Last year 137 million days were lost which works out at 4.3 days per person – down from 7.2 days in 1993 when the government started keeping records.
That means a sickness absence rate of 1.9% compared to the 3.1% in 1993.
Public sector sickness absence rates were 2.9%, down from 4.3%, contrasting with the private sector rate of 1.7%.
Public sector rates have always been higher than private sector which has been attributed to its generous sick pay schemes. The private sector rate is more like the rate in the US where until recently few workers got sickness benefits.
Within the public sector the NHS had the highest rate of sickness absence at 3.5%.
When I was a director of a large NHS Trust in the 1990s I was tasked with helping management reduce sickness absence (I had to convince the chairman that it was a line management responsibility which HR could support in different ways).
Carrying out quarterly surveys and publishing league tables I found that levels varied by occupation. Nurses had the highest rates of sickness absence, above 6%, whilst senior managers had the lowest at just over 1%. Admin staff were around the mean of 3.0%.
Taking that data alongside well-being surveys we carried out showed that nurses were the ones who smoked the most (and took off more single days) but managers drank more.
We introduced “first day reporting of sickness absence, in person to the line manager” where possible, “return to work interviews” when the person came back to work. Monthly reporting of sickness for everybody so we could calculate days lost, number of spells (occasions) and see suspicious patterns around weekends and bank holidays.
We also introduced No Smoking policies, Healthy Eating options, Stress Management programmes, a staff counselling service, provided a gym, a physiotherapist and yoga classes. We also had an occupational health service and offered air miles as a reward to people who didn’t take time off work through sickness.
Despite this mixture of approaches it wasn’t easy reducing the levels. The latest downturn has been particularly dramatic since the economic crash of 2007 and the ONS suggests that job insecurity is a significant factor. Zero hours contracts, currently at a their highest level, can’t be helping and there are more people working as self-employed. Who measures their sickness absence?
Other factors include the opportunity for some people to work from home when they are unwell rather than actually take a day off sick. In fact the TUC believes that far too many people go to work when they are ill and shouldn’t. And that argument has been strongly made for health care staff in contact with patients and you can see the point. Would you want someone sneezing all over you as you lay in your hospital bed?
The TUC say that over the Winter half a million people went into work despite feeling ill because they didn’t want to let down their clients, colleagues, or employer.
Twenty years ago, when I was involved in helping to manage the sickness absence problem, national data, produced at that time by professional bodies, showed that older workers took longer spells of absence whereas younger workers took off more short spells. The new ONS data shows that that is no longer true.
Older workers (over-65s) now take the most time off sick whereas workers aged 25-34 take off the fewest days with a 1.5% rate. The fact that people are still working after what used to be the normal retirement age also says something about the impact of the 2007 slump and people’s needs to top up poor pensions and keep themselves active.
Older workers are more likely to suffer from chronic illnesses but not enough is done to adapt the work for them and lower productivity can be attributed to a lack of investment in training older employees.. BMW in Germany are a good example of what can be done to accommodate older workers and keep them productive,
As I said at the top of the post – there’s more to sickness absence than just the numbers.
I recently wrote elsewhere about the way some care providers pay staff basic wages but make sure that the people at the top are generously rewarded. Charity Chiefs have also been in the firing line too.
Housing Association chiefs are the latest to receive big pay rises with one now earning almost £500,000 a year. That’s David Cowans the CEO at Places for People who received an 11% pay-rise last year. Jane Ashcroft the CEO at Anchor saw her pay rose 7% to £366,000, and David Bennett head of the Sanctuary Group had a 15% pay rose taking his earnings to £319,00.
And the average pay of the top 100 housing association chiefs was £183,000, a 5.5% annual pay hike.
Taxpayers and tenants who are paying for these high salaries might wonder why and as the Taxpayers Alliance says “Housing Associations are not run for profit and proceeds are expected to be invested in new homes not splashed on huge pay packets”
They inherited their housing stock from local councils and have done little to provide new homes, a source of frustration to the government. Four out of five housing associations didn’t build any new homes last year. The chancellor has criticised their lack of effort and plans to give the 1.3 million housing association tenants the “right to buy“. In the past local councils managed housing stocks and built good quality homes (as you can see from their resale value).
Of course the National Housing Federation is on the defensive about these criticisms and says they need “agile leaders with considerable experience who can manage complex businesses with turnovers in the hundreds of millions and employing hundreds of people.”
I’m not sure what’s so complex about housing associations which deal in, well, houses and their new build record is lamentable (local authorities have not done much either with third not replacing any of the houses sold off under the “right to buy” legislation). Hardly a high risk business with much competition. And that hardly explains the inflation busting pay raises they’ve received.
The NHF also claims that “On average the CEO’s pay is ten times that of their lowest paid staff – significantly less than in other regulated industries“. They are lies damned lies, and statistics – never trust averages, particularly when it comes to pay comparisons!
Well according to Nick Lovegrove, a director at McKinsey, and Matthew Thomas, executive director of the Intersector Project, it’s what we need i.e. executives who can move easily between business, government and social enterprises.
They argue that the biggest problems facing us in coping with constraints on resources, or controlling spiralling health-care costs, require business, government and the third sector to cooperate.
So “Tri-sector leaders” (that sounds better) who can bridge the culture, values, incentives and purpose that separates the three sectors are invaluable in solving those problems.
But how do you develop such leaders? I remember many years ago being interviewed by a consultant for an HR job in the Auto industry (in which I had worked previously). I was then head of HR for a local authority and his first question was : “why have you been wasting your time in the public sector?”
Lovegrove and Thomas believe we need to incorporate tri-sector issues in academic and executive training and use exchange programmes so that mid-career managers can build up networks.
Tri-sector experience has also got to be seen as a development priority for business leaders.
Perhaps the more difficult aspect of this idea is that individuals will have competing motives and possibly conflicting professional goals.
They are concerned with wealth creation for themselves and their families which is more attainable in the private sector; they may also want leadership on a large scale and a position of influence – which working in government can offer.
They may also have a strong sense of purpose or mission which is the main focus of the non-profit third sector. But the cultures and career prospects and different earning potential can create barriers.
Tri-sector leaders are likely to be more idealistic than purely self-interested and more pragmatic than entirely selfless – an interesting mix of pragmatism and idealism.
It also seems that, among the younger generation at least, these leaders want to move on without necessarily completing their careers in any one sector.
The authors say developing such leaders is very difficult in the USA where there is so much friction between the three sectors.
Business executives consider government as bureaucratic and inept and NGOs as ineffective; public servants think private enterprise executives just want to make as much money as they can as quickly as they can while those in the third sector think nobody cares.
Is it any different in the UK?
Main Source: “Triple Strength Leaders” in HBR September 2013