Absenteeism
|
You are receiving this newsletter because we received a subscription request in your name. Should you no longer wish to receive it or if you have been subscribed in error you can unsubscribe by following the instructions at the end of the newsletter.
|
IN THIS ISSUE |
|
WELCOME |
In today’s competitive world, every opportunity to improve profits, efficiency or productivity is always welcome and the world of Health and Safety is no exception. Our main pre-occupation should be to improve health and safety in the workplace but that is no reason to ignore the financial aspects.
The topic of this month’s main article embraces both aspects – seeking to improve the health and safety of employees whilst at the same time reducing costs for their employers – by means of reducing the incidence of absenteeism.
To illustrate the point, Case Law this month describes a highly pertinent example of where failure to take reasonable action in time proved to be very costly for both employee and employer alike. Much of health and safety can be summed up in that well-known catch phrase “a stitch in time saves nine”.
David Skews, (CEO)
Back to top |
|
ABSENTEEISM |
One of the major costs to UK commerce that often doesn’t show directly in the accounts is that of absenteeism. The latest estimate for the whole of the British economy is around £12 billion per year.
Although your Accounts Department may not reveal the precise cost to your operations, it would be prudent to ask the question as to what proportion of those headline figures apply to your organisation and consequently, with the right controls, how much could be added to your bottom line.
Some absenteeism may be completely unjustified on medical grounds, in which case it is an issue for Management or Personnel. My concern in this newsletter is with absenteeism that is medically justified and which is attributable in some measure to conditions or events in the workplace.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) certainly believe this to be a significant issue and, in conjunction with the Department for Work and Pension and the Department of Health, has recently launched a new initiative aimed at tackling the problem across all sectors of the economy. In fact, from the HSE’s point of view, there is little that is new in this initiative. What is different, is that all three organisations are coming together to deliver an integrated approach.
Extent of the Problem
According to the HSE’s figures, 35 million working days were lost in 2004/2005 due to injury and ill-health at work. The statistics also reveal that the largest proportion of these lost days were due to two factors:
- Work Related Stress
- Musculo-Skeletal Disorders
You can read the actual figures on the HSE’s website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics
Whilst the figures are bad news, the good news is that it’s not all that difficult to address these factors. In fact, good employers have been doing so for years and have been reaping the rewards through increased profits.
Stress
The HSE defines stress as "the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed on them"
Notice the emphasis on “excessive” pressure and that stress isn’t the result of the pressure itself but of the individual’s “adverse” reaction to it. In fact, different individuals often react differently to the same pressured situation. So much depends on the whole range of life experiences to which a person is exposed.
The important point, however, is that once an employee is absent and has been diagnosed as suffering from stress, we are potentially in a lose-lose situation with major cost for both the employee and the employer. Much better to invest a little up front to minimise the risk rather than pay the price of recovering the situation after the event – a case of prevention is better than cure.
You can read more about risks from stress on the HSE’s website at - http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress
Musculo Skeletal Disorders (MSDs)
Some MSDs occur suddenly – others develop over a lengthy period of time but by and large, most are the result of poor working practices. Not only so, but in most cases, working practices that minimise the risk of MSDs are also more efficient and therefore more productive.
Many MSDs, such as back injury or the many conditions that are described as Work Related Upper Limb Disorders (WRULDs) are chronic ailments – their impact on the employee and the employer can be very long lasting. As with stress, therefore, a small investment in prevention can avoid the need for a much more expensive cure.
You can find more information on MSDs by visiting the HSE’s website at http://www.hse.gov.uk/msd
Simple Solutions
As always with health and safety, whilst some aspects can be expensive, many of the most effective solutions involve very little cost.
The first step is to identify the levels of risk associated with stress, MSDs and other hazards in your workplace. That simply involves employing the services of a competent person to undertake one or more Risk Assessments. Passing on the results of the risk assessments to employees – which is a legal requirement - can be highly effective in itself. Being aware of the risks is the first step in avoiding them.
Another essential element is proper training. For example, it takes relatively little time to educate employees into correct methods of lifting and moving loads, but the results can be very effective, particularly if the training is backed up with good supervision to encourage employees to practice what they have learned - until it becomes second nature.
Sound work planning is another important factor. With a little forethought it is often possible to organise a job so as to entirely eliminate some of the risk factors and, where this is not possible, introduce inexpensive control measures to reduce risk to acceptable levels.
These are a few examples of inexpensive actions you can take to reduce the factors in your workplace that contribute to that UK total of £12 billion cost of sickness absence.
If you would like to discuss these or any other issues related to cost effective health and safety solutions, then call us now on 01744 766010 or contact us by any other means listed on our Contact Us webpage.
Together, we can make a healthy difference to your balance sheet.
See edpFRAMEWORK for a broader perspective on Managing Health & Safety
Back to top |
CASE LAW |
The incident I want to bring to your attention in this issue is not strictly an example of case law since it never actually went to court. Nevertheless, it is a primary example of what can happen when an employer fails to address a stressful situation in the workplace.
A senior manager working for HM Customs & Excise in the Midlands found he was unable to cope with the responsibilities of his job, resulting in a period of 4 months absence from work.
On his return, instead of less pressure, his workload was increased further. When he requested early retirement, he was refused and he was eventually forced to stand down on health grounds.
The employee brought a compensation claim against HM Customs & Excise for the distress and loss of earnings he had suffered. His employer knew about his condition but actually increased the pressure on him rather than address the underlying cause.
The case was settled out of court with a compensation payment of £138,000. You can read more details about the case on the BBC website at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/4763526.stm
A little more thought given to planning the work could have saved a great deal of suffering for the employee. It could also have saved the financial penalty for the employer – not merely the £138.000 payout but also the greater cost incurred in management time, legal fees, recruitment, training and other incidental costs.
Back to top |
LEGAL MONITOR |
If you visit the legal pages of our website, you will see a slew of legal changes that have been introduced by the government this month or last.
It started in March with the introduction of a smoking ban in all workplaces in Scotland. Apart from the obvious examples that have made the news headlines, such as bars and restaurants, it includes such workplaces as drivers cabs, which for a short time are exempt when south of the border but are included as soon as the driver crosses into Scotland.
Another significant change is in regard to noise. The two defined noise levels at which an employer is required to take action have both been reduced by 5 db(A) down to 85 db(A) and 80 db(A). At first sight that may appear to be a small reduction until you realise that it is a logarithmic scale and an increase of 3 db(A) actually doubles the noise.
You can read of other changes on our website at http://www.edp-uk.com/law_changes.htm
View anticipated Changes to Health & Safety Law. Then decide how you might be affected and if you need to make changes in preparation.
Back to top |
SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE & DISCLAIMER |
In spite of the high quality of information we strive to publish, there is always the possibility of error creeping in. Consequently, we have to refer you to our Terms of Use, which you can read on our website and to which you implicitly agree should you choose to make use of any information in this newsletter.
Please forward this mail to colleagues and associates who may be interested, but please do not make any changes.
Feedback is always welcome, so if you have any observations about the newsletter, the articles or your personal preferences, please drop us an e-mail at newsletter_registration@edp-uk.com.
If you have received this newsletter from a colleague and would like to receive a copy directly, you can register at our website
Alternatively, you can easily subscribe, unsubscribe or change your e-mail address by sending your name and e-mail details to
subscribe@edp-uk.com
David Skews, (CEO)
|
EDP Health Safety & Environment Consultants Ltd
Lakeside, Alexandra Park, Prescot Road, St. Helens, Merseyside, UK
Telephone: +44(0)1744 766000
Back to top |
|
