LoHud: Yonkers firefighters' sick leave use called excessive by inspector general

[INIT915 1,119]

YONKERS — Little oversight of firefighters' unlimited sick leave has resulted in an yearly average of 9.6 sick days per firefighter and excessive overtime expenses, according to a new report.

Yonkers Inspector General Dan Schorr released his analysis of the city firefighters' sick time use today. He found that annual non-work-related sick leave "has dramatically increased in the past decade." The city's financial incentives to prevent excessive sick leave have failed to discourage "widespread" use of sick leave, he wrote.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20101116/NEWS02/11160365/Yonkers-firefighters--sick-leave-use-called-excessive-by-inspector-general

[x635 4,066]

Again, Yonkers Government is slinging mud at Yonkers FD. I thought they were slinging mud at the PD today for using too much OT that they themselves created?

There are sick leave abusers in every agency anywhere you go. If Yonkers FD has an issue, then it should be dealt with by Yonkers FD. The City didn't seem to have a problem with it when the budget was prosperous, now instead of taking responsibiltiy for their failure to plan financially and forethought of their actions, they are demonizing the members of one of the best urban fire departments in the nation.

Did they take into account that firefighters don't work 9-5, so 9 sick days really isn't much considering every day is a work day?

Also, maybe they should evaluate the general health and well being of their firefighters. Maybe they'd find that the money they saved laying off firefighters has health implications due to increased workload on the remaining firefighters.

I wish Yonkers FD's Union would "anaylyze" some of Spector's expenses.

[helicopper 1,050]

An "average" of 9 sick days may be misleading; without knowing if there's a group with 50 days and a bunch with none it's hard to draw any conclusions from the headline. Using nine sick days in a year isn't really all that much either. With kids or a couple of colds you can get to nine pretty quick.

I know my agency you get a sick day a month so you get 12 in a year. Why is 9 so bad?

[Bnechis 3,961]

An "average" of 9 sick days may be misleading; without knowing if there's a group with 50 days and a bunch with none it's hard to draw any conclusions from the headline. Using nine sick days in a year isn't really all that much either. With kids or a couple of colds you can get to nine pretty quick.

I know my agency you get a sick day a month so you get 12 in a year. Why is 9 so bad?

Its so bad because the JN says it is and we should all be mad as hell because it must be bad because elected/appointed officials who must produce something to prove they are doing there job

Since, these numbers are averages, we can skew them in many ways. If the majority of the firefighters each took fewer days and a dozen or so took much more you would get to the same numbers. They want you to assume that sick leave is just for when you have a cold, but members also use it when they are injured (offduty) such as from an MVA or sports or if they have a long standing medical illness. A serious MVA could take 6 months to recover from (and be able to perform as a firefighter) that could take 60 or more days.

Finally comparing sick days of people who work 24 hour shifts and 8 hour shifts is a little unfair. If a ff is out sick for 1 tour its 24 hours of duty (If its on a Monday, he is off the next 3 days and is not due back until friday), but the general worker is may still call in on tue and Wed.

[INIT915 1,119]

Finally comparing sick days of people who work 24 hour shifts and 8 hour shifts is a little unfair. If a ff is out sick for 1 tour its 24 hours of duty (If its on a Monday, he is off the next 3 days and is not due back until friday), but the general worker is may still call in on tue and Wed.

I agree with the post, but I don't get your math here.

Call in sick for one day, if assigned 24-hour tours, it is still one day. For someone who works an 8-hour day, calling in sick for one day is just that, eight hours. They would need to call in sick for three days to equate those hours.

So, by Journal News math, an "average" Yonkers FF who calls in sick 9 days, is out sick a total of 216 hours. For your average workers, they would need to call in sick 27 days to get that same number.

My point being, all said, Journal News probably did YFD a favor in reporting the outages in terms of "days", as opposed to "hours."

Edited November 17, 2010 by INIT915

[jack10562 414]

I don't get this mayor,... first he states "furious" and threatens to "go after" employees he additionally accuses of "stealing" from the city, then, he expects cooperation from very same guys he laid off, or from officers he demoted that still have jobs, to help him solve his "growing problem"? Talk about some pair of balls.

[rayrider 94]

By the way, we work 10 hr. days and 14 hr. nights. 9 days is 90 hrs. This is just another attempt for the mayor to justify the cuts that he has made and wants to make in the future. Let me guess, the mayor is going to complain in january that the FD went over our overtime budget. He has created this problem by demoting and laying off FF's. Now he is paying time and a half to fill the vacancies he created. Not too smart is he?

[AJU 39]

OT is almost always cheaper than a full time person because the employer saves on benefits and R&R costs.

[PEMO3 523]

This is interesting that as usual it is made to seem anything a public "servant" gets to be a "perk". The US Dept of Labor statistics state that the National Average sick day use for US workers it is about 8.5 days per year. Given this information, the average of 9 days for a high risk occupation that is most likely including compensation cases in its sick leave calculations is not a unusually high amount. It would be interesting if the 9 day figure was padded with compensation days to create an artificially high number since (and someone correct me if I am wrong) NYS Comp pays the employer back for time spent from leave balances on either A/L or S/L once Comp cases are settled. Additionally, studies have shown that "unlimited sick leave" actually reduces the number of sick days taken by employees overall. When employees get for example of 12 sick days a year and 20 annual leave days the employee see it as having 32 available days off. The employee is more prone to use the full 32 days or close to it. Unlimited Sick Leave avoids this "sick leave balance days are days due me" illusion.

Some of the major medical centers have taken a different approach to sick time that seems to be a step ahead of the curve. The have created a "bank out policy". Employees are allowed to buy up to 80% of their S/L hours back at a set rate the first week of December creating an incentive to not use their time and collect the cash as a "Christmas Fund". In exchange, the hospital saves by spending less for the same hours and in exchange gets the hours off the books while having the employee at work and boosting moral. What am I thinking though, when was government ever concerned with moral.

One last point was this quote, " Schorr also found that some sickly firefighters had healthy overtime earnings. In one case a firefighter with 24 total sick tours plus 10 work-related absences was nonetheless able to work 21 overtime tours to earn an additional $17,000 in overtime." If my calculations are correct, the sick leave amounts to 6-7 weeks of time off for combined comp and s/l. He worked a total of 21 tours over the remaining 45 weeks or 225 days he was at work and this is an issue. Goes to my first point anything a public "servant" gets is a "perk" and they are a crook if they use it.

Edited November 17, 2010 by PEMO3

[antiquefirelt 994]

I'm not sure if this was what BNECHIS was driving at or not, but: those of us working 24 hr shifts have a three times as likely need to take sick time per "day". Many people can get by their 8 hrs with many illnesses, to go home that night, whereas feeling like crap and not be 100% for a 24 hour tour is asking a lot. Not to mention if someone at city hall doesn't give their 100%, no one even notices, whereas in emergency work, not giving your all can be deadly. We rely on each other to get home safely after each tour, coming to work at 60% should not be an option.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Some of the major medical centers have taken a different approach to sick time that seems to be a step ahead of the curve. The have created a "bank out policy". Employees are allowed to buy up to 80% of their S/L hours back at a set rate the first week of December creating an incentive to not use their time and collect the cash as a "Christmas Fund". In exchange, the hospital saves by spending less for the same hours and in exchange gets the hours off the books while having the employee at work and boosting moral. What am I thinking though, when was government ever concerned with moral.

Our city pays us not to use sick leave, three times a year. Any employee who doesn't use any sick leave in the previous 4 months gets 18 hours of pay (not at 1.5x)and those who have used only 1 sick unit (hour or day) get 9 hours pay. In the past our sick leave accrual maxed out at 3168 hours and those hours in excess went into a "sick leave pool" for covering persons who were out longer than they had SL time for. This year, in an effort to help eliminate those hours in the future, we can enroll in retirement health saving plan, that buys out all maxed out sick time and vacation time beyond max allowable carryover and puts that money into an account to draw from after retirement. Though I'd say that while this seems like a benefit to us, it still was only offered to benefit the city somehow by eliminating unfunded hours or clearing them off the books.

[PEMO3 523]

Our city pays us not to use sick leave, three times a year. Any employee who doesn't use any sick leave in the previous 4 months gets 18 hours of pay (not at 1.5x)and those who have used only 1 sick unit (hour or day) get 9 hours pay. In the past our sick leave accrual maxed out at 3168 hours and those hours in excess went into a "sick leave pool" for covering persons who were out longer than they had SL time for. This year, in an effort to help eliminate those hours in the future, we can enroll in retirement health saving plan, that buys out all maxed out sick time and vacation time beyond max allowable carryover and puts that money into an account to draw from after retirement. Though I'd say that while this seems like a benefit to us, it still was only offered to benefit the city somehow by eliminating unfunded hours or clearing them off the books.

Just curious if this program has worked to reduce overall sick time use. I know a lot of people roll their eyes at the thought of paying for not using time but they fail to realize the savings involved can be quite large. If you look at an 8 hour shift that is covered with an O/T person the actual hourly rate paid is 2.5 hours (1 hr for the S/L and 1.5 for the O/T) and not usually even pay scales as a 20 year members at top pay may cover a 2 year members at base pay where that 1.5 hr rate the 20 yr member earns may actually be 2 times the 2 year members reg rate meaning that leave just cost 3.0x not 2.5x. If you pay the member for not using the time the rate paid becomes 2.0 hours (1 for the hour worked and 1 for the hour paid). Seems like this is actually a win-win scenario but as with everything involving public employees, John Q Public will see it as getting "free money" or a "bonus" and make it a scandal.

[gss131 212]

I agree with the post, but I don't get your math here.

Call in sick for one day, if assigned 24-hour tours, it is still one day. For someone who works an 8-hour day, calling in sick for one day is just that, eight hours. They would need to call in sick for three days to equate those hours.

So, by Journal News math, an "average" Yonkers FF who calls in sick 9 days, is out sick a total of 216 hours. For your average workers, they would need to call in sick 27 days to get that same number.

My point being, all said, Journal News probably did YFD a favor in reporting the outages in terms of "days", as opposed to "hours."

If you don't have knowledge of the work chart of the YFD ,you should refrain from any future computations.

[INIT915 1,119]

If you don't have knowledge of the work chart of the YFD ,you should refrain from any future computations.

Well, BNechis referred to a 24 hour schedules, so I was simply providing the calculations of 8 vs. 24 hour tours, which I stand by. Not even necessarily talking about YFD, as much as 24 tours in general. (There are other FD's out there you know. Not to mention PD's and EMS who work alternative schedules.)

Edited November 18, 2010 by INIT915

[antiquefirelt 994]

Just curious if this program has worked to reduce overall sick time use. I know a lot of people roll their eyes at the thought of paying for not using time but they fail to realize the savings involved can be quite large.

The problem is that it is not easy to measure this accurately. First, the basic premise of the program is that employees use sick time when they're not sick. The second issue is that some personnel will come to work somewhat sick, to avoid losing the bonus pay, especially when the payout day gets nearer. I've had to send one person home, who was clearly too sick to work, yet came in anyway, clearly claiming he didn't want to short shift our crew on a "busy" day. All in all we probably pay 75% of the people each period, meaning only 25% of the FD uses any sick time at all. It will become easier to track going forward from here as a new payroll clerk is tracking maximum sick leave time for buyout, as opposed to just showing us who's maxed out. This program started before they kept records nearly as accurately or re-traceable as they are today.

There are a few downsides to the program as well. Number one is that the employees show up to work when they shouldn't. This isn't routine, but it happens and requires the duty officer to evaluate and act on it, causing some friction when the employee disagrees. Also, in the original plan we just got the 18 hours, then they found that once employees lost the bonus pay for the period, they suddenly were sick more often until the payout, then it was back to showing up every tour. So they added the second 9 hour bonus to sweeten not taking multiple days if they weren't needed. Again, the results are herd to measure, maybe if we had a few thousand personnel we could get a more accurate sample size, but at our size one or two anomalies through off the statistics greatly. And lastly, the program as a whole is sort of an accusation that employees use sick time when they're not sick, which of course is reality, but it's unfortunate to have a policy that boldly puts that characterization out there.

[INIT915 1,119]

Just curious if this program has worked to reduce overall sick time use. I know a lot of people roll their eyes at the thought of paying for not using time but they fail to realize the savings involved can be quite large. If you look at an 8 hour shift that is covered with an O/T person the actual hourly rate paid is 2.5 hours (1 hr for the S/L and 1.5 for the O/T) and not usually even pay scales as a 20 year members at top pay may cover a 2 year members at base pay where that 1.5 hr rate the 20 yr member earns may actually be 2 times the 2 year members reg rate meaning that leave just cost 3.0x not 2.5x. If you pay the member for not using the time the rate paid becomes 2.0 hours (1 for the hour worked and 1 for the hour paid). Seems like this is actually a win-win scenario but as with everything involving public employees, John Q Public will see it as getting "free money" or a "bonus" and make it a scandal.

Just speaking for my agency, I believe there was a noticibale spike in S/L usage after the "incentive" was removed from the last contract. I don't think a majority of Members are abusing it, although there are a few, and inevitibaly, a few in every agency out there.

[helicopper 1,050]

If you don't have knowledge of the work chart of the YFD ,you should refrain from any future computations.

The discussion was spawned by the LOHUD article and nobody is criticizing Yonkers FD, quite the contrary - most are pointing out the glaring inaccuracies or "misinformation" that is in the article. There is no reason at all to get defensive. Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing others?

[JFLYNN 681]

The discussion was spawned by the LOHUD article and nobody is criticizing Yonkers FD, quite the contrary - most are pointing out the glaring inaccuracies or "misinformation" that is in the article. There is no reason at all to get defensive. Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing others?

Why doesn't everyone just read the IG report instead of speculating based on limited information included in that very poorly written article?

[gss131 212]

The discussion was spawned by the LOHUD article and nobody is criticizing Yonkers FD, quite the contrary - most are pointing out the glaring inaccuracies or "misinformation" that is in the article. There is no reason at all to get defensive. Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion instead of criticizing others?

Chris ,i don't believe i was criticizing anybody,but yet making a suggestion if you don't know the info ,don't start making up false numbers. This is half the reason the false bs is carried through to rags like lohud .Am i defensive ?you bet your A***. I'm tired of getting our balls wacked off and people right away fly off the cuff with false info.You want numbers ? i'll give you numbers.Our contract provides for 12 - 10 hr days of sick leave incentive, the same as every other agency in the city.Our members were out an average of 9.6 days. When you work a mutual into a 24, and you call in sick,you are being charged for 24 hrs against your sick incentive even though technically it was 1 day of being sick.So as quite the opposite of numbers being thrown around, i'll let the computation expert figure out how many 24 hrs tours it takes to accumulate 96 of sick time.

[INIT915 1,119]

The problem is that it is not easy to measure this accurately. First, the basic premise of the program is that employees use sick time when they're not sick. The second issue is that some personnel will come to work somewhat sick, to avoid losing the bonus pay, especially when the payout day gets nearer. I've had to send one person home, who was clearly too sick to work, yet came in anyway, clearly claiming he didn't want to short shift our crew on a "busy" day. All in all we probably pay 75% of the people each period, meaning only 25% of the FD uses any sick time at all. It will become easier to track going forward from here as a new payroll clerk is tracking maximum sick leave time for buyout, as opposed to just showing us who's maxed out. This program started before they kept records nearly as accurately or re-traceable as they are today.

There are a few downsides to the program as well. Number one is that the employees show up to work when they shouldn't. This isn't routine, but it happens and requires the duty officer to evaluate and act on it, causing some friction when the employee disagrees. Also, in the original plan we just got the 18 hours, then they found that once employees lost the bonus pay for the period, they suddenly were sick more often until the payout, then it was back to showing up every tour. So they added the second 9 hour bonus to sweeten not taking multiple days if they weren't needed. Again, the results are herd to measure, maybe if we had a few thousand personnel we could get a more accurate sample size, but at our size one or two anomalies through off the statistics greatly. And lastly, the program as a whole is sort of an accusation that employees use sick time when they're not sick, which of course is reality, but it's unfortunate to have a policy that boldly puts that characterization out there.

I think this coming year, at least in New York, with little prospect of monetary awards, you will see more and more of these "incentives" worked into contracts. Beneficial both from the perspective of the State, interested in reducing abuse of S/L, and the inherent OT it creates, and from the perspective of the Unions, as it may be a realistic way to include some monetary award during a contract season that will not see much in those terms. Since our contract is up this March, I for one hope that is an angle our Union is considering.

[FFBlaser 24]

Pretty Sure that having a Firefighter on duty who is sick with anything, is a liability to patients and other firefighters.

Don't let this "Inspector General" Bring you down.

Stay safe.