Illness cost British business £12bn in 1996

A confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey revealed last year that sickness absence cost British business £12 billion sterling in 1996. On average, business had to pay £533 in sickness absence for every employee.

It found that an average of 8.4 working days were lost per employee or 3.7 per cent of total working time in 1996 - up from 7.8 days and 3.4 per cent of working time in 1994.

The CBI survey, sponsored by BUPA and MCG Consulting Group, found that, on average, full-time non-manual staff took off 7.9 days a year in 1996 - up from 6.1 days. Manual workers went sick on 9.7 days, the same rate as in 1994. Part-time workers took off eight days attributed to sickness, or 3.8 per cent of part-timers' working time.

The survey covered 691 public and private organisations from all sizes and sectors, with a combined workforce of more than 1.5 million - representing almost 7 per cent of the total workforce.

As many as 98 per cent of employers believed that most sickness absence was genuine. Time off for family responsibilities was the second most significant reason for absence.

Sickness rates were higher in the public sector than the private sector. Public sector employees took 2.9 more days of sickness absence than people in the private sector. The average public sector worker took off 10.2 days a year, compared to 7.3 days in the private sector.

Differences also emerged between various industries, with only 3.3 days being lost due to sickness absence in oil and mining, 4.2 days in construction, 4.6 in hotels and leisure, 7.7 days in utilities, 7.8 in chemicals and 7.9 in the food and drink industry.

Dr David Costain, BUPA's assistant medical director, said that very few companies had a comprehensive strategy for health. "Companies need to improve their understanding of the cost implications of sickness absence and start to set themselves achievable targets for workplace health. I hope this study will prompt employers to start to take this issue seriously."

Mr Derek Burn, of MCG Consulting Group, said that sickness absence can often be attributed to "low morale and motivation, largely caused by uncertainty over job security and lack of investment in staff development. More organisations and businesses should view their staff as valuable assets.

"In organisations where the workforce is highly motivated, absenteeism can be as low as 1 or 2 per cent, and some more enlightened employers are starting to recognise the value of the knowledge economy which views people and the skills they have as an asset requiring investment and forming an important part of the capital of the business."

The survey highlighted the need to manage workplace attendance. Mr John Cridland, CBI's director of Human Resources Policy said: "The key to successful absence control is giving responsibility to the first-line managers to monitor absenteeism. The introduction of family-friendly policies such as flexible leave, child-care support, and termtime working may all help to reduce absenteeism."

There is no single, correct way of managing sickness absence because each employee is different and should be considered as an individual. Relatively few employees tend to have bad attendance records, with the vast majority of workers attending their place of employment every day.

Employers in Ireland and Britain agree that the best way of reducing sickness absence is with the carrot rather than the stick.

An attractive physical environment encourages people to attend, and to be better motivated at work.

Healthy workplace relationships have a direct effect on reducing sickness absence. Good relationships between management and workers, and between workers themselves, promotes good attendance.

Autonomy in the workplace, commensurate with worker responsibility, encourages attendance; while responsibility without control encourages low morale and sickness absence.

Fair remuneration is associated with good attendance, providing an incentive to work. Where people feel that their work is not adequately valued, they lose their motivation and commitment and can "rob back" from the employer by taking sick days.

Family-friendly workplaces tend to have lower sickness absence. Where employees feel that their domestic responsibilities are recognised and, where possible, facilitated, they tend to take less time off work.

Workers in larger organisations are more likely to take sickness leave due to work-related stress.

Absence rates tend to be lowest where line managers or senior managers take responsibility for sickness absence.

Team working is increasingly highly rated as a mechanism for reducing sickness absence.

Attendance bonuses are seen as the least effective method for managing sickness absence.

Compassionate employers recognise that workers can experience personal problems such as depression or relationship difficulties in their lives which can necessitate time off work.