A survey of 500 HRs by Group Risk Development (GRiD) found stress and stress-inducing situations as the main reason for short-term absences of up to 26 weeks.
The research also found more than a quarter (27%) of HRs believe work-related stress contributes to a higher-than-average absence rate in their organisation.
Dealing with staff shortages (29%), poor work/life balance (20%) and low morale (19%) were also given as reasons for high staff absences.
However, the research also showed employers also recognise the extent to which health & wellbeing initiatives and group protection can support better attendance.
One in five (22%) said that not having health and wellbeing initiatives in place was the reason for having worse absence than others in their industry, and 14 per cent said not having income protection in place was a reason for worse absence.
And the research shows companies that believe their absence is lower than others in their industry point to offering support for stress.
Those that believe their absence is lower than others said this is because they had good staff morale (57%), good work/life balance (50%) and offer flexible working initiatives (34%). All things that contribute to reduced stress.
“The figures show that stress is not something that individuals deal with in isolation, it is a key reason for absence and has a major impact on employers,” said GRiD spokesperson, Katharine Moxham.
“We’re pleased to see that employers recognise that not having income protection in place also contributes to higher absence. Group income protection does so much more than simply provide financial support when people are unable to work. Providers recognise that stress is a big issue, and specifically offer a lot of support for stress within their products, such as fast-track access to counselling, access to mental health specialists, support tailored for carers, and much more,” she added.
“When stress is an issue for employees, it’s an issue for employers too. Poor absence means poor productivity. The support is there and we want people to know about it and use it.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
“When stress is an issue for employees, it’s an issue for employers too. Poor absence means poor productivity”. Interesting way of identifying lost productivity due to presenteeism as “poor absence” although, as absences have tended to be accompanied by more punitive responses from employers one shouldn’t be surprised presenteeism maybe a less risky alternate to taking a day or two sickie.
Nevertheless, still gob-smacked that the 20%, or 30 days lost productivity, due to presenteeism in DSE user operators suffering eye-strain (Asthenopia) out of the estimated 57.2 day lost productivity, not yet, on the agenda. Accepting recent report that only around 90% of employers tokenism when it comes to DSE Risk Assessments and H & S Professions resilience to addressing health issues suggesting that that is some other professionals role in occupational health as the experts on stress or mental health ..
Bizarrely, it has always been a question of addressing the sub-optimal “accessibility” or “ergonomics” associated with DSE, the interface between operator and equipment and, the failure of employers to promote accessibility and screen ergonomics induction training whilst, solely fussing around the ergonomics of the office furniture and ignoring what it says on the “tin” – DSE Risk Assessment.
So, I wonder how long it is going to be before there is another retrospective Appeal Court Judgement like the 2011 Baker -v- Quantum Clothing & Ors or more recent Unite win over a pre-cancer diagnosis qualifying as a Disability under the 2010 Equality Act recognises Screen Fatigue, Computer Vision Syndrome as a diagnosis for RSI’s currently dismissed as “temporary” visual deficits” yet, permanent in terms of the chain of causation resulting in, not only neurological but physical RSI’s, including WULD’s & MSD’s ????
A rave from the grave and the pre-2012, failure to launch, of new the EU MSD Directive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws5IuBFSnUE