More than a third of employers in the manufacturing sector have seen an increase in long-term absence from 2007 to 2008, according to a sickness absence study of the manufacturing industry conducted by the manufacturers’ organisation EEF and Unum.
The EEF/Unum 2009 Sickness Absence Survey shows that, despite overall sickness absence decreasing, 36% of respondents reported an increase in long-term sickness absence, proving that it is still an ongoing issue.
The survey results identified surgery or medical investigation or tests as the cause of almost 60% of all long-term absences, ahead of back problems (34%), cancer (26%) and stress (25%).This category continues to worsen, with the number of employers citing the cause increasing by 6% over the last 12 months and 14% since 2005.
In addition, of those employers who have seen an increase, 28% report that waiting for appointment or diagnosis of illness is a barrier on the pathway to return to work and 25% cite waiting for treatments or operations.
Sign up to our newsletters
Receive news and guidance on a range of HR issues direct to your inbox
Professor Sayeed Khan, EEF chief medical adviser, said: “The overall fall in sickness absence figures conceals a worrying trend – an ongoing issue with long-term absence. Employers can do a lot to address this through better management, but employers would benefit from faster access to NHS treatments and secondary care in order to have a chance of significantly improving absence levels. Furthermore, similar training to that being provided to GPs in health and work also needs to be given for health professionals who work in hospitals.”
The research also showed that 45% of companies have said that they are dissatisfied with the current sick note system.
The results from this survey make it clear that to get absent employees back quickly, employers need to fund the required diagnostics and treatment themselves.
The two biggest causes of absence, muculoskeletal problems and mental health issues don’t respond very well to the NHS 18 week waiting target.
Great marketing opportunity for the private sector. But employers should also consider how they can pay for relatively low cost interventions without recourse to insurance. The business case for doing so is very strong set against the potential absence costs.
The governement’s new Fit for Work service which has early intervention at its core does not finish piloting until 2011. It’s not clear how it is going to engage with employers who need to act now to reduce their long term absence liabilities.
John Picken http://www.shandwell.com