Report outlines the work done to reduce number of days off among Bradford City Hall staff

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Council is cutting level of sick days Council is cutting level of sick days

The main reasons for Bradford Council employees taking sick days is revealed in a new report.

But human resource bosses will tell councillors this week that despite a slight increase in the total number of days lost to sickness in 2013-14, they are on course for a downward trend.

Wellbeing workshops and drop-in health fairs have been among the new ideas introduced to help employees get fit, stay healthy and stay on the job.

And forecasts show the Council is set to achieve an average rate of 10.1 sick days per full-time employee in 2013-14 compared with an average rate of 10.44 in 2012-13. In the Adults and Community Services Department, where average sickness rates were 13.86 days off per employee, the main reason given was fractures, sprains and muscular problems; in the Chief Executive’s Office where staff had an average 6.42 days off, it was cold and flu; in Children’s Service fractures and muscular injuries were the prime cause of the 10.92 average rate.

Meanwhile, in the City Solicitor’s Department, neurological problems were the top reason for the 8.21 days off average; in the Department of Environment and Sport it was fractures and sprains which led to an average of 11.19 days off, the same reason was the top cause of sickness in the Finance Department where the average rate was 8.11 days off, while depression and anxiety was cited as the main reason Human Resources staff stayed at home and led to a 10.45 average rate.

Workers in the Public Health Department also suffered most from fractures and sprains leading to an overall average rate of 9.45 days off per employee as did their colleague in the Department of Regeneration and Culture which saw an overall sickness rate of 10.12 days off.

On Thursday, the authority’s corporate overview and scrutiny committee will also hear from a report by Janice Simpson, strategic director of adult and community services, about what is being done to reduce sickness rates in her department which had been set a target of 11.5 sick days off per employee.

The committee has been recommended to instruct all departments to prioritise reducing sickness absence and to ask for a progress report on how successful schemes have been in getting people back to work. The meeting takes place at Bradford City Hall from 5pm.

Comments (16)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:00am Wed 23 Apr 14

Albion. says...

"in the Department of Environment and Sport it was fractures and sprains which led to an average of 11.19 days off, the same reason was the top cause of sickness in the Finance Department where the average rate was 8.11 days off,"

Was the latter due to trying to lift their wage packets?
"in the Department of Environment and Sport it was fractures and sprains which led to an average of 11.19 days off, the same reason was the top cause of sickness in the Finance Department where the average rate was 8.11 days off," Was the latter due to trying to lift their wage packets? Albion.
  • Score: 7

1:39pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Avro says...

Considering that Tony Reeves is paid more then David Cameron, how about also cutting the top level of pay??
Considering that Tony Reeves is paid more then David Cameron, how about also cutting the top level of pay?? Avro
  • Score: 10

4:51pm Wed 23 Apr 14

nochanceagain says...

Albion,
Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money.
No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.
Albion, Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money. No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer. nochanceagain
  • Score: -3

4:59pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Thee Voice of Reason says...

The figures are still a joke. No one in my company has the equivalent of 2 weeks off a year sick, nevermind it being an average for all staff. Some will no doubt be in every day meaning others will be taking the mickey seeing them as additional holidays.

Unless the council actively recruits from the A&E department from the BRI, these figures are still scandlous.
The figures are still a joke. No one in my company has the equivalent of 2 weeks off a year sick, nevermind it being an average for all staff. Some will no doubt be in every day meaning others will be taking the mickey seeing them as additional holidays. Unless the council actively recruits from the A&E department from the BRI, these figures are still scandlous. Thee Voice of Reason
  • Score: 9

5:38pm Wed 23 Apr 14

Albion. says...

nochanceagain wrote:
Albion,
Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money.
No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.
It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax.
[quote][p][bold]nochanceagain[/bold] wrote: Albion, Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money. No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.[/p][/quote]It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax. Albion.
  • Score: 4

6:28pm Wed 23 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -12

7:24pm Wed 23 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know.
Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?[/p][/quote]If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer. alive and awake
  • Score: 4

7:34pm Wed 23 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know.
Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.
They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?[/p][/quote]If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.[/p][/quote]They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -5

7:48pm Wed 23 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.
They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.
Of course nobody wants to take a job in the first place, but it is the way of the world. If you imagine that it us possible to GIVE everyone all they might want, I could say need but you know that would never be enough.
There is a way, we might might find a planet somewhere we could enslave the population, and rob all their wealth.
You simply do not understand economics. Communism does not work. proven. I have come to the conclusion that, the only way Communism could work, would be in a world of pragmatic Capitalists. Certainly not for the greedy populace.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?[/p][/quote]If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.[/p][/quote]They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.[/p][/quote]Of course nobody wants to take a job in the first place, but it is the way of the world. If you imagine that it us possible to GIVE everyone all they might want, I could say need but you know that would never be enough. There is a way, we might might find a planet somewhere we could enslave the population, and rob all their wealth. You simply do not understand economics. Communism does not work. proven. I have come to the conclusion that, the only way Communism could work, would be in a world of pragmatic Capitalists. Certainly not for the greedy populace. alive and awake
  • Score: 5

8:26pm Wed 23 Apr 14

collos25 says...

Albion. wrote:
nochanceagain wrote:
Albion,
Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money.
No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.
It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax.
Actually they admit the figures are worse and they only assume they will get better that's there own reporting in the article .
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nochanceagain[/bold] wrote: Albion, Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money. No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.[/p][/quote]It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax.[/p][/quote]Actually they admit the figures are worse and they only assume they will get better that's there own reporting in the article . collos25
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Wed 23 Apr 14

BierleyBoy says...

Noted that the article does not give the number of employees at Bradford Council.

Having looked around it appears the figure is around 11,000, meaning 110,000 working days a year are lost to 'sickness'

That is an horrendously high figure, 30% above the target of 7 days per employee that is expected in the public sector.

To claim that a drop of 0.3 represents a downward trend is nothing short of an absolute joke. Bradford Council is rotten, inefficient, wasteful & not fit for purpose.

Oh, and for the record on top of loaning his mate Khan £200k of our money, he's also let him walk away from paying many thousands in business rates.

Unbelievable that OK Bulls was loaned our money, then stuck two fingers up to paying that back and paying business rates.
Noted that the article does not give the number of employees at Bradford Council. Having looked around it appears the figure is around 11,000, meaning 110,000 working days a year are lost to 'sickness' That is an horrendously high figure, 30% above the target of 7 days per employee that is expected in the public sector. To claim that a drop of 0.3 represents a downward trend is nothing short of an absolute joke. Bradford Council is rotten, inefficient, wasteful & not fit for purpose. Oh, and for the record on top of loaning his mate Khan £200k of our money, he's also let him walk away from paying many thousands in business rates. Unbelievable that OK Bulls was loaned our money, then stuck two fingers up to paying that back and paying business rates. BierleyBoy
  • Score: 4

8:46pm Wed 23 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

collos25 wrote:
Albion. wrote:
nochanceagain wrote: Albion, Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money. No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.
It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax.
Actually they admit the figures are worse and they only assume they will get better that's there own reporting in the article .
These figures are a disgrace, but not surprising, poor management throughout the whole Council. Easiest thing in the world to spend other people's money.
[quote][p][bold]collos25[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]nochanceagain[/bold] wrote: Albion, Why if you work in finance do you get a bigger wage packet? Have any experience in that area do you or do you assume finance workers just pay themselves what they want? You probably think they control the money and stop others spending it which again they don't, the function reports on how the money has been spent by the other areas and provides information on what things cost going forward (projects, new services etc), it's the Chief Executives Office which controls and disciplines who spends what and the various department budget holders who physically order, recruit and spend the money. No comment about the "Adult and Community Services" department who have nearly 3 weeks a year off sick on top of what I would assume is at least 5 weeks annual leave and bank holidays. Meaning they work less than 10 months a year but paid for 12. At least the finance department have sick day rate of almost 6 days a year (per person) imagine how much that costs the tax payer.[/p][/quote]It was meant to be a light hearted remark. Obviously it went right over your head. While the figures are an improvement, there's still room for even more improvement. By the way, we WERE invited to comment and they ARE funded by our council tax.[/p][/quote]Actually they admit the figures are worse and they only assume they will get better that's there own reporting in the article .[/p][/quote]These figures are a disgrace, but not surprising, poor management throughout the whole Council. Easiest thing in the world to spend other people's money. alive and awake
  • Score: 6

8:50pm Wed 23 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

BierleyBoy wrote:
Noted that the article does not give the number of employees at Bradford Council.

Having looked around it appears the figure is around 11,000, meaning 110,000 working days a year are lost to 'sickness'

That is an horrendously high figure, 30% above the target of 7 days per employee that is expected in the public sector.

To claim that a drop of 0.3 represents a downward trend is nothing short of an absolute joke. Bradford Council is rotten, inefficient, wasteful & not fit for purpose.

Oh, and for the record on top of loaning his mate Khan £200k of our money, he's also let him walk away from paying many thousands in business rates.

Unbelievable that OK Bulls was loaned our money, then stuck two fingers up to paying that back and paying business rates.
I have said before Bradford is a failing City, it should be under the Governments control before it is too late.
[quote][p][bold]BierleyBoy[/bold] wrote: Noted that the article does not give the number of employees at Bradford Council. Having looked around it appears the figure is around 11,000, meaning 110,000 working days a year are lost to 'sickness' That is an horrendously high figure, 30% above the target of 7 days per employee that is expected in the public sector. To claim that a drop of 0.3 represents a downward trend is nothing short of an absolute joke. Bradford Council is rotten, inefficient, wasteful & not fit for purpose. Oh, and for the record on top of loaning his mate Khan £200k of our money, he's also let him walk away from paying many thousands in business rates. Unbelievable that OK Bulls was loaned our money, then stuck two fingers up to paying that back and paying business rates.[/p][/quote]I have said before Bradford is a failing City, it should be under the Governments control before it is too late. alive and awake
  • Score: 7

9:44pm Wed 23 Apr 14

alive and awake says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.
They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.
your cover is blown.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?[/p][/quote]If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.[/p][/quote]They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.[/p][/quote]your cover is blown. alive and awake
  • Score: 7

1:13am Thu 24 Apr 14

Not so simple says...

Sack the lot of em. We all can fall ill, however you don't want to be the talk of the office for being unavoidably poorly to work.

Yet you have a council full of employees working away: what's the point of them all if the city and it's suburbs are a dump awash with unemployed people who have little or no chance of finding well paid jobs to keep funding the ever increasing council tax which is wasted on this seemingly lack lustre council and it's associated partner agencies.

This is a great city being ruined by city hall...sack em all
Sack the lot of em. We all can fall ill, however you don't want to be the talk of the office for being unavoidably poorly to work. Yet you have a council full of employees working away: what's the point of them all if the city and it's suburbs are a dump awash with unemployed people who have little or no chance of finding well paid jobs to keep funding the ever increasing council tax which is wasted on this seemingly lack lustre council and it's associated partner agencies. This is a great city being ruined by city hall...sack em all Not so simple
  • Score: 2

6:42pm Thu 24 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote:
alive and awake wrote:
RollandSmoke wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?
If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.
They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.
Of course nobody wants to take a job in the first place, but it is the way of the world. If you imagine that it us possible to GIVE everyone all they might want, I could say need but you know that would never be enough.
There is a way, we might might find a planet somewhere we could enslave the population, and rob all their wealth.
You simply do not understand economics. Communism does not work. proven. I have come to the conclusion that, the only way Communism could work, would be in a world of pragmatic Capitalists. Certainly not for the greedy populace.
You obviously don't understand illness. These are people who have been advised by their doctors not to work. But what do the doctors know right? Tell you what next time anyone is ill forget about going to the doctors and just ask the advise of a bigoted idiot on here. We have a country where a vast proportion of the population are enslaved. They are certainly not rewarded for their work. Capitalism is a system run by greedy barstuards for greedy barstuards at the expense of everyone else. It is a corrupt system that benefits very few. Is that why you support it? because you like corruption or because you believe yourself to be one of the few? The British public are being robbed to line the pockets of those who struggle to be able to stuff any more in and do everything possible to avoid paying the taxes that the every day worker cannot avoid. These are the parasites that are draining the system and they do so at a much greater level than all the benefit claimants combined. It has nothing whatsoever to do with needs it is to do with greed but I'm sure you will tell me that it's only the poor that can be classed as greedy. If you'd like you or any of the six phantom thumbers can tell me what you mean by "your cover is blown" I don't need cover matey boy although I can understand why people such as yourself like to hide their identity. I've told everyone on here who I am, so who are you?
[quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]alive and awake[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: Yet still this government thinks it's a good idea to force people with ongoing long term health problems back into the work place. How popular do you think someone will be in a department that is trying to meet sickness targets if their doctor who knows the medical history of that person signs them off onto the sick for a month or two a couple of times a year?[/p][/quote]If they have got long term health problems, pack the job in and let someone able have the job. They will be looked after, as you well know. Trouble is the doctors are put into pressure from patients, first three days without pay is the answer.[/p][/quote]They will be looked after but hardly what you would call well and then they would have to deal with the constant stigmatisation from bigoted idiots and accusations that they are just a drain on society or worse still that they are making it all up. Now whist I'm sure you would never say such things to people trapped in a situation not of their making (again) it doesn't take much reading of comments sections such as this to see that I'm right. Lets not forget that many of these people would not have wanted to take the jobs in the first place but will have been forced to do so by the incompetence of ATOS as they carry out a government policy that is nothing less than insanity.[/p][/quote]Of course nobody wants to take a job in the first place, but it is the way of the world. If you imagine that it us possible to GIVE everyone all they might want, I could say need but you know that would never be enough. There is a way, we might might find a planet somewhere we could enslave the population, and rob all their wealth. You simply do not understand economics. Communism does not work. proven. I have come to the conclusion that, the only way Communism could work, would be in a world of pragmatic Capitalists. Certainly not for the greedy populace.[/p][/quote]You obviously don't understand illness. These are people who have been advised by their doctors not to work. But what do the doctors know right? Tell you what next time anyone is ill forget about going to the doctors and just ask the advise of a bigoted idiot on here. We have a country where a vast proportion of the population are enslaved. They are certainly not rewarded for their work. Capitalism is a system run by greedy barstuards for greedy barstuards at the expense of everyone else. It is a corrupt system that benefits very few. Is that why you support it? because you like corruption or because you believe yourself to be one of the few? The British public are being robbed to line the pockets of those who struggle to be able to stuff any more in and do everything possible to avoid paying the taxes that the every day worker cannot avoid. These are the parasites that are draining the system and they do so at a much greater level than all the benefit claimants combined. It has nothing whatsoever to do with needs it is to do with greed but I'm sure you will tell me that it's only the poor that can be classed as greedy. If you'd like you or any of the six phantom thumbers can tell me what you mean by "your cover is blown" I don't need cover matey boy although I can understand why people such as yourself like to hide their identity. I've told everyone on here who I am, so who are you? RollandSmoke
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree