Feijóo and sick leave: the unsustainable narrative

If you don't work, why do you get paid? Feijóo's latest provocation

Feijóo has found an electoral goldmine in sick leave. On Tuesday, speaking to the Basque Circle of Entrepreneurs, the PP leader summarized his thesis with a phrase circulating on social media: if a collective agreement stipulates that those who do not work receive the same pay as those who do, and if the Administration allows unjustified absences with full salary, then absenteeism is unsustainable. The problem is that this narrative relies on a caricature of the real sick leave system.

What Feijóo didn't say: how much you actually earn while on leave

In most private sector collective agreements, a worker on sick leave receives no pay for the first three days. From day 4 to 20, the benefit is around 60% of the regulatory base; from day 21 onwards, it is 75%. In other words, getting sick is expensive. The idea of "full pay without working" only closely matches public employment, where salary supplements often bring the total to 100%, and some specific agreements.

Do not expect this nuance to stop the message. The comparison with the Chinese model—if you don't work, you don't earn—has circulated as a reasonable proposal among those who see "stretched" absences, citing absurd examples like months of leave for an ingrown toenail. In response, the most repeated answer is as simple as it is uncomfortable: the worker who tears ligaments at work feeds their children with a diminished benefit. Fraud exists, but making the honest pay for the dishonest solves nothing.

Absenteeism and sick leave: the confusion sustaining the narrative

The term absenteeism includes lateness, early departures, and unjustified absences. Sick leave, however, is a temporary incapacity validated by a Social Security or mutual insurance doctor. Mixing these concepts turns a real labor management issue into a farce about idlers. Circulating data suggests the public sector has weekly absenteeism peaks of 16% compared to 11% in the private sector. But this difference is not explained solely by shamelessness: some wait months for surgery or physiotherapy sessions that public healthcare does not provide. Cuts to health services also leave their mark on absenteeism statistics.

The politics of grievance: who benefits from the message

Not even Feijóo's harshest critics deny that absences have doubled in recent years, nor that in the Administration some string together leaves until retirement. The problem is the diagnosis. Attributing the growth in spending to trickery, rather than to working conditions or waiting lists, turns the need for reform into an excuse for cuts. In the process, the PP leader hands the left the role of defender of workers' rights and neutralizes any serious proposal to control abuse.

Some add a layer of irony: it does not seem that the absenteeism narrative sits well with a politician with a notable history of absences in Congress. But that is another chapter.

What if the provocation hides a strategy?

Some readings go further: Feijóo presumably knows that touching sick leave mobilizes his electorate, which is critical of the civil service, but also guarantees that the PSOE stirs up antiestéticar of rights cuts. In other words, a message designed to keep the party in opposition. If the goal were to govern, the logical path would be to differentiate between real absenteeism and justified leave, attacking abuse without incivil the sick. So far, the electoral result of the strategy is uncertain.

Until someone in the PP provides data instead of glib remarks, the provisional conclusion is simple: in Spain, sick leave has become a political battleground. And while both sides trade accusations, the worker who breaks down continues to receive at most 75% after day 21. If the intention was to focus on spending, he has succeeded. If it was to solve the problem, we will have to keep waiting.