The reform could make the civil service system less favorable than that of the private sector.

The Barnier government reveals day after day the maps of its policy of budgetary rigor. On Sunday, October 27, he announced that he was considering tightening the sick leave regime for civil servants using two levers:

1. Stop paying for the second and third days of sick leave by extending the waiting period from one to three days;
2. Reduce the remuneration of officials on sick leave to 90% of their normal salary, compared to the current 100%.

These measures, which should be introduced through amendments to the finance bill during the resumption of budget debates in the National Assembly on November 5, lead to expected savings of 1.2 billion euros per year in the government (289 million euros with the deficit and 900 million euros with the reduction in remuneration). But, beyond the financial argument, the latter praises a measure of justice, which would amount to aligning the treatment of public sector agents with that of private sector employees, and a way to fight against“absenteeism” public officials. Arguments that several studies published in recent years allow us to clarify.

A measure that could increase long stops and penalize women even more

To measure the effect of the introduction of waiting days in the civil service, we have several historical precedents: in fact, the first waiting day was introduced by the right in 2012, abolished by the socialists in 2014 and then reinstated by the Edward’s government. Felipe in 2018.

The General Inspection of Finance and the General Inspection of Social Affairs, which studied the reintroduction of the waiting day in 2018, believe that “resulted in an approximately 11% reduction in the prevalence of sick leave of less than three days” and around 10% for those less than four days, according to a report made public in September 2024.

Another study published in 2017 by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) came to the same observation about short stops: those of two days were reduced by half between 2012 and 2014. But, in the same period, cancellations due to illness from one week to three months had increased by 25%. Therefore, fewer short absences, but more long absences. Therefore, INSEE demonstrated that the introduction of the waiting day in 2012 had not significantly reduced civil servant absenteeism. The study hypothesized that due to the “fixed cost” of the first day of unpaid sick leave, certain sick officials “might hesitate to stop working to receive treatment”leading to a deterioration in their health status and ultimately to longer periods of inactivity.

These conclusions are found in other more recent INSEE studies, such as the one on the effect of the waiting day on sickness absences among national education personnel, published in July 2024. “The introduction of a waiting day can encourage sick people to work”points out the institute, and not necessarily reduce the number of“absences that would be unexcused”.

This can also “lead to a deterioration in health (worsening of symptoms, risk of relapse), as well as an increase in associated public spending”. In the case of a contagious disease, increased contamination in the workplace due to the presence of sick people could also “lead to a reduction in individual and collective productivity”.

The same study shows that although the reintroduction of the waiting day in the public service since 2018 has significantly reduced short-term sick leave and has very slightly increased those of more than three months, it has financially penalized women more, that are most frequently affected. on sick leave than men.

An “alignment” with the private sector that is not one

The government justifies the merits of its measure with the idea that it is only an alignment of the civil service system with the private sector, where the general rule is that employees do not receive Social Security allowances only after a period waiting for three. days. However, behind this fundamental principle, the reality is different depending on the company, often subject to better rules. According to the report of the general inspectorate of finance and the general inspectorate of social affairs, two-thirds of employees in the private sector are, in fact, “protected against loss of income induced by the waiting period through company insurance”.

The Minister of the Public Service, Guillaume Kasbarian, tried to downplay these figures on RTL on October 29: “In the private sector it depends on collective agreements and there are 650 collective agreements. »

The latest survey on “Complementary corporate social protection” by the Institute for Research and Documentation in Health Economics allows us to be more precise, although a little dated (2017). Conducted among more than 6,000 companies that employ nearly 325,000 people, it shows that 63.5% of employees worked in a company, fully or partially compensating for the first three days of sick leave. On the contrary, according to this study, only 33.8% of employees worked in a company that did not compensate waiting days at all.

This study highlights a strong disparity in this remuneration according to socio-professional categories, which had already been highlighted by a study by the Department of Research, Studies, Evaluation and Statistics in 2015: “Employees whose employer covers the waiting period belong to more advantaged social categories and benefit on average from better working conditions than employees who are not covered. »

Far from aligning the civil service system with the private sector, the introduction of two additional waiting days for civil servants could make the civil service system more disadvantaged than that of most private sector employees.

The introduction of 90% compensation: budget savings, but an injustice compared to the private sector

To justify the reduction in the remuneration of officials on sick leave, the Government once again uses the argument of adaptation to the rules that govern the private sector: “Today public opinion supports him 100%. It will increase to 90%: this is the general rule in the private sector”declared Guillaume Kasbarian to RTL.

In effect, the Labor Code provides that the private employer complements the Health Insurance compensation (which pays 50% of the gross salary) up to 90% of the gross salary (and this for a period of thirty to four twenty days, depending on the seniority of the employee).

What the minister does not say is that “almost 70% of employees in the private sector” benefit from a branch or company agreement with a better price, which maintains their salary at 100%, according to the report of the general inspection of finances and social affairs. Therefore, the current 100% compensation “rule” in the public sector is much closer to how the private sector works than a change to 90% compensation.