Flexible working makes healthier staff
February 17, 2010
Research has indicated that employees that are able to influence their own working hours are more likely to have good mental and physical health.
The study, carried out by researchers from the Cochrane Library looked at a number of studies carried out on 16,000 people, and found that people who had flexibility around their working hours may have better blood pressure and a healthier heart. Importantly, it was when the workers themselves controlled the flexibility that the positive health benefits could be seen – if the employer gave flexible working but controlled the hours, this was found to have no positive effect, or could even have a detrimental effect.
Although there has always been a belief in the general benefits of flexible working options, this study has now provided evidence that this is the case.
Last year the right to request flexible working was extended to parents of children up to the age of 16, following a review of the legislation. Whether this will ever be extended to all workers has been debated widely, however this is unlikely in the short term. What is clear, however, is the more flexible employers can be in relation to their employees’ working hours, the better the effect on the general wellbeing of their employees will be.
The option to reallocate holidays if sick
September 15, 2009
A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has determined that if employees are sick whilst on scheduled annual leave, they may ‘re-allocate’ the days to another time, even if this means they cannot take the days in that holiday year and have to carry them forward to the next year.
This decision followed the highly publicised Stringer case earlier this year, which ruled that employees will continue to accrue their holidays when they are on long term sick leave, and that this could be carried forward if they are unable to take the leave in the current year.
This latest ruling covers situations when an employee is on holiday, and becomes sick. The ECJ has said that it is no longer allowed for an employer to say ‘tough luck, you lose those days’ if the employee is genuinely sick. And there lies the potential problem for a small number of employers; that this system is open to abuse from a handful of employees that may try to increase their holiday entitlement by claiming sickness during a period of annual leave. However it is recommended that the employee should provide clear medical evidence of the illness – i.e. a doctor’s note – to show that they would have been off work if they weren’t on holiday. In theory this could prove to be overruled as well in cases where the illness lasted less than 7 days, because employees can self-certify for this amount of time in normal sickness absences, however for now it is generally accepted that this is required to be able to reallocate holidays.
Short term sick note measures to help control swine flu
July 9, 2009
Daily news reports have been keeping us updated on the dramatic spread of swine flu over the last few months. Each day thousands more people are being diagnosed, and increasing fatalities are also occurring where people with existing medical problems are contracting the virus. Because of the threat of the virus and its highly contagious nature, the government is considering ways to attempt to control the spread of swine flu.
One possibility that has been suggested by the Department of Health is to temporarily increase the number of weeks an employee can self-certify for sickness absence from one week to two, meaning they would not need to get a medical certificate (doctor’s note) from their GP until they had been off work for a fortnight. This measure would only be put in place for a period of six months, and the change would probably be introduced without any consultation period due to the emergency nature of the situation. The aim of the measure is to reduce the amount of time spent in GP surgeries, both from a resourcing point of view and to reduce the spread of the virus by concentrating a high number of people carrying it in one place whilst trying to get certification.
Of course, there are claims that this type of measure could encourage staff members to abuse the new rules and take more time off sick as they would not need to be certified, however organisations’ existing sickness absence management processes should be used to combat this issue in the same way they do for the current self-certification period. It has been well documented about the possible damages to business a full scale outbreak of swine flu could cause, and so any measure to reduce this risk is probably a positive step. Even so, organisations should be mindful of the risks swine flu could cause to their business and put in steps to react should an outbreak leave them with a reduced workforce, such as facilities for home working.
How hot?!?!?!
July 2, 2009
It can’t be escaping many people’s attention that there’s a heatwave throughout the UK this week, especially if, like me, you work in an office with no air conditioning and the sun shining directly through the windows all day like some sort of greenhouse!
Excessive heat at work is an important issue that employers need to consider at this time of year. Whilst many sick days during the summer may be sceptically attributed to the opportunity to sunbathe and enjoy the hot weather, there are real potential health risks that could impact on the effectiveness of the business if employers do not take care of their staff.
Excessive heat can lead to illness such as headaches, dizziness and nausea, and in worst cases fainting. It is more difficult to concentrate when it is so hot and this could lead to mistakes or loss of productivity. The main causes of these problems are dehydration and overheating, so measures should be in place which in the ideal situation would be air conditioning, but if not then good ventilation and plenty of fans for everyone to use. Employees should have a supply of cool drinking water and another measure may be to relax the dress code slightly, for example allow male workers to remove ties and open top buttons. Most people will be finding it difficult to sleep at night due to the heat, which the organisation cannot do anything about, but if workers are turning up already tired then the workplace needs to be as comfortable as possible to avoid further detriments to the way employees are feeling.
In terms of the law, there is currently no upper temperature limit or proper guidelines to inform employers how hot it can get before employees cannot work. There is a lower limit, but no upper limit has ever been imposed. Earlier in the year the TUC called for an upper temperature of 24C to be put in place for workplaces but this did not happen. So at the moment employees have no way of making a claim that their workplace is too hot, but this doesn’t mean that employers shouldn’t take the issue seriously, because, as stated earlier, organisational problems can occur if employees struggle to work or feel ill due to the heat.
Impact of stress related illness surpasses 70s industrial action
June 25, 2009
According to recent research carried out, the UK economy is suffering heavily at the hands of work related stress, and the cost of this is actually higher than the money lost to strikes that took place in the volatile period of industrial action during the 1970s.
The ever-rising problem of work related stress and mental ill-health is now costing industry around 13.5 million working days each year. In the 1970s the highest number of working days lost was 12.9 million a year – this was during the ‘Winter of Discontent’ in 1978-1979, when so many strikes took place that refuse was not collected in many places and some hospitals had to limit admissions to emergency only patients as workers were picketing entrances to hospitals! So the fact that the current situation is actually worse is very worrying.
Stress is now having a very damaging effect on the economy due to increasing levels of absenteeism, but also increasing ‘presenteeism’: i.e. people turning up for work but being unproductive, a lot of which can be attributed to increasing stress levels. Employees suffering from stress are unable to perform at their optimum level, which in itself can lead to more stress through worrying that they cannot achieve all their work and the fear of consequences from management.
Stress management is now a top priority for HR and health and safety teams, as it can clearly have a devastating effect on the bottom line, which most businesses are highly focussed on at the moment. The Health and Safety Executive has a set of management standards for the management of stress in the workplace, covering areas such as effective job design to ensure workers are capable of carrying out their work, and ensuring people take enough breaks during the day.
Tackling stress – you don’t need bean bags and whale music!
May 29, 2009
It’s well known that during the current difficult economic times, stress levels in organisations are increasing as workers are required to put in longer hours, with fewer breaks, and are often taking on tasks that were not previously part of their remit due to staffing cuts and reorganisations. Organisations that are looking to save in the short term could lose out in the long term if they fail to recognise the causes of stress and manage them effectively; as work related stress can cause a huge amount of illness and absence within the workforce, as well as having a detrimental effect on productivity, which is the last thing companies need in this situation.
There are many ways to reduce stress in the workplace, and most of them don’t cost loads of money or time. Being clever and realistic with what needs to be achieved will go a long way to making sure the required job is done without making workers ill or totally demoralised. Being clear with objectives and giving specific timescales for completion will ensure employees are focussed on the task rather than risking ‘headless chicken’ syndrome. It is even possible to get employees to give longer hours to the company for short periods of time without turning the job into a stress-nightmare, as long as there is a positive reason for the need for longer hours and the objectives of the work in question are clear and timed.
Ensuring employees take breaks is really important if the company needs productivity and enthusiasm to be high. I am one of the world’s worst culprits for not taking breaks, and really it doesn’t get me anywhere because the time I spend working through the break can often be lost in the afternoon if I am lacking in concentration due to staring at a screen for too long, or lacking in energy from not having anything to eat. Many companies unwittingly develop a culture in which taking a break is seen as a lazy thing to do and staff can feel fearful of getting a drink or taking a short walk, but this culture is counter-productive in the long run. Companies that have a specified break area are probably more likely to get staff taking time away from their work – and it doesn’t have to be a really fancy area with bean bag chairs, tropical fish and whale music! Just an opportunity to escape, have a chat to a friend and a cup of tea will refresh the mind and allow the employee to re-focus on what they’re doing for the next part of the day.
What’s your organisation like for stress? Do you have clear objectives and time for breaks, or are you suffering the effects of stress as a result of increased pressures in the organisation?
Health and safety risk assessments
April 2, 2009
My colleague is currently reviewing the management of health and safety within our company, and one major part of this is carrying out a full assessment of the potential hazards and risks within the building and employees’ jobs.
The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires all employers to ensure the health, safety and welfare of employees and workers at all times, and part of this is that the employer must assess potential risks, and take steps to remove or reduce those risks. Health and safety legislation is becoming more complex all the time and the consequences and penalties for employers that do not comply or have the unfortunate event of an accident (or worse still, fatality) which leads to a claim are increasing each year.
As my colleague has worked through the risk assessment, it has amazed me just how many potential hazards there are in the building – from loose electrical cables that could cause a trip hazard, to overloaded shelves, to the location of water coolers (one of ours is in a space that has a laminated floor and therefore any spills instantly become a slip hazard). The company I work for operates in a standard office environment, and there are literally hundreds of hazards, so the risk assessments for a workplace such as a warehouse or factory will be an enormous task to take on.
Once the assessment has taken place, an action for each risk is required to ensure the risk is reduced or eliminated. For example with the water coolers, the answer could be to move the cooler to a safer place; however it is in the reception area and therefore needs to stay there for visitors and customers to use, so the next best action is to give the nearest employee (the receptionist) the responsibility of monitoring leakages and using appropriate ‘wet floor’ hazard signage and mopping spills immediately.
Some companies use an external consultant to carry out complete risk assessments and create action plans, however this can be expensive and costs should be weighed up against carrying this out in-house, and against the potential claim costs if it is not done properly (as is often the case if health and safety is tagged onto someone’s day job).
For more information on health and safety and risk assessments, look at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE website).
Does the Working Time Directive encourage a long hours culture?
February 27, 2009
Today is officially ‘work your proper hours day’, which is an initiative from Worksmart, part of the TUC, intended to encourage UK workers to stop carrying out billions of hours of unpaid overtime and perpetuating a long hours culture. The Worksmart website says:
“Over five million people at work in the UK regularly do unpaid overtime, giving their employers £26.9 billion of free work every year. If you’re one, why not take some time to reflect on how well (or badly) you’re balancing your life? This is one day in the year to make the most of your own time. Take a proper lunchbreak and leave work on time to enjoy your Friday evening - You deserve it!”
The site goes on to explain the negative health-related effects of working long hours, including stress and damage to external relationships.
This information is not anything we haven’t heard before, but the long hours culture in the UK has been around for years and will probably still be in the future despite the efforts of organisations such as the TUC. What is it about our country that makes us all work so much, with arguably no benefit to productivity? Most of the time it doesn’t even impress the boss – whilst many people may be exercising a lot of ‘presenteeism’ at the moment in order to safeguard their jobs in uncertain times, a survey of 500 managers that was carried out in December by Kingston University found that 59% did not think that people who stayed late worked harder than those who didn’t.
One theory put forward by many Unions and a number of Labour MEPs is that our continuing support for the opportunity for employees to opt-out of the Working Time Directive (which limits the legal working hours to 48 per week) is ensuring the long hours culture remains in the UK. This is an issue that has again been in the news in the last few months as the EU continues to put pressure on the UK to remove the opt-out. Last year the UK managed to hold onto the opt out by negotiating better legislation for the protection of temporary workers (see Agreement reached on opt out of working time directive, June 08) however at the end of last year European MPs voted in favour of scrapping the opt out for the UK, and now Gordon Brown faces a difficult negotiation in order to keep it. Some members of the Labour party feel that the opt out should be scrapped, but Gordon Brown wants to keep it, as do Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs.
The Government is also under pressure from business groups including the CBI as they feel that the opt out allows businesses to have more flexibility in the use of their workforce – which was the whole point of introducing the opt out in the first place. On the other side of the argument it is said that the Working Time Directive is a health and safety law; protecting employees’ health from the adverse effect of long hours. In addition MEPs argue that the Directive as it has been adopted allows flexibility for workers to work longer than 48 hours in some weeks when there is a high workload because an average can be calculated over a period of 12 months.
What is your opinion of this issue? Does the opt-out provide flexibility for businesses and employees, or does it exploit UK workers and perpetuate a long hours culture in the UK?
The Health and Safety (offences) Act 2008
February 13, 2009
On 16th January, the Health and Safety (offences) Act 2008 came into force. This is an amendment to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, and covers the sentences that might be issued if a company/individual is found to have breached the law, which include prison sentences.
Under the 1974 Act, employers have a duty to manage the risks in the workplace to employees and other people affected by the business (visitors, customers etc), and it is an offence to breach this duty. Previously this offence only carried a financial penalty, however now the courts have wider powers including larger fines and prison sentences of up to 12 months (Magistrates Court) or up to 2 years (Crown Court).
The reason for this change in the law is that there are still thousands of accidents and injuries in the workplace that could be avoided with good health and safety awareness, but the numbers keep increasing. In 2007/2008, over 200 people were killed at work, and there were over half a million new cases of people suffering illnesses that were caused or made worse by the workplace.
Many injuries are caused by slips and trips, due to things like poorly designed or laid out office furniture, filing cabinet drawers left open or wet floors with no warning sign. Some of the more serious injuries are caused by poorly maintained machinery or unsafe practices when operating them. Whatever the industry, all companies should pay attention to health and safety issues, whether it is a display screen equipment (DSE) assessment at an employee’s desk, or providing the correct clothing or equipment for employees working on a site or plant.
The Health and Safety Executive has a great deal of information on getting started in health and safety issues and how to deal with accidents and incidents. Many companies also buy in the services of an external consultant to assess the risks in the workplace and help manage them; and with fines of up to £20,000 for breaches of the law, it’s probably a small price to pay to make sure your employees are safe at work.
ECJ ruling ends dispute over holidays on long term sick
February 3, 2009
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) made a ruling at the end of last month that will end years of debate over whether staff who are on long term sickness absence should continue to accrue holidays and then be entitled to them at the end of their sick leave.
The right to a minimum amount of paid leave (which will increase to 20 days plus bank holidays in April) is part of the Working Time Directive (1998), and the ECJ ruling found that this right remains even when the employee has been absent through sickness for a long time:
“A worker does not lose his right to paid annual leave which he has been unable to exercise because of sickness. He must be compensated for his annual leave not taken”
This news has been taken badly by many employers and business groups, because of the added expense this ruling is likely to mean, especially in the current economic circumstances. It means that an employee will be entitled to take the accrued annual leave after the end of their sick leave, no matter how long this period is – which will mean issues with providing cover for extended leave requests and effectively integrating the employee back into work. In many cases employees on long term sickness absence do not return to work at all, and in this case the employee would be entitled to a lump sum payment of their outstanding accrued holidays when their employment is eventually terminated.
What this means for HR departments is that they will need to review their policies and handbooks to ensure the new rules are incorporated into the wording. Many current policies will give a maximum length of sick leave during which an employee may accrue annual leave (e.g. 6 or 12 months) and this will therefore need to be taken out. Many companies have a policy that states that employees on long term sick will continue to accrue the statutory minimum amount of holidays, but will not be entitled to accrue their additional company holidays (if they have an enhanced number of days) after a certain period. It is my understanding that this type of policy will still be legal after the ECJ ruling – as long as the employee accrues the legal minimum amount of holidays whilst they are on long term sick. It might therefore be prudent to add this into the policy when changing it, so that the company is not liable to pay even more annual leave that has been accrued by the employee if they are entitled to an enhanced amount of days when they are in work.