The 2015 CIPD Absence Management Report reveals a nominal increase in sickness absence among British workers, averaging 6.9 days per worker annually.
- Despite the increase, the national average remains lower than 2013 figures, indicating a general improvement in absence management outside the public sector.
- Public sector employees experience 50% higher sickness absence rates compared to their private sector counterparts, costing more per employee.
- Stress-related absence is notably higher in the public sector, with organisational changes cited as a primary cause.
- Experts advocate for strategic absence management to address high absence rates and potential taxpayer savings.
Figures presented in the 2015 CIPD Absence Management Report indicate a slight uptick in sickness absence among British workers, with the average rising to 6.9 days per worker. This is a modest increase from 6.6 in 2014 but still falls below the levels observed in 2013.
Despite this overall slight increase, the report unveils a significant trend within the public sector, where sickness absences are notably higher. Public sector workers, encompassing those in the NHS, civil service, education, and government roles, have absence rates approximately 50% greater than those in the private sector. Consequently, the median cost of absence per employee remains higher in the public sector compared to other sectors.
Stress is identified as a leading cause of absence within the public sector, surpassing levels in other fields. A previous report by Telegraph highlighted a 37% increase in stress absence among NHS staff alone over the past three years. Public sector respondents overwhelmingly attribute this stress to organisational change and restructuring, with 37% pinpointing these factors as key stressors.
Interestingly, these increasing stress levels persist despite the public sector’s proactive stance in promoting mental health and implementing initiatives aimed at improving employee wellbeing. This juxtaposition raises questions about the efficiency and scope of these initiatives amidst structural changes.
According to experts like Joy Gateley, effective absence management strategies such as implementing robust absence policies and consistent monitoring can mitigate these issues. Building comprehensive data on absence patterns can illuminate trends, enabling organisations to address underlying causes proactively. Moreover, adopting modern absence management systems and engaging with occupational health services are recommended to further reduce these high rates.
Adrian Lewis supports this view, emphasising that significant taxpayer savings could be realised by addressing the current high levels of sickness absence. He notes that strategic absence management, supported by occupational health, return-to-work interviews, and regular policy reviews, can lead to immediate and tangible decreases in absence rates, particularly when traditional paper-based systems are replaced with digital solutions.
Strategic management practices are crucial to reducing high absence rates and achieving efficiencies in the public sector.
