Employer survey finds staff absence at record low

In May 2006, the Confederation of British Industry released findings from its latest annual survey of employee absence. The results showed the lowest level of absence since the series began in 1987. The survey also recorded a higher incidence of absence in the public sector, which is supported by other research.

The results of the latest Confederation of British Industry (CBI) survey of staff absence were released in May 2006. The survey, which is conducted annually, covered 403 organisations collectively employing 1.4 million people. It recorded a record low level of absence from work in the UK but raised concern at the gap found between the public and private sectors.

Main survey findings

The CBI survey found that the total number of working days lost through absence in 2005 was 164 million, a fall of four million from the previous year. This was the lowest figure since the survey began in 1987. The public sector accounted for 66 million days lost, with an average 8.5 days lost per employee compared to six days in the private sector. The public sector rate demonstrated a slight fall from 8.9 days in the preceding year. A significant difference was also found between large and small organisations – those with over 5,000 employees averaged 7.4 days’ absence per employee, whereas those with fewer than 50 employees averaged 4.2 days.

Official statistics are not directly comparable with the CBI research (UK0404103F). The Labour Force Survey collects information from individuals concerning whether they took any days off from work due to sickness or injury in a reference week, which is usually the week before the person was interviewed. Based on this data, the April 2005 update on Labour Market Trends (1.5Mb PDF) from the Office for National Statistics states that 1.7 million scheduled working days were lost to sickness or injury in the spring 2004 quarter, which is 1.7% of the total scheduled working days. Some 2.9% of employees took at least one day off in the reference period, a figure that was higher for younger employees and for women (3.3%) than for men (2.4%). Figures were also higher in the public sector (3.1%) than in the private sector (2.8%), and in larger workplaces, where levels for both private and public sector organisations were slightly reversed (3.1% and 2.9% respectively for workplaces of 500 or more employees).

A recent survey on absence management (373Kb PDF) by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) found a similar workplace size effect. Workers in smaller workplaces might feel their absence will have a greater negative impact, so may be more likely to attend work in cases of minor ailments, and might also be discouraged from taking sick leave due to relatively less generous provision of sick pay. The CIPD comments that ‘smaller employers are likely to find it easier to identify and tackle absence because managers have smaller teams and absences are more obvious and difficult to compensate for’.

The CBI survey also reported that a third of all time lost is due to long-term absence of over 20 days’ duration. Long-term sickness is particularly prevalent in the public sector, where 6% of absentees accounted for over half of total time lost. Overall, employers considered 13% of days lost to sickness to be non-genuine, a figure almost identical (14%) to that of the CIPD.

Social partner reactions

Deputy Director-General of the CBI, John Cridland, commenting on the CBI findings, said that ‘the hard work by companies to manage absence is clearly paying off’ but he also warned that ‘a culture of absenteeism still exists in some workplaces and this must change’. He recommended a ‘carrot and stick’ approach of rewarding good attendance but denying sick pay for short-term absence of two days or less.

In contrast, General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Brendan Barber, stated that the findings of the CBI survey ‘smash the myth that Britain is a nation of shirkers’. The TUC noted that, although public sector workers report more long-term absence than those in the private sector, they also have lower short-term rates of absence (UK0501107F). The TUC explained the differential for long-term sickness in terms of the stress and risk involved in many public sector jobs (UK0412104F), together with a greater inclination on the part of private sector employers to dismiss those on long-term sick leave. Mr Barber said that ‘only lazy employers think that the solution to excess sick leave is to emphasise the stick. The best way is to work with staff with effective risk assessments, flexible working and positive sickness management programmes’.

James Arrowsmith, IRRU, University of Warwick