End the duvet day

Absenteeism can have a devastating effect on some organisations but experts say that many employers still fail to properly appreciate the scale of the problem and that they are dismissive as to the underlying reasons why staff may call in sick, writes Neil Hodge

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) claims that the average cost of absence per employee is £692 and for the UK economy as a whole represents a cost of £17.3bn per year. According to its 2009 absence management annual survey, call centre staff are the most likely to take time off through absence, chalking up an average 12.4 days off per employee per year. The next is health service workers with 11 days, local government employees at 10.7 days, followed by the police and care workers at 10.2 days. Textile workers are the least likely to be absent from work, with the average days lost per employee per year numbering just 3.7.

Many employers dismiss intermittent short-term absence as people simply taking ‘duvet days’ – preferring to stay in bed or sleep off a hangover than come into work. Some research backs this up. According to an absenteeism survey carried out by workforce management consultancy Kronos, around 20% of full-time, salaried employees admit to calling in sick to enjoy a day off.. Timed to coincide with ‘National Sick Day’ – the first Monday of February which is thought to be the most likely day in the year for employees to call in sick, the survey found that over 70% of respondents would take a day off spontaneously rather than planned, with Friday the most likely day to take off.

Some companies have famously tried to deal with short-term absence head on. Back in 2004, for example, supermarket giant Tesco trialled a 12-month scheme in ten of its stores where it would refuse to pay staff for the first three days an employee was ill. Usdaw, the shopworkers union, which represented about half of Tesco's 220,000 workers, even cooperated with the plan. Tesco, like any other employer, was within its rights not to offer employees full pay while on sick leave as there is no legal obligation to do so – most employers usually honour the policy to maintain good staff relations. However, the scheme was dropped.

But experts warn that it would be wrong to dismiss the impact that absenteeism can have on an organisation, or try to find out the underlying reasons why people feel the need to take time off. Clive James, training and development manager at St John Ambulance, says that in Britain work-related stress, depression or anxiety already accounts for approximately 11.4 million reported lost working days per year with 415,000 individuals believing they are experiencing workplace stress at a level that is making them ill. He also points out that in 2008/9 there were nearly 105,000 injuries which led to absence from work, yet worryingly 15% of businesses have never carried out an assessment to determine risks in the workplace and how to minimise them.

Furthermore, he says, in the last year there have been over 1,100 cases in the UKof businesses being taken to court because of health and safety failings, resulting in 87% being convicted. Such stark figures should put the issue in a very serious light. “The repercussions can be immense, not only in terms of the safety of their employees but also legally and financially,” says James.

Employee sickness and rehabilitation has been a key issue for insurers and trades unions for over a decade, particularly long-term absence caused by work-related injuries which is costly to deal with. Stuart Sutherland, underwriting manager (UK primary casualty) at XL Insurance, says that rather than a claims management led rehabilitation programme, some insurers, including XL Insurance, have designed schemes providing an independent 24-hour helpline managed by medically trained professionals. Staff can contact the helpline in order to get professional advice on the right treatment as soon as they are off sick, rather than having to wait until a claim has been filed. This is based on the belief that any delay in treatment will only prolong the absence from work and increase associated costs for the insured and their insurer.

Sutherland says that in cases involving soft tissue and musculoskeletal injuries it is particularly important to provide fast access to medically trained staff with the latest treatment techniques and specific rehabilitation programmes. The aim is to ensure the injured employees returns to work in the shortest but safest possible time and this treatment not only includes a physical ‘hands-on’ element, but also provides a combination of structured education and advice on coping strategies.

“Getting people back to work as quickly as possible is the best remedy for everyone,” says Sutherland. “It is good for the employer because it prevents any kind of slippage in production or project times. It is good for employees because being off for long periods can damage their confidence and make a return to work more difficult, and it is good for insurers because it reduces our costs,” he says.

While employers are looking increasingly favourably at cost effective rehabilitation solutions for long-term absence, they are also waking up to the benefits of taking preventative steps to cut down incidences of short-term absence as part of a wider employee risk management programme. However, progress is still slow.

Aaron Ross, chief executive of FirstCare, a provider of absence management solutions, says that absence is under-reported in most organisations and so the problem is poorly addressed as a result. “Organisations cannot begin to solve a problem unless they know the scale of it,” says Ross. “Management needs to have up-to-date information about the number of days each employee has called in sick, the frequency of their absence, and the reasons given for it. Once managers start breaking down this information, they can talk to staff members and get a better idea of what might be contributing to their absence and work out how the organisation can help take preventative or rehabilitative measures to reduce days lost,” he says.

Eugene Farrell, chairman of the Employee Assistance Professionals Association (EAPA), the UK independent body for employee assistance programmes, says that organisations need to properly assess how absence affects their performance. “You can only really tackle a problem when you understand the extent to which it affects your business. And because every business is different you will need to invest some time and resources to investigate how absence is an issue for you and your people.”

There are some very simple and inexpensive checks that organisations can carry out if they know what to look for. For example, if an employer looks through the records he may discover that a particular employee has a history of taking days off when asked to work with a particular colleague, or on a particular project or part of the business. “A lot of absence may stem from people not liking parts of their job but they are reluctant to tell anyone, or that they hurt themselves when doing particular tasks, such as lifting. A face-to-face chat with employees once they return to work may uncover these problems and allow management to do something about them,” says Ross.

Nigel Watson, a performance culture specialist and founder of human resources consultancy Q4, says that poor absence management is a sign of poor leadership and corporate governance. “A lot of organisations fail to see the significance of determining why people are absent, how often it occurs, and what it costs the organisation. This is crazy. If key people are missing on key days, this can cause massive disruption to the business.”

Such sentiments are backed up by Dr Paul Robertson of the risk and business continuity management services team at professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. He points out that, in some industries, there needs to be a nominated person to take charge of particular processes and documentation. Without them being present, the company cannot have its products or services signed off, which may interrupt the business. “Regulators like to have a single nominated individual as a point of contact or as an actual licence holder,” says Robertson. “For example, in the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, if the licence holder is absent then product can not be licensed, hence the entire business is disrupted.”

Graham Paul, partner in the employment team at solicitors Dundas & Wilson, says that employers need to incorporate absence management into their business continuity management plans so that the organisation is not brought to a standstill or badly disrupted when a key individual is unable to get to the office. “Organisations should discourage the situation developing of individuals having sole client or customer relationships. Managers must ensure that there are multiple business contacts with all clients and customers so that if one person is off ill it isn't a disaster. If the organisation can cope, have mini job-swaps or designated ‘shadows’ which help get people multi-skilled so that they understand what colleagues do and can step in for them if needed.”

Tackling cultural issues surrounding absence and what is acceptable is also very important. The first step to tackle the problem is to have a clear absence policy which is communicated to all employees and makes it clear what is acceptable and expected of them. The policy must also be strictly enforced. Effective absence policies must spell out employees’ rights and obligations when taking time off from work due to sickness. The policy should provide details of contractual sick pay terms and its relationship with statutory sick pay, and outline the process employees must follow if taking time off sick – covering when and whom employees should notify if they are not able to attend work.

Policies should also include when employees need to produce a self-certificate form, as well as spell out when they require a medical certificate from their doctor to certify their absence. More importantly, absence policies must mention that the organisation reserves the right to require employees to attend an examination by a company doctor and (with the worker’s consent) to request a report from the employee’s doctor.

Experts also recommend that organisations should conduct ‘return to work’ interviews with employees as soon as they come back to work as these have been identified as the most effective intervention to manage short-term absence. They should also be carried out after each separate incident of absence. Experts say that the speed of interview is important so organisations should consider an automated prompt to highlight exactly when an employee has returned.

But employers should also consider more flexible working options. For example, if possible, organisations should relax the rules and permit flexible working from home, or allow people to complete their work in four days rather than five at the office. Research by the CIPD and others has found that allowing employees to select shifts and swap shifts at short notice has been proven to reduce absenteeism. Other options include unpaid leave or the ability to buy more holiday time. Planned absence is always easier for a business to manage than unscheduled absence, say experts.

Suzanne Horne, of counsel and employment lawyer at international law firm Morrison & Foerster, says that employers are becoming increasingly sympathetic to many reasons behind employee absence, and that they are now more able to accommodate people being away from the office – so long as they are notified of the real reasons behind their absence. “People may have to explain that they cannot get into work because of traffic problems, bad weather, or sick children and they should not be penalised for this or forced to come to work regardless. Besides, with modern technology, it might be possible for that person to work from home. If not, he or she might be able to make up the lost time by working flexible hours over the week,” she says. “Employers need to act reasonably in such circumstances, otherwise any warnings or disciplinary action they give may be seen to be unfair,” she adds.

Some experts also advise organisations to take a realistic approach to why people might be absent – such as staff parties, the days running up to or following public holidays, and national events. Ivan Robertson, managing director at business psychology company Robertson Cooper, says that “some rise in absenteeism rates around big events like the World Cup is inevitable – but if you are open and flexible with staff time may not even be lost. For example, if you agree that they can watch the games if they work a bit later another time. And remember, there will be those who aren’t interested in football at all and very happy to cover. Being rigid will not only affect absence rates, but will also damage morale long-term.”