<\/p>\ncch 2007 unscheduled absence survey: most employees call in \u00e2\u20ac\u0153sick\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for reasons other than illness<\/i><\/p>\n
riverwoods, ill. (www.cch.com) \u00e2\u20ac\u201c two-thirds of u.s. workers who call in sick at the last minute do so for reasons other than physical illness, according to the findings of the 17 th annual cch unscheduled absence survey. cch is a leading provider of human resources and employment law information and services and part of wolters kluwer law & business (hr.cch.com).<\/p>\n
the 2007 cch survey found that while 34 percent of people call in sick to work at the last minute due to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153personal illness,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 66 percent are taking time off to deal with personal or family issues.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153most people today are juggling the demands of busy personal and professional lives, and are trying to do their very best in both places,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said cch employment law analyst pamela wolf, jd. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153organizations need to stop the tug of war with people for their time, and become a partner to employees to help them, and the business overall, be more successful.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d
\nemployers, however, have failed to make significant headway against the costly absenteeism problem that takes billions of dollars off the bottom line for u.s. businesses. the nation\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s largest employers estimate that unscheduled absenteeism costs their businesses more than $760,000 per year in direct payroll costs, and even more when lower productivity, lost revenue and the effects of poor morale are considered.<\/p>\n
according to the 2007 cch unscheduled absence survey, conducted for cch by harris interactive\u00c2\u00ae, the absenteeism rate was 2.3 percent in 2007, down slightly from 2.5 percent last year.<\/p>\n
the cch survey also found that for many employers, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s no surprise when employees are likely to be no-shows. more than two-thirds (68 percent) report finding a discernable pattern in unscheduled absences, with 37 percent of organizations reporting the most noticeable pattern is people calling in sick on mondays and fridays, followed by 17 percent recognizing the most noticeable pattern occurring around holidays such as christmas or the fourth of july and 13 percent reporting their most noticeable pattern of unplanned absences occurs during flu and hay fever seasons.<\/p>\n
the cch unscheduled absence survey, conducted by cch for the past 17 years, is the definitive survey on absenteeism in the workplace, measuring the rate, cost and reasons associated with unscheduled absence in the u.s.<\/p>\n
what keeps people off the job<\/b><\/p>\n
the survey found that personal illness accounts for only 34 percent of unscheduled absences, while 66 percent of absences are due to other reasons, including family issues (22 percent), personal needs (18 percent), entitlement mentality (13 percent) and stress (13 percent).<\/p>\n
the challenge for both employees and employers is that, for many people, demands on the home front have changed at the same time demands of the workplace have increased.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153many employees today are asked to give 110 percent on the job \u00e2\u20ac\u201c to do more with fewer staff, work long hours and handle work-related issues after hours from home,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153but these workers may also be part of dual-earning families, or they may be single parents or caregivers for aging parents. they are willing to go the \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcextra mile\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 for the company, but they are also taking back the time when they need it to care for themselves and their families,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf.<\/p>\n
the cost of this tacit give-and-take arrangement is too high to go unchecked, according to cch.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153unscheduled absenteeism is a problem that no organization can afford to ignore \u00e2\u20ac\u201c either from a cost or productivity standpoint. with the appropriate programs in place, businesses can significantly reduce the number of last minute no-shows, improve the work environment for all employees and realize substantial savings,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf. <\/p>\n
organizations search for solutions<\/b> <\/p>\n
one of the first steps in partnering with employees is offering an appropriate range of work-life and absence control programs. <\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153traditional sick leave and inflexible time-off policies may put an employee in the position of having to conjure up a cold and take off an entire day when they really just needed two hours to take a parent to a pre-arranged medical appointment,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d noted wolf. <\/p>\n
by offering a range of programs, employers can reduce last minute no-shows, benefiting both the business and the employees who keep it running. <\/p>\n
work-life programs<\/b> <\/p>\n
the cch survey examined a wide range of work-life programs and asked employers to report on the programs they use and their effectiveness in controlling unexpected time off.<\/p>\n
on a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 being most effective), the work-life programs rated highest for reducing unscheduled absences are alternative work arrangements (3.6), telecommuting (3.5), compressed work week (3.3), leave for school functions (3.2)and flu shot programs (3.2).<\/p>\n
of the work-life programs offered by employers, the top five in use are employee assistance plans (72 percent), flu shot programs (66 percent), wellness programs (60 percent), leave for school functions (54 percent) and alternative work arrangements (54 percent). <\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153this blend of programs, focusing on flexibility and good health, is a promising sign that employers are trying to partner with employees to help them balance the personal and professional aspects of their lives,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf.<\/p>\n
she notes, however, that companies can be even more effective. overall, survey results indicate that companies remain challenged in making sure they have the most effective programs in place to meet employee needs. in some cases, the cch survey found that the programs employers view as most effective in combating unscheduled absenteeism are not the programs that are most used.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153the fact that two of the programs that companies rated as most effective \u00e2\u20ac\u201c telecommuting and compressed work week \u00e2\u20ac\u201c are not also among the most used signals the need for employers to step back and assess if they have the right programs in place for their people,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf. <\/p>\n
the 2007 cch unscheduled absence survey found that u.s. companies offer an average of 9 work-life programs, down from 11 in 2006. and, w hile the majority of employers still offer an array of different programs, the survey also found a decrease in the number of employers offering specific work-life programs. four out of the five most effective programs showed a decline in use. among programs seen as \u00e2\u20ac\u0153most effective,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d flu shots is the only program to see an increase in usage, now offered by two-thirds (66 percent) of employers, up from 64 percent. <\/p>\n
with health care costs continuing to climb in the u.s., employers may be trying to offset these high costs by eliminating programs that are perceived as being \u00e2\u20ac\u0153nice to have,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d versus \u00e2\u20ac\u0153need to have.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153some organizations view work-life programs as a soft benefit that can be taken away without much pain, but this short-term view can have negative, far-reaching consequences \u00e2\u20ac\u201c on unscheduled absences, employee morale, recruiting and retention and the bottom line,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d warns wolf. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153employers need to fully consider the real costs of eliminating these programs before taking action.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
absence control programs<\/b><\/p>\n
employers report they use an average of 5 absence control programs, down from 6 in 2006. disciplinary action remains the single-most used absence control program, with 89 percent of surveyed organizations reporting use. the other leading absence control programs in use are yearly review (82 percent), verification of illness (74 percent), paid leave banks (60 percent) and no fault (59 percent).<\/p>\n
the survey found that paid leave banks (also known as paid time off) continue to be the most effective absence control program, with a 3.6 rating. paid leave banks \/ pto provide employees with a single bank of hours to be used as they see fit, instead of managing separate days for sick, vacation and personal time. other top programs include disciplinary action and buy back (3.4), bonus (3.3) and verification of illness (3.2).<\/p>\n
the survey again found a lack of alignment between what programs employers are using and what they determine to be most effective. for example, paid leave banks \/ pto were not used by 40 percent of companies surveyed. another two of the most effective programs, buy back and bonus programs, were the least used by companies.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153year in and year out, employers report that paid leave banks work best to combat unscheduled absenteeism,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153they offer employees more flexibility in how they use their time off, which enables them, and the business, to plan for most absences.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a win-win situation, yet paid leave banks \/ pto has never taken the top spot in terms of what organizations use.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153some employers fear they are losing control if they give employees more opportunity to manage their time,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d she said. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153but, the fact is, it is better for businesses to work with their employees to plan for absences than to be blindsided by them.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
wolf also warns that organizations need to ensure that the absence control programs they favor do not have unintended consequences.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153disciplinary action, for example, is very popular with employers, and can be effective, but it can also drive the wrong behavior if it encourages employees to call in sick with a made-up excuse or to come to work sick \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a costly problem known as presenteeism,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d she said. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s probably no surprise that the more unhappy employees are, the more reasons they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll find not to come to work. the effect of morale is reflected in the 2007 cch unscheduled absence survey, which found that organizations with good\/very good morale experienced a 2.0 percent unscheduled absence rate while those reporting poor\/fair morale had a rate of 2.7 percent.<\/p>\n
morale influences the reasons people call in sick at the last minute, with 70 percent of unscheduled absences attributed to reasons other than personal illness for organizations with poor\/fair morale, compared to 62 percent for those with good\/very good morale.<\/p>\n
organizations reporting poor\/fair morale were more likely to experience unscheduled absenteeism due to entitlement mentality (17 percent) and stress (15 percent) than organizations reporting morale as good\/very good (11 percent and 10 percent, respectively).<\/p>\n
employers are well aware of the effect morale plays on absenteeism. according to the cch survey, more than twice as many employers (44 percent) with poor\/fair morale consider absenteeism to be a serious problem, while 21 percent of organizations with good\/very good morale share this concern. additionally, 27 percent of organizations with poor\/fair morale report that absenteeism has risen in the past two years, while only 12 percent with good\/very good morale report an increase. the future outlook is also pessimistic for employers with poor\/fair morale, with 36 percent predicting an increase in unscheduled absenteeism in the next two years; 19 percent of employers with good\/very good morale share this concern. <\/p>\n
reducing no-shows with effective absence management programs<\/b><\/p>\n
with 66 percent of the workforce calling in sick for reasons other than illness, and the disconnect between programs employers use and those that are most effective, the cch survey shows that companies have the opportunity to improve the success of their absence management programs. <\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153the first step to implementing an effective absence management program is to have a good understanding of your employee population and their needs,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said wolf. <\/p>\n
but, surprisingly, most employers don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t seem to consider the changing needs of their workforce when it comes to helping people manage their professional and personal lives. given the demographics of the working population are starting to change dramatically as the baby boomers begin retiring and the millennials are entering the workforce, a whole new generation with an entirely different outlook and set of expectations is emerging.<\/p>\n
yet, the cch survey found 79 percent of employers do not anticipate that changing workforce demographics will affect the work-life or absence control programs they have in place. that\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a red flag for cch\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s wolf.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153organizations can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t just stand still and hope the same programs they had in place 10 years ago will be effective for the next generation of employees, or for older workers who are remaining in the workforce longer,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d she said. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153businesses that want to do something to control chronic unscheduled absenteeism need to act now.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
the challenge is for a business to balance its performance goals with what else is important to its people and implement the right mix of effective work-life and absence control practices that meets these needs.<\/p>\n
cch recommends that organizations take the following five steps to ensure they have effective programs in place.<\/b><\/p>\n
implementing effective absence management programs
\n1.\tcapture and analyze information about absence trends and patterns:
\n—\tinvolve management, hr and employees in the process.
\n2.\tresearch work-life and absence control program options and best practices.
\n3.\tevaluate program options:
\n—\tassess programs compared with employee and business needs:
\n— —\tconduct program cost-benefit analysis;
\n— —\tevaluate effectiveness, benefits and costs of current programs;
\n— —\tevaluate opportunities, benefits and costs for implementing new programs, as well as eliminating ineffective programs.
\n4.\tcommunicate programs and policies:
\n—\tissue advance information and guidance to managers to help them be effective in talking to their teams and administering the programs;
\n—\tissue all-employee communications with information about programs and guidance on how they can be used most effectively;
\n—\tannually reissue communications to remind employees of programs and policies in place, and their effective use.
\n5.\tformally reevaluate employee and business needs and effectiveness of absence management programs every three to five years, or more often if major changes occur within the organization. <\/p>\n
presenteeism: under the weather at work<\/b><\/p>\n
on the other side of the absenteeism issue, employers are faced with the problem of presenteeism \u00e2\u20ac\u201c when employees come to work even though they are ill. while employees are well-meaning, their good intentions may have ill effects as they deliver lower productivity and also pose contagion risks to other employees and perhaps customers.<\/p>\n
thirty-eight percent of employers reported that presenteeism is a problem in their organizations. of significant concern is that of the employers who said presenteeism is a problem, 87 percent report that sick employees who show up to work are suffering from short-term illnesses such as cold and flu, which can be easily spread.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153the cost of presenteeism may be hidden, but it is extremely high,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said cch employment law analyst brett gorovsky, jd. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the upward spiral begins with lost productivity and climbs from there \u00e2\u20ac\u201c with increased safety and quality risks, and of course the risk of infecting others. those people then also either miss work, or come to work sick where they are a risk to others and their diminished productivity, quality and attention to safety continue the costly cycle.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
solving the presenteeism problem means that employees need to take personal responsibility and employers need to ensure that workplace culture and policies do not encourage the wrong behavior.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153employers need to discourage the hero worker, whose cough used to be a badge of honor,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said gorovsky. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153this short-sighted approach is bad for business, as well as for employees.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
the 2007 cch survey asked employers what they are doing to reduce presenteeism. a majority of organizations (54 percent) report that they send sick employees home, while 40 percent educate employees on the importance of staying home when sick and 34 percent foster a culture that discourages employees from coming to work sick. thirty percent of employers say they use telecommuting programs as another way to deter presenteeism.<\/p>\n
at the same time employers are combating presenteeism, there is a concern that some traditional absence control and sick day policies may actually encourage the behavior.<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153organizations with traditional sick-day policies enforced by disciplinary action are making it difficult for employees to do the right thing,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d said gorovsky.<\/p>\n
if, for example, an organization allows each employee five sick days a year, and takes disciplinary action on the sixth absence, an employee who has been wiped out with the flu for several days early in the year may choose to come to work ill rather than risk the discipline. the cch survey found that fear of discipline was the reason that nearly half of employers (49 percent) say sick employees are on the job.<\/p>\n
other reasons employees show up for work even though they are sick: 65 percent have too much work \/ deadlines; 56 percent say there is no one available to cover their workload; 55 percent don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t want to use vacation time; and 49 percent want to save sick time for later in the year.<\/p>\n
some employees can offset the risk of a poor health year if their employer allows them to carry over the sick days that they didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t use in healthier years. only 42 percent of organizations surveyed, however, allow employees to carry over sick time from one year to the next \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a decline from 44 percent last year.<\/p>\n
having paid sick leave and ptoprograms are effective ways employers can help manage presenteeism. sixty-nine percent of employers reported having paid sick leave or paid time off in place as preventive measures to help control presenteeism. <\/p>\n
the issue of presenteeism grows even more serious when the possibility of a pandemic is considered. in addition to taking steps to ensure employees don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t come to work sick under any circumstances, a growing number of employers are implementing pandemic plans. twenty-seven percent of companies report they have a plan in place in the event that a large percentage of employees become ill. that represents almost a 100 percent increase since 2006, when only 14 percent of companies surveyed had such plans. <\/p>\n
about the survey<\/b><\/p>\n
the 2007 cch unscheduled absence survey covering 317 human resource executives in u.s. companies and organizations of all sizes and across major industry segments in 48 states was conducted online by harris interactive\u00c2\u00ae (www.harrisinteractive.com), a leading global market research and consulting firm, from june 28 through july 17, 2007. the survey reflects experiences of randomly polled organizations with an estimated total of nearly one million employees. the cch human resources management ideas & trends newsletter sponsored the survey.<\/p>\n
the data were weighted to reflect industry distribution as represented in the society for human resource management and by size based on u.s. census company size data. in theory, with probability samples of this size, one can say with 95 percent certainty that the overall results have a sampling error of +\/-5.5 percentage points. sampling error for the various sub-sample results is higher and varies. this online sample was not a probability sample.<\/p>\n
mean absence rates were calculated by dividing total paid-unscheduled absence hours by total paid-productive hours. scheduled absences, such as vacation, legal holidays, jury duty, personal time and bereavement leave, were not included. costs to companies only reflect the direct payroll costs for absent employees; the associated costs of overtime pay for other employees, hiring temporary employees to cover for absent workers, low morale and lost productivity add to the considerable financial impact on an organization. <\/p>\n
to obtain a copy of the survey<\/b><\/p>\n
to order the cch human resources management ideas & trends newsletter containing the 2007 cch unscheduled absence survey, call 1-888-cch-reps and ask for offer number 0-5256-401 or purchase from the cch online store at http:\/\/onlinestore.cch.com. price is $42.95 plus tax, shipping and handling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"