Employee Absence - CIPD

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Employee AbsenceLevels of sickness absenceThe mean (average) level of sickness absence amongstemployers in our survey is 4.1% of working time.However, nearly one in five employers do not knowthe level of sickness absence in their organisation.Eight in ten employers in our survey aggregate theirindividual absence information to show the level oforganisation-wide sickness absence. The measures usedto monitor absence levels are, most commonly, theproportion of working time lost through sicknessabsence (53% of all respondents) or the number ofworking days lost per employee (33%). A small numberof respondents (4%) indicated that both measures areused in their organisation.Nearly one-fifth (18%) of respondents do not have dataon the current level of sickness absence in theirorganisation. These are concentrated in private sectorservices, especially hotels, restaurants and leisure (42%),retail and wholesale (33%) and general services (26%).In contrast, only 8% of health employers, 6% of localauthorities and one central government organisation donot retrieve data on level of sickness absence.Table 2: Average level of sickness absence by sectorMain sector% of working time lostthrough absenceHealth (n=124) 4.9Food, drink and tobacco (n=88) 4.9Other public services (n=152) 4.6Central government (n=23) 4.6General manufacturing (n=259) 4.5Local government (n=136) 4.3Transport, storage andcommunications (n=85) 4.3Textiles (n=34) 4.3Retail and wholesale (n=67) 3.9Paper and printing (n=41) 3.5Engineering and metals (n=157) 3.4Agriculture and forestry (n=12) 3.4Finance (n=67) 3.1Hotels, restaurants and leisure (n=33) 3.0Chemicals (n=32) 3.0General services (n=87) 2.9Electricity, gas and water (n=14) 2.8Construction (n=37) 2.7Mining and quarrying (n=6) 2.3Survey average 4.1Table 2 shows the average proportion of working time lostper employee through sickness absence by sector. Inproducing this data we have assumed an average workingyear of 228 days. For those respondents who recordabsence as days lost, we have taken the number of dayslost as a proportion of that figure. Given the small numberof replies, for some sectors this data should be treated withcaution. Our analysis indicates that the highest levels ofsickness absence are found among public sector employersand those in particular parts of manufacturing.Our survey gives a mean level of sickness absence for thesample as a whole of 4.1% (equivalent to 9.3 workingdays). This is higher than for some other surveys andreflects the large number of major employers among ourrespondents. Approaching half (45%) have a workforce of500 or more employees. Figure 2 shows the associationbetween level of sickness absence and workforce size.Figure 2: Average level of sickness absence byworkforce sizeWorkforce size1-99100-249250-499500-749750-9991000-14991500-19992000 and overSurvey average0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%% of working time lost through absenceAbsence level is also linked to the age profile of theworkforce. We asked respondents to indicate whetherthey have a predominantly young workforce (mainlyunder 35), a predominance of older workers (over 45),or a balanced age profile. For survey respondentsproviding this information the average sickness levelamong those with a young workforce is 3.5%, while incases of a predominance of older workers it is 4.2%.The average for workplaces with a balanced age profileis 4.1%.Our findings give lower average absence levels foremployers in the South East (3.5%) and East Anglia(3.9%) than other parts of the UK, such as the Midlands(4.3%), the North East (4.2%), the North West (4.3%),South West (4.2%), Scotland (4.2%) and Wales (4.3%).3
Employee AbsenceWe asked respondents to estimate what proportion of theirabsence figure is accounted for by absences offive days or fewer. Nearly half of all respondents did notanswer this question. Among the remainder the averageproportion of absence that is short term is 46%, indicatingthat 54% of employee absence is accounted for by periodsaway from work of five days or more. This confirms otherresearch that has shown that the bulk of working time lost isaccounted for by longer term absences, although short-termabsences make up the large majority of absence spells 2 .Changes in absence levelsEmployers are more likely to consider that the levelof absence in their organisation has decreased ratherthan increased over the past two years.The tightening of policies for reviewing attendance isthe most common reason given for a reduction inabsence levels. Increases are most likely to be attributedto changes in workforce morale or workload.We asked HR professionals to assess whether the absencerate in their organisation has increased, decreased or stayedthe same compared with two years ago. A third of therespondents to our survey (33%) consider that their absencerate has decreased over the past two years, a fifth (20%) haveseen absence levels rise, while for the remainder (32%)sickness absence has remained the same. A number of surveyparticipants (15%) were unable to answer this question.Table 3: Reasons for increases in absence levelsReason% of respondents sayingthat absence has increasedciting this reason (n=339)Changes in workforce morale 47%Changes to workload 36%Changes in methods ofrecording absence 29%Changes in workforcecomposition 21%Tightened policies forreviewing attendance 19%Changes in work organisation(e.g. shift patterns, flexibility,self-managed work teams) 12%Employers that have experienced a decrease in absencelevels are concentrated in manufacturing; particularlytextiles (47%), food, drink and tobacco (45%), generalmanufacturing (45%), and chemicals (44%). Inaddition, 41% of health employers said that absencelevels have decreased over the past two years.Respondents were asked to explore the reasons forany change in absence levels. Table 3 summarises theexplanations given by respondents for increases inabsence and Table 4, the reasons why the relevantrespondents believe that there has been a decrease.Table 4: Reasons for decreases in absence levelsReason% of respondents sayingthat absence has decreasedciting this reason (n=548)Tightened policies forreviewing attendance 82%Changes in methods ofrecording absence 36%Changes in work organisation(e.g. shift patterns, flexibility,self-managed work teams) 18%Changes in workforce morale 14%Changes in workforce composition 14%Changes to workload 4%Our findings indicate a link between declining moraleand increasing workload, and sickness absence. Themost common reason given for a rise in sicknessabsence, listed by almost half (47%) of the relevantrespondents, is change in workforce morale. Over athird (36%) consider that changes in workload havecontributed to the increase. In addition, changes inmethods of recording absence – presumably so that ahigher proportion of absences are put on record – aregiven as reasons for increases in sickness absence levelsby just under one in three organisations (29%).By far the most common reason for a perceivedreduction in absence levels – given by 82% ofrespondents – is a tightened policy for reviewingattendance. Over a third (36%) consider that decreasesare a result of changes in the way that absence isrecorded.Targets to reduce absenceOnly a minority of organisations surveyed have atarget for reducing sickness absence. The most commongoal takes the form of a reduction to an absolutepercentage of working time – 3.3% on average.4
Page 3: Employee Absence" Half of all surve
Page 7 and 8: Employee AbsenceTable 5 gives an in
Page 9 and 10: Employee AbsenceTable 8: Proportion
Page 11 and 12: Employee AbsenceThe use of discipli
Page 13: 1INSTITUTE OF PERSONNELAND DEVELOPM

Employee Absence - CIPD

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?