|
News Index
Next
Previous
The cost of staff absence increased to over £13 billion last year, according to
a recent survey.
The research, conducted by the CBI and insurer AXA, also reveals that absence
levels were 30% higher across public sector organisations than in the private
sector.
But the total number of days lost through absence across the UK economy fell by
4 million to 164 million days, the lowest level since 1987.
The survey suggests that a culture of absenteeism still exists in too many
workplaces. As many as 13% of days lost to sickness in 2005 were considered
non-genuine by employers, at a cost to the economy of £1.2bn.
Almost three quarters of the employers polled believed that unauthorised absence
could be linked to Mondays and Fridays, and almost two-thirds thought staff may
be taking unauthorised extensions to holidays.
Of those who responded, 42% considered special events, like the forthcoming
World Cup, were a likely cause of unwarranted absence.
CBI deputy Director-General, John Cridland stated: "The huge cost of absence to
the economy shows why so many CEOs declare that their people are their most
important asset.
"Hard work by companies to manage absence is clearly paying off, with overall
absence coming down. But so much more can still be done.
“Employers live in the real world and recognise that the majority of absence is
due to genuine, minor illnesses. Nobody wants staff to drag themselves into work
when they are genuinely ill.
"But there is clearly concern that a culture of absenteeism still exists in some
workplaces and this must change.
"With excitement inevitably building towards this summer’s World Cup, employers
may well be worried that staff will grant themselves unauthorised days off to
watch matches. We all want the England team to do well in the World Cup but many
employers make arrangements for staff to catch the big matches in the
workplace.”
The survey consistently finds that organisations which recognise trade unions
have higher rates of absence. This is particularly true for the public sector
and is irrespective of size: all but the very smallest unionised organisations
have higher rates.
Recognising a union need not automatically be a barrier to reducing absence,
however. Manufacturers that recognise unions have only 0.6 days higher absence
than those that do not whereas organisations in the public sector with union
recognition have absence 2.9 days higher than those without.
There is still a marked difference in rates of absence between large and small
organisations.
Larger ones, employing over 5,000 staff, averaged 7.4 days’ absence per
employee, whereas smaller ones with fewer than 50 employees averaged just 4.2
days.
The most likely reason for this difference is because more small firms put
senior managers in charge of absence, and staff may have a greater awareness of
its impact.
For the first time in the survey though, HR managers were found to be the most
effective at dealing with absence. Where they were in charge rather than line
managers, nearly two fewer days were lost.
The survey also reveal that managers may not be using the most effective
policies to manage absence.
The policies that had the most impact were waiting a period of days before
paying sick pay, offering bonuses for good attendance and providing early access
to medical care through private medical insurance.
Cridland added: "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.
"In its drive to reform welfare and encourage more people on incapacity benefit
back to work, the government must not deny employers the opportunity to wait a
couple of days before paying sick pay.
"Denying them this could increase short-term absence and add far more to
employers’ costs than it would save in administration.
“What businesses need to help with those on long-term absence is continued
reform of the health service to ensure effective, timely treatment with better
co-operation and support from GPs.”
Source:
RedAlert
|
