Employees took 180 million sick days last year and 15% were fake, according to research.
The 27 million ‘sickies’ pulled cost the country over £2bn a year, revealed the Absence and Workplace Health Survey by the CBI and Pfizer.
However, the good news for smaller businesses is that ‘sickies’ are much more common in larger companies. This suggests that employees feel much guiltier about taking unauthorised time off when they personally know the owner of the company and their importance to the business is proportionately much greater.
The 27 million ‘sickies’ pulled cost the country over £2bn a year
The average sick days taken by companies with 5,000 or more staff was six days per year, while for organisations with between 50 and 199 employees it was five days.
The research also found rates of absence were higher among manual workers, who averaged over seven days per year, compared to non-manual workers, averaging five days.
Staff absences as a whole cost Britain’s employers £17bn in 2009, not including indirect costs such as reductions in customer service levels and disruption to teamwork.
The recently introduced ‘fit note’, which ensures that GPs, employers and staff focus on what an employee can do, not what they can’t, was mostly welcomed. The initiative, which replaced sick notes in April, was praised by 76% of those polled as likely to get people back to work sooner.
Katja Hall, CBI director of employment policy, says: “The rate of employee absence has come down, but it still costs the economy billions of pounds a year. If absence levels across the board could be reduced by 10% the economy would see annual savings of almost £2bn.
“Unfortunately, bogus sick days remain a problem and are unfair on hard-working colleagues and employers alike.”
A slight improvement in the public-sector absence rate accounts for an overall fall compared to previous years, but it still remains significantly higher than private-sector absence rates. Public sector workers took an average of eight sick days off per year, 43% higher the private-sector figure of just under six days.
Hall continues: “Although the rate of employee absence has fallen in the public sector, it is still a lot higher than in the private sector, and this issue should be addressed, especially given that the public finances are strained.
“Improved rehabilitation and workplace health policies are a key part of achieving this. But so is ensuring that absence, where it occurs, is justified.”
Long-term absence
Long-term absences only account for 5% of instances of absence, but cumulatively they represent 20% lost days in the private sector and 36% in the public sector. According to the CBI survey back pain and mental health issues are key causes of long-term absence.
Dr Berkeley Phillips, UK medical director of Pfizer Ltd, says: “We have long known that mental health, back pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are the leading causes of long-term absence, and this year’s CBI report reinforces this.
“Whilst employers view loss of productivity as the main impact of absence, the economic consequences stretch much further and as such, we as a society need to do more to advance health and wellness at every stage of life.”
Companies are increasingly using rehabilitation plans and support, in which getting staff back to work sooner and productively are major objectives. The survey shows 95% of organisations have a formal absence policy – a rise of 10% compared with 2007.
Asked what the government could do to help, responses were focused on doctors, with 63% of employers wanting to see better occupational health training for GPs, 56% wanting to see a better working relationships between GPs and occupational health professionals, and 41% wanting more flexible GP working hours.
Dr Phillips says: “This report unites the causes and consequences of absence together with an examination of proactive management strategies. It mirrors a change in the attitude of both employers and policymakers, who are recognising the direct and indirect benefits of investment in the health and well-being of the UK workforce.”
