WE HAVE BEEN SHOCKINGLY ADVISED by National Productivity Council chief programme manager Anthony Sobers that only 30 per centof the “sick leave” taken by staffers across ourwork sectors has anything to do with actual illness.The remaining 70 per cent of time taken is for “personal matters”, Mr Sobers adds.
And, the work sectors affected by this“crippling issue” include manufacturing,construction, agriculture, financial services,retail and tourism, from which millions of dollarsare being drained annually.
In a study by the National Initiative for Service Excellence (NISE) of 24 companies over a three-month period, it was shown that the direct wage cost due to absenteeism was about $4 million a year. And NISE chief executive officer Kim Tudor says this absenteeism continues to be a worrisome problem.
Ms Tudor placed at the heart of this“uncertified absenteeism” the paying of bills, personal banking, child and elderly day care, doctor appointments and the attendance at funerals –the last of which has had retired cleric Reverend Errington Massiah strongly suggesting thatfunerals be held at night.
Of course, this yet remains a challenge for those of us who have professional nocturnal duties.
Quite clearly, we can see the direct costs of replacement labour, the absent employees’ salaries, and overtime incurred by staff covering for the absentees, for example. Added to such are the indirect costs through additional stress on other staffers, possibly reduced productivity and customer service,and time taken for a replacement to learn the role of the absentee and be as productive.
On the other side of the coin, reduced productivity may also be associated with workers who continue to labour even when they are too ill to. These presentees – as opposed to absentees – often do not think their illnesses are serious enough to take time off; orhave too high a workload to justify absenting themselves; or are worried about the financial implications of taking time out.
Some workers, given the alleged abuse by others, may themselves even suffer a feeling of guilt fortaking sick leave.
Truth be told, the presence of unwell employees can negatively impact on many areas, including productivity, safety at work, errors in judgement,and relationships between workmates. This sickness presence can be costly tooacross all of our work sectors.
In the long term, the best we can do to reducecosts associated with sickness absenteeism –and presenteeism – is to invest in maintaininghealthy and safe workforces. Businesses, thelabour unions, along with the National Productivity Council and NISE, must together come up witha plan that will help both employers and employeesin dealing with health and well-being insideand outside the workplace.
Indeed, the bottom line is important; but so arework-related health issues among employers and employees – and, in particular, honesty, integrity and the absence of fear in dealing with these matters.
Yes, abuse needs to be addressed, but we must take care sick leave is not made to look like the wrong behaviour; for employers will risk encouraging employees to overwork themselves to the point of real and damaging illness.
We do need to put our working heads together!
