Bupa survey highlights impact on employees left 'holding the fort'
HR managers have told Bupa that staff absenteeism is putting extra stress on employees who are left to "hold the fort".
More than half (51%) of 100 HR managers surveyed by the insurer said that employee absenteeism increases workplace stress, with colleagues having to pick up the extra workload and take on extra overtime.
Just under half (44%) of all respondents said that (excluding private health insurance) their company does not have a workplace health programme such as absence case management in place for all employees.
A third (31%) reported a lack of awareness about what schemes are available while 22% said they were uncertain about where to focus resources to improve health within the organisation.
A quarter of respondents were unaware of the independent sickness absence review published yesterday, when surveyed earlier this month.
Commenting on the findings, Alex Perry, director of healthcare provisioning, Bupa said: "While while many companies know that there are potential benefits to investing in workplace health, one of the biggest barriers for employers is understanding how and where to invest in order to receive the most benefit."
The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's annual absence management survey shows that fewer than a third (30%) of employers evaluate the impact of their well-being spend, although this is an increase on 17% in the 2010 survey. Organisations that evaluate their well-being spend are twice as likely to have increased their spend this year.
For more information on workplace stress
Wednesday 23 November 2011
Monday 7 November 2011
£5 the most consumers will pay for Income Protection
Most have not experienced long-term sickness absence
Most people would not pay more than £5 a week for income protection (IP), suggests a new survey from the Association of British Insurers.
This month, the organisation's quarterly consumer survey focuses on absence from work and access to rehabilitation. The findings highlight the challenges facing the protection industry in a country where just 11% of the workforce is currently covered by IP.
While 89% of survey respondents said they would pay less than £5 a week for IP, 29% said they would not be prepared to pay anything at all.
This finding may be linked to the fact that most people have not experienced long-term sickness absence. Of the 1,658 people surveyed (all working at least eight hours a week), 82% had never been absent from work for more than three months as a result of sickness or injury. Fifteen per cent had been, or currently are, absent for this period of time, most of whom (77%) have received NHS treatment.
According to IP provider Unum, 11% of people have taken more than six months off work through illness or injury. Its Backup Plan consumer education campaign is alerting people to this fact, and warning that most employers will not pay absent employees beyond the statutory sick pay timeframe of 28 weeks. Forty per cent of ABI respondents thought that they would receive pay for six months or more if absent through sickness, whilst 26% were unsure.
The ABI survey suggests that employees who believe their employer is less generous with sick pay are more willing to pay more for IP, as are those earning higher salaries. Among those earning more than £40,000 a year, 31% were willing to pay over £5 a week for IP, compared to just 7% of those earning less than £20,000 a year.
Consumers may be able to purchase IP for £5 a week, if they accept a long deferral period.
Free quotation on income protection
Most people would not pay more than £5 a week for income protection (IP), suggests a new survey from the Association of British Insurers.
This month, the organisation's quarterly consumer survey focuses on absence from work and access to rehabilitation. The findings highlight the challenges facing the protection industry in a country where just 11% of the workforce is currently covered by IP.
While 89% of survey respondents said they would pay less than £5 a week for IP, 29% said they would not be prepared to pay anything at all.
This finding may be linked to the fact that most people have not experienced long-term sickness absence. Of the 1,658 people surveyed (all working at least eight hours a week), 82% had never been absent from work for more than three months as a result of sickness or injury. Fifteen per cent had been, or currently are, absent for this period of time, most of whom (77%) have received NHS treatment.
According to IP provider Unum, 11% of people have taken more than six months off work through illness or injury. Its Backup Plan consumer education campaign is alerting people to this fact, and warning that most employers will not pay absent employees beyond the statutory sick pay timeframe of 28 weeks. Forty per cent of ABI respondents thought that they would receive pay for six months or more if absent through sickness, whilst 26% were unsure.
The ABI survey suggests that employees who believe their employer is less generous with sick pay are more willing to pay more for IP, as are those earning higher salaries. Among those earning more than £40,000 a year, 31% were willing to pay over £5 a week for IP, compared to just 7% of those earning less than £20,000 a year.
Consumers may be able to purchase IP for £5 a week, if they accept a long deferral period.
Free quotation on income protection
Friday 4 November 2011
Stress a top cause of long-term absence
Problem is worse in the public sector
Further evidence has emerged that stress is a leading cause of long-term absence in UK workplaces.
Interviews with 500 employers commissioned by Group Risk Development (GRiD) found that almost one in six (15%) cited stress-related mental ill-health as the most common cause of long-term absence (defined as absence lasting longer than four weeks).
However, home and families issues are more commonly cited, by 20% of employers.
Research conducted by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) earlier this year put stress at the top of a table of causes of long-term absence, for the first time in the organisation’s 12 years of polling employers.
Both the CIPD and GRiD have found that the problem of stress is worse in the public sector. GRiD found that 27% of public sector employers citing it as their main cause of absence compared with 13% in the private sector..
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD, said: “Stress is often overlooked as a cause of long-term absence from work, compared to acute medical conditions such as heart attack or cancer. These figures prove just how big a problem absence through stress is for employers, and provide a timely reminder for businesses to take action over what is often a preventable condition.
“In times of increased economic pressure it is important for employers to consider firstly the wellbeing of their employees and what wider implications are suggested by high levels of stress or other mental illness, and secondly what provisions they have in place to ensure both the employee and the employer are adequately protected in case of long-term absence.”
For a free quote on income protection
Further evidence has emerged that stress is a leading cause of long-term absence in UK workplaces.
Interviews with 500 employers commissioned by Group Risk Development (GRiD) found that almost one in six (15%) cited stress-related mental ill-health as the most common cause of long-term absence (defined as absence lasting longer than four weeks).
However, home and families issues are more commonly cited, by 20% of employers.
Research conducted by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) earlier this year put stress at the top of a table of causes of long-term absence, for the first time in the organisation’s 12 years of polling employers.
Both the CIPD and GRiD have found that the problem of stress is worse in the public sector. GRiD found that 27% of public sector employers citing it as their main cause of absence compared with 13% in the private sector..
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD, said: “Stress is often overlooked as a cause of long-term absence from work, compared to acute medical conditions such as heart attack or cancer. These figures prove just how big a problem absence through stress is for employers, and provide a timely reminder for businesses to take action over what is often a preventable condition.
“In times of increased economic pressure it is important for employers to consider firstly the wellbeing of their employees and what wider implications are suggested by high levels of stress or other mental illness, and secondly what provisions they have in place to ensure both the employee and the employer are adequately protected in case of long-term absence.”
For a free quote on income protection
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)