|
Data from the latest CBI/AXA survey on absence and labour turnover trends in the UK suggests that a 'culture of absenteeism' still exists in too many workplaces.
According to the survey, "Absence minded: absence and labour turnover 2006", the total number of days lost through absence across the UK fell by 4 million to 164 million days last year. However, the cost of staff absence to the UK economy rose to over £13 billion. The cost of absence (which includes covering the salaries of absent staff, paying overtime and providing temporary cover) has risen from £495 per employee in 2004 to £531 in 2005.
The survey also reveals that absence levels were 30% higher across public sector organisations than in the private sector. On average, public sector employees were absent 8.5 days a year whilst private sector employees were absent 6 days a year.
Further, as many as 13% of days taken for sickness were considered by employers to be staff 'pulling sickies'. Employers believed that unauthorised absences could be linked to Mondays and Fridays (73% of employers), taking unauthorised extensions to holidays (64%) and special events such as the forthcoming World Cup (40%).
The survey shows a marked difference in rates of absence between large and small organisations. Large organisations (with over 5,000 staff) averaged 7.4 days absence per employee, whilst smaller organisations (less than 50 employees) averaged 4.2 days. The most likely reason for this difference is thought to be because more small firms put senior managers in charge of absence, and because staff may have a greater awareness of its impact.
The survey reveals that the policies that had the most impact on managing absence were:
waiting a period of days before providing sick pay;
offering bonuses for good attendance; and
providing early access to medical care through private medical insurance.
CBI Deputy Director-General, John Cridland, said: "Absence is best managed with both carrot and stick - schemes that reward the good attendees work best together with those that deter the worst offenders."
TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber said: "The survey shows that sickness absence is now the lowest for well over a decade and smashes the myth that Britain is a nation of shirkers. In fact the reverse is true and many people struggle into work when they are far too ill to do so." He added that: "Only lazy employers think the solution to excess sick leave is to emphasize the stick. The best way is to work with staff with effective risk assessments, flexible working and positive sickness management programmes".
(CBI News Release 15 May 2006 and TUC Press Release 15 May 2006) Back
Investing in Occupational Health Reduces Sickness Absence
A survey of more than 600 companies, carried out by EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, reveals a clear link between significant investment in occupational health and reduced absence rates and improved employee welfare.
The EEF survey shows that where there is occupational health support (whether external or internal) 39% of companies saw a reduction in short-term absence and 28% saw a reduction in long-term absence. The figures show that committing resources to tackling sickness absence and placing an emphasis on rehabilitation and getting people back to work can benefit both employers and employees.
The survey also revealed the following:
"general wellbeing of employees" was cited as the second most common reason for concern about sickness absence (45%) behind "management concern at cost of sickness absence" (74%);
companies reported that over one third of their employees (38%) did not have a single episode of sickness absence;
minor illness was reported by 95% of companies as the main cause of short term absence, followed by back pain and other muscular/joint problems (51%);
surgery/medical test was the main cause of long term absence (45%) followed by back problems (40%), non work related injuries (26%) and stress (24%); and
employers tended to use specialist occupational health or other consultancies to provide their OH support rather than their GP. |
|
