As we all know,the public sector continues to take a battering, local government in particular, in spite of the huge savings we've delivered and the tremendous efficiencies now being reaped.

It all makes the Gershon savings of old seem ridiculously easy! Interesting then it is to see that the latest stick to beat us all with is the levels of sickness absence in our sector compared with that of the private sector.

The trouble is it's a ‘fair cop' and a beating we deserve. There is no doubt about it that the average of 8.6 days off a year in local government compared with 5.8 days off a year in the private sector is difficult to justify.

The old arguments of local government being a better employer than the private sector by looking after its employees when they are sick no longer quite ‘cuts it' as the same is true of good private sector employers as well.

One only has to look at examples such as John Lewis to see that in some respects the private sector is now better than the public sector in supporting not only the employee but the employee's family as well.

So where are we as a sector going wrong? Some would say that our nationally derived sickness scheme is far too generous and we should mimic many private sector organisations which tend not to pay employees for the first two or three days of sickness.

It is interesting that some councils have tried this with significant success and others have experienced such failure that they've had to revert to the national scheme.

What it comes down to is ‘horses for courses' and the need for organisational culture to fit the policy. It's the staff on the ground who are important and if they don't buy in to a policy change it is scuppered.

Yes, such policies as the first few days of non-payment can save money, but if the staff revolt then those savings soon lead to costs. Costs when staff choose to be off for five days instead of two or three and costs in lost productivity through the withdrawal of discretionary effort.

Entering into draconian policies to penalise staff if they are sick somehow doesn't seem right and it could be argued that it's a sign of organisational failure by doing so.

The fact is that people don't join organisations to be sick but they join wanting to work and do a good job.

It is only later in the employment cycle when things tend to go wrong with some employees and although employees themselves must take responsibility for that, so should employers.

Organisations can have the best sickness absence policies in the world, but what it all boils down to is effective leadership and management.

Maybe instead of reaching out to change our sickness absence policies, we would be better to equip our managers to be better managers of people and develop more leaders who inspire employees to work.

Richard Crouch is director of HR & OD and communications at Somerset CC and PPMA president