|
Measuring the cost
of workplace absence to the UK economy is a difficult art. The CBI
calculates it at £10.5bn per year. The Industrial
Society puts it at £13bn. Though calculations of the cost vary,
the point is clear that there is a high rate of absence, and that it
is very costly to the UK economy.
In 1999, 187 million working days
were lost. This translates as around 8 days per employee, in total
3.4% of working time. But
can this be changed, or is it a fact of life that people get sick and
will have to miss a certain amount of work?
A closer look at the data indicates
that the figure could be lower:
- organisations with the worst
records have twice the absence rates of the best ones - there may
be factors relating to the work involved, but it indicates that many
firms have scope for improvement
- men under 40 have half the
absence rate of women of the same age
- public sector employees report
sick more often than those in the private sector
- trade unionists report sick
more often than non-union employees.
There is scope to draw some
contentious conclusions from these findings - for example, is greater
job security in the public sector a reason for not being so motivated
to struggle in to work? Whatever the reasons, these differences
highlight areas where, at least to some extent, individual's criteria
for considering themselves unfit for work vary.
the Industrial Society report Maximising
Attendance also highlights a divergence of opinion between what
managers think are the top five causes of absence and what employees
say themselves:
| How
employees report absence |
In
managers' own opinion |
| 1.
Colds/flu |
1.
Colds/flu |
| 2.
Stomach upset/food poisoning |
2.
Stress/emotional problems/personal problems |
| 3.
Headaches/migraines |
3.
Monday morning blues/extending the weekend |
| 4. Back
problems |
4. Low
morale/boring job |
| 5.
Stress/emotional problems/personal problems |
5.
Childcare problems/family sickness |
If managers are correct as seeing
the reason in the left hand column as often being "code" for
some of the reasons they list, it pinpoints areas where employers
could take positive action to reduce absenteeism.
|
Tackling absence positively |
|
Leaving aside surveillance, interrogation and other
more draconian approaches, which no doubt some employers might favour,
there are preventative measures which employers could take. For
example
- family friendly policies, from flexible hours to
workplace crèches to help employees cope with childcare problems
- providing more varied/interesting/responsible
work to combat "low morale/boring job" syndrome
- compressed working week options to cater
positively for those who may need longer weekends
- mentoring, counselling, fitness programmes,
on-site massage etc to help people through stress, emotional
problems or personal problems, plus careful monitoring of
workloads.
The Industrial Society suggests other steps
organisations could take:
- having a clear policy on absence monitoring
- training managers to manage attendance
- training employees to recognise and manage signs
of stress
- improving employee motivation through training
and development opportunities
- using return-to-work interviews after illness and
informal procedures to keep individuals informed and to resolve
problems by consensus.
These approaches tackle absenteeism by seeking to
reduce the number of absences.
|
Redefining absence |
|
An alternative approach is to alter the nature of
absences, so that absence from the workplace does not mean that no
work is done at all.
When people are absent - unless for an agreed
appointment with the doctor or dentist - it is usually for a whole day
at a time. But people who may not feel up to the commute journey and 8
hours of continuous work may nonetheless feel able and willing to put
in a few hours of work. This is particularly the case where the
reported illness really belongs to the employee's child, rather than
the employee.
Looked at this way, it can be said that traditional
and inflexible work practices require people to be absent from work
for longer than they need to be.
All across the country parents (usually it is
mothers) call in sick when they are not, so that they can look after a
sick child. They then crawl into work when they really are sick by way
of compensating, or if they feel they can't be sick "again"
so soon after the last absence. Unhealthy patterns emerge amongst
parents: they routinely work when they should be recuperating, and
share their diseases in the workplace.
Much simpler, more honest and more productive are
work environments where employees feel free to tell their line
managers and colleagues that their child is ill, and then work from
home. (And it helps to be properly set up for this, with remote
access, etc)
A similar process could apply to people who are well
enough to work intermittently at home, but for whom a day in the
office could be very debilitating. This is especially helpful for
people with chronic or intermittent conditions. A work regime which
requires nine-to-five seven days a week can be intrinsically disabling
for some people with chronic conditions or long term illnesses, or who
are recuperating from serious illness or injury. Flexible hours and
home based working can allow people in this position to maximise their
contribution, and to increase their wage-earning potential.
In the end, the solutions should be about focusing
on what people can do, rather than on their non-attendance on the
workplace.
|
