's their good luck. Both friends I mentioned are simply taking advantage of what is made available to everyone employed by that particular public service.

20 years working in the private sector has shown me it's definitely no paragon of efficiency.

At least it's usually required to turn a profit instead of being funded by taxpayer dollars.

Sick leave in every job I've had has been accumulated. I like the fact that after a few years I have a decent bank of sick leave, especially if something should go wrong. I've worked with people who've needed to have 3 to 4 months off work due to accidents. It's good to know my sick leave will cover most of the waiting time till my income protection kicks in.

So what actually is your problem? You have accumulated sick leave, yet you're still complaining.
Good Lord! I'm with moXJO: business employs you, doesn't adopt you.

 

[sydboy007]

I've been away, good to see you're still blaming Tony for everything, at least I didn't miss anything.

Do you believe we have a gambling problem due to the ready availability of pokie machines?

While in opposition Abbott showed a definite lack of bipartisan support with Labor on pokies reform.

Maybe have a look at the graph again and you'll see Australians lose more on pokies than the standard American loses in all forms of gambling. Australians lose more on gaming machines than any other country.

But hey, I'm expecting you to answer no to my question above so I suppose that's why you see it as a senseless attack on Tony when it really shows his lack of understanding on the issue, and probably his desire to support the businesses rather than look after voters.