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. He announced on Sunday October 27 that he was considering tightening the sick leave regime for civil servants using two levers:

1. No longer pay the second and third days of sick leave by extending the waiting period from one to three days;
2. Reduce the remuneration paid to civil servants on sick leave to 90% of their normal salary, compared to 100% currently.

These measures, which should be introduced via amendments to the finance bill during the resumption of debates on the budget in the National Assembly on November 5, raise hopes of 1.2 billion euros in savings per year in the government (289 million euros with the deficiency 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 private sector employees, and a means of fighting against“absenteeism” civil servants. Arguments that several studies published in recent years allow us to qualify.

A measure that could increase long stops and further penalize women

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, then reestablished by the government of Edouard Philippe in 2018.

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

Another study published in 2017 by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee) reached the same observation on short stops: those of two days had halved between 2012 and 2014. But, over the same period, sick leave of one week to three months had increased by 25%. Fewer short absences, therefore, but more long absences.

INSEE therefore showed that the introduction of the waiting day in 2012 had not significantly reduced the absenteeism of civil servants. The study hypothesized that due to the “fixed cost” of the first unpaid day of sick leave, certain civil servants sick “might hesitate to stop working for treatment”leading to a deterioration in their state of health, ultimately leading to longer periods of downtime.

These conclusions are found in other more recent INSEE studies, such as that on the effect of the waiting day on absences due to illness among national education staff, published in July 2024. “The introduction of the waiting day can encourage sick people to work”notes the institute, and not necessarily reduce the number of“absences that would be unjustified”.

This can also “lead to a deterioration in health (worsening of symptoms, risk of relapse), as well as an increase in associated public expenditure”. In the event of a contagious disease, the increase in 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 if the reintroduction of the waiting day in the civil service since 2018 has significantly reduced short-term sick leave, and very slightly increased those of more than three months, it has more financially penalized women, who are more often affected by sick leave than men.

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

The government justifies the merits of its measure by 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 daily allowances. of Social Security only after a waiting period of three days.

However, behind this main principle, the reality is different depending on the company, often subject to better rules. According to the report of the general inspection of finances and the general inspection of social affairs, two thirds of private sector employees are in fact “protected against loss of income induced by the waiting period through company insurance”.

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

The latest “Complementary corporate social protection” survey from the Institute for Research and Documentation in Health Economics allows us to be more precise, even if it is somewhat dated (2017). Carried out among more than 6,000 companies employing nearly 325,000 people, it shows that 63.5% of employees worked in a company compensating all or part of the first three days of sick leave. Conversely, according to this study, only 33.8% of employees worked in a company that did not provide compensation for waiting days at all.

This study highlights a strong disparity in this compensation 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 therefore make the system of civil servants more unfavorable than that of the majority of private sector employees.

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

To justify the reduction in remuneration paid to civil servants on sick leave, the government once again uses the argument of alignment with the rules which govern the private sector: “Today in the public, it is 100% supported. It will increase to 90%: this is the general rule in the private sector”declared Guillaume Kasbarian on RTL.

Indeed, the labor code provides that the private employer supplements the compensation from Health Insurance (which pays 50% of the gross salary) to reach 90% of the gross salary (and this for a period of thirty to four twenty days, depending on the employee's seniority).

What the minister does not say is that “nearly 70% of employees in the private sector” benefit from a better-priced branch or company agreement, which maintains their salary at 100%, according to the report from the general inspectorate of finance and that of social affairs. The current “rule” of 100% compensation in the public sector is therefore much closer to the functioning of the private sector than would be a move to 90% compensation.