Duncan Spencer at IOSH’s Advice & Practice research department continues a series of articles for SHP, this time analysing the government’s return to work policy.
So why do businesses need to think more carefully about return to work (RTW) and rehabilitating individuals in the workplace? What is changing in the economic landscape? What might be expected of businesses in the near future? These questions – and the answers to them – are particularly poignant in the light of the change in UK government.
Before answering these questions, let’s set the scene. Recently, the incoming Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Liz Kendall, talked about changing the emphasis of her department from being a benefits provider to one that assists people back into the workplace. Kendall referred to the recently published Pathways to Work Commission Report in which, Alan Milburn, referring to those who are economically inactive in the UK economy, wrote: “… their numbers have grown from 6.2 million to 6.9 million since 2019. The societal consequences in lost income, status and belonging for each person without the opportunity to work are catastrophic. And so are the consequential welfare costs. Public spending here is projected to rocket by £21 billion over the next five years. This is not sustainable.”
CREDIT: Diki Prayogo/Alamy Stock Vector
The report suggests that there are now more people on long term sick leave and benefits than are registered unemployed. It also provides evidence that seven out of 10 people on long-term or permanent sick leave expressed a wish for return to work (RTW). But there are barriers. Threats to income through loss of benefits, negative employer attitudes, discriminatory work practices, stigmatisation in the workplace, the need for reasonable adjustments to be made, and a need to deliver support for disabled workers when in their workplace.
Kendall suggests that to pay for its policy plans, the new Labour Government must drive up business productivity and reduce the social service costs to re-balance the books by actively seeking new or refreshed pathways to paid employment.
The government is not alone in this call. The International Social Security Association (ISSA) has published guidelines in this area, Return to Work and Reintegration. The report contextualises the Milburn view by stating that mature economies are experiencing “a population with growing life expectancies, the increasing pace of private and public sector restructuring to maintain competitiveness in a global society, a rapid escalation in the growth of claims on the grounds of mental health and low system outflow rates for programme beneficiaries, coupled with low overall labour market hiring rates for persons with disabilities”.
National and international sources believe, therefore, that inaction is not an option when it comes to getting people back to work. It is likely that governments will be willing to use whatever means at their disposal to engage business in helping to solve this problem in the public finances. The government has several options available to them including running campaigns, directing government agencies to take actions (perhaps the HSE). They may even legislate. Regulations could take a carrot or stick approach; maybe both. Incentives might include tax breaks for businesses having a proven and effective rehabilitation programme. Enforcement in businesses who do not have such systems may be the deterrent.
The UK government approach may include the devolution of responsibilities for local programmes to Mayoral offices, clearing the way for data sharing between different stakeholders, improvements to apprenticeship systems, making flexi-working the norm in the workplace and so on. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will need better enforcement and employers must be incentivised to employ those with existing disabilities, not just rehabilitate their own employees.
It’s a complex situation. To fix this problem, the government must identify and engage all stakeholders including local NHS Care Boards, and occupational health and employment services. It may also expand oversee an expansion of mental health services, make changes to childcare provision, modify the education system and so on.
Looking forward, OSH professionals and their colleagues should begin thinking about how they intend to develop or enhance any RTW and rehabilitation policies and procedures. Afterall they will play a significant role in this exercise. Relevant stakeholders must be identified and approached; boards need to be engaged with and policy must be reviewed.
Some aspects of a good system would include:
One of the most important aspects of creating and implementing an effective RTW and rehabilitation programme is consultation with workers and keeping them in the loop. Without it, workers are less likely to accept the system and be confident in its application.
Businesses have everything to gain from getting this right. It can lead to improved retention rates, less spent on recruitment, increased productivity, reduction in over heads (e.g., sickness absence costs, litigation/liability insurance premiums), and improved staff morale. ISSA’s study suggested that expenditure on work reintegration and rehabilitation gave an average return on investment ratio of 1 to 3.7. Clearly it makes good sense to develop effective programmes. More broadly the government will also benefit from collecting greater tax contributions and benefit from reducing social benefit costs.
So don’t wait, act now. It’s a safe bet that the RTW and rehabilitation of workers will become a required practice very soon – one way or another.
In this episode of the Safety & Health Podcast, ‘Burnout, stress and being human’, Heather Beach is joined by Stacy Thomson to discuss burnout, perfectionism and how to deal with burnout as an individual, as management and as an organisation.
We provide an insight on how to tackle burnout and why mental health is such a taboo subject, particularly in the workplace.
