How can employers satisfy the conflicting demands for control of sickness absence and the requirements to reduce stress in the workplace, with the issue of damaging the health of workers who turn up for work when they are too unwell to do so?

Kate Bawden, Senior Consultant at Mercer Human Resource Consulting looks at some of the issues.

Employers are increasingly being encouraged by the government to reduce sickness absence and as a consequence have introduced tighter controls. This has increased pressure on a workforce already working longer hours than their colleagues in the rest of the EU.

So what are the real issues here? The 1980s saw a huge change in the way people perceived the workplace. Jobs for life became a thing of the past and attitudes to work became polarised with two extremes manifesting. While the majority still just get on with what is required, a significant number will do anything to remain in a job – including working long hours and turning up when sick. At the other end of the spectrum are those who do not care and have lost any sense of loyalty to their employer.

The results are the same, a rise in reported stress-related sickness absence caused by totally divergent issues. This makes any solution extremely difficult, the tightening of absence regulations may discourage the ‘don’t cares,’ but it can create even more problems for those who do care. They may make even greater effort to turn up for work and become ever more convinced that any absence will result in the loss of their job.

Equally, any relaxation of the absence regulations may encourage the ‘don’t cares’ to abuse the system further. How does a responsible employer tackle this seemingly contradictory problem?

The problem can be solved if there is a will. That will, however, has to come from the very top of any organisation as there is a large cultural context to any successful solution. The HSE has written guidelines on how it wants companies to tackle stress and is looking at some of the cultural values of organisations.

Employees are being asked to ‘score’ their workplaces on a number of categories; these include communication, autonomy and sense of purpose. While these are important issues there is little advice available about how things that are perceived as poor can be improved.

The way forward is for companies to become more self-aware, and for any changes to be seen to be sponsored by senior management. In turn, management needs to be convinced of the business case for improvement and whether there is a pay back in financial terms as well as in employee satisfaction.

It can be shown that improving the psychological environment will increase productivity and reduce turnover.

Stress is the second most frequently reported illness in this country and statistics show that some 30 million working days were lost due to work-related ill health during 2003/04. The economic consequence of this amount of absence is in the region of £7.6 – £11.6 million lost to the economy annually due to ill health. The HSE estimate that some £210 – £310 million is lost in the financial and business sectors alone when all costs are taken into account.

These statistics are reflected in a recent Mercer survey of over 100 employers where stress is cited as a key cause of both short and long-term absence. Conversely, the same survey identified that 41% of employers did not see absence to be an issue for them, though 55% thought the cost of managing absence would at best stay the same in 2005.

Absence issues can be resolved in-house using the HSE guidelines. However, larger companies in particular may wish to bring in external expertise to gain an impartial overview of the situation and build solutions that are delivered to a defined timescale.

To control sickness absence costs without encouraging the unwell or contagious in to the workplace, it is necessary to;

• Understand the culture of the organisation




• Find out where and what the stresses and strains are and be aware they are as likely to be generated by home as at work




• Ensure that what can be changed for the better is changed




• Communicate understanding of what cannot be changed and provide sufficient support for those times/areas; and




• Review findings regularly

There are a number of complex and time-consuming issues at stake and many companies are looking for help in this area. The HSE has gone some way to provide a basis for solutions, but has been criticised for creating guidelines which are too simplistic and may lead to abuse if not understood and carefully handled.

Employers must remember to highlight positive aspects to employees alongside those areas that need improvement.