It's a lovely, snug life, being employed by a large organisation. You stroll in to the office, you have a chat and a coffee and a couple of pointless meetings, all in the secure knowledge that your benevolent employer is going to put the same amount of cash in your bank account at the end of this month that it did last time.
But for society as a whole, this languid complacency is a disaster. Never mind the culture of welfare dependency. What about the culture of employer dependency? Britain needs a fundamental cultural shift away from the corporate beehive in favour of entrepreneurship and self-employment.
This week Dame Carol Black, the national director for health and work at the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement, produced a report revealing that ill-health costs the British economy more than £100 billion a year in benefit and health expenditure, forgone taxes and lost productivity. According to the report, the annual economic cost of absence due to sickness is greater than the entire NHS budget and equivalent to the gross domestic product of Portugal.
Dame Carol proposed a number of reforms, including replacing the traditional sick note with a “fit note”, in which a doctor focuses on what the worker can still do, rather than what he or she cannot. But these tackle the symptoms of the problem, not its underlying cause. What prompts all but the chronically incapacitated to take unnecessary time off ill is not pushover GPs, but a deep-rooted sickness in attitudes towards work.
Long-term unemployment may be destructive, but long-term employment can be too. At a very basic level, it shifts responsibility for putting food on the family's table away from the individual to a third party. Not the State, but an employer. And the debilitating effects of this fundamental shunning of self-sufficiency is all too evident in the available statistics.
A 2007 study by the EU-funded European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions, based on face-to-face interviews with about 30,000 people across Europe in different fields of work, revealed just how much mass employment in large organisations has sapped our drive and turned us into a bunch of dependent stuffed suits.
The gulf between the self-employed and the employed in their response to sickness is stark. Whereas the self-employed actually report higher levels of work-related health problems than the employed (45 per cent to 33 per cent), such as backache and stress, they take far fewer days off sick.
Here are the report figures on average annual sickness absence for the various categories of worker, in ascending order: one-person enterprise, 2.5 days; self-employed, 2.8 days; micro-enterprise (2-9 workers), 3.2 days; small enterprise (10-49 workers), 4.6 days; medium-sized enterprise (50-249 workers), 5.6 days; large enterprise (250+ workers), 7.4 days. Anyone see a pattern?
There are many on the Right who closely associate the public sector with higher levels of sickness absence. They are right, but only up to a point. According to a Health and Safety Executive report of 2006 that looked at the UK workplace, the average annual sickness absence per worker for a public sector organisation employing more than 250 people was 8 days, whereas for a similar-sized private company it was 6.9 days.
The study attributed some of this difference to the greater proportion of older people and women working in the public sector, both of whom report higher rates of absence in general. But the far more striking difference in absence rates was not between private and public, but once again, between large and small. For businesses with fewer than 25 employees, the average was 3.9 days.
What explains this discrepancy? The answer surely lies in a powerful cocktail of need and desire, most keenly experienced by the self-employed and gradually weakening for employees as their organisation becomes larger. The one-person band knows that the work will stay undone unless they themselves do it, and that they will only eat what they themselves kill. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and the avowed enemy of all malingering.
The self-employed also like their work more, making them more determined to ignore their ailments so they can devote attention to their source of pride and satisfaction. A 2005 global survey by the Career Innovation Group reported a significantly greater sense of achievement among self-employed workers compared with the employed. The content of their work may be identical to their employed counterparts, but they feel a much closer connection to the fruit of their labour and have a natural incentive to make their business as successful as possible.
The motivating consequences of connection and incentive then wane as the worker's organisation grows. An able employee in a company of five knows that he is verging on the indispensable. An able employee in a company of 5,000 knows that he can drop dead tomorrow and corporate performance will register about as much movement as his corpse.
But the combination of ill-conceived government policy and the recent boom years has expanded the employment featherbed, making it all too easy to turn up, clock on and skive off. Since Labour took power in 1997, there has been a rise of almost 12 per cent in public sector employment.
Why bother putting yourself out and going through all the trials and tribulations of setting up on your own when a government-sponsored sinecure is up for grabs? Whereas the percentage of self-employed within the overall workforce grew from 11.4 per cent to 13.4 per cent in the ten years before 1997, it fell in the next ten back to 12.9 per cent. As well as a significant reduction in public sector employment, we need more far-reaching tax incentives for self-employment. How can the Government afford to do this? In the light of the sickness statistics, how can it afford not to?
Dame Carol's “fit note” and “work-related health support” will add new layers of bureaucracy without challenging the root cause of rampant sickness absence. Fortunately, we have the credit crunch and global economic downturn to help us to forget about all those nasty little aches and pains. It may be the right moment for the employed to forget about “stress”, and learn instead about stress.
David Bolchover is the author of The Living Dead: The Truth about Office Life
I've had no time off since 1998, when I had flu. I realised after I started temping that I would certainly lose pay and might lose a job for being sick, and therefore discovered I could work through a lot of things.
However I think I also have a tip-top immune system and that's partly luck and partly lots of fruit and veg I think. I have had very few colds in the last 10 years.
Katharine Hall, hitchin, Britain
What people are saying about Satutory Sick Pay is a key point, it's paid to you by the employer and then reclaimed from the government.
The gang masters probably have the most efficient workforces in the country with almost no sickness because if their workers don't turn up for work, they probably have no job!
Why should these nasty pieces of work bother with SSP when there are plenty street corners in cities where people gather in the hope of finding any kind of work.
Even outside South Kensington tube station in one of the wealthiest parts of London, you can find people waiting for white vans to hopefully pick them up and they never get sick!
The government doesn't seem to notice this happening, is the government condoning the black economy or are they just blindingly incompetent?? The government does not represent hard working labourers, farm hands, cleaning staff etc. The government has in fact pushed their faces into the mud.
Graham Wharton, St. Albans, uk
I am a retired government worker. I agree that people who have sick days as part of their employment package will call in sick when they are in pain or uncomfortable. Someone who is self employed may work because if they don't work, there is no income. But that doesn't mean that those who use their sick leave are taking advantage of their employer. They earn their sick leave the same way they earn their salaries and other benefits.
Marsha Eisner, Hicksville, USA / NY
I would be interested in comparing staff turnover between large a small companies. I expect what you will see is that small companies lose masses of productivity due to their high staff turnover which is in turn due to their poor salary and benefits. I would expect the reason for less sick days in small companies is many of them offer just statutory sick pay, hence the likely high staff turnover. To solve this dichotomy, I would invest in homeworking much more heavily if I were a large company as not only will it save on costs it will also reduce the chances of people going sick.
steph, brighton,
Absenteeism in larger organisations is largely contributed to by management weakness. It is up to the line-manager to translate the organisation's aims into team goals, and to inspire the sense of commitment found in the smaller organisations. I suspect this sort of inspirational leadership is a bit un-British, you know?
James, Oxford, UK
When I was on a course of chemotherapy a few years ago two nurses proudly told me that they could claim up to 6 months on full pay, followed by six months on half pay, for sickness.
They were astounded to learn that I was working in between chemotherapy sessions. Even more so, when I told them I was entitled to a maximum of 50 working days paid sick leave per annum and thereafter only to SSP, no matter what the circumstances.
Their employer was the NHS. Mine was a small-to-medium sized engineering company.
Sarah, Carcassonne, France
The main difference between large and small companies is that if you take time off, there is either nobody to do your work until you get back, or you let down colleagues by not being there.
M.Wilde, Surbiton,
As somebody once said to me "the best cure for the flu is self-employment." I have two suggestions:
1. Large organisations tend to infantilise their staff trying to micro-manage their jobs and feeding them corporate twaddle.
2. You can feel loyalty to another person much more easily than you can feel loyalty to a large organisation.
Frank Upton, Solihull,
I couldn't agree more, I also agree with GM in Brisbane. Knowing your value and respecting your colleagues is more likely in a small organisation. Not only that but usually you see the results of your labours right in front of you. My office has 9 other people in it and we all know each other's worth, which is very refreshing after having worked in places where I knew the department could more than cope in my absence.
Frances Roberson, Croydon,
Company working practices generally need a massive shake up. The idea that everyone should all work the same 5 days of the week and then take the same 2 days off at the weekend is outdated. Why not allocate which 2 consecutive days an employee may take off each week and staff accordingly. For starters this would probably improve rush hour transport congestion.
Or, if you were even more inventive, allow a 3 day 'week-end'. I would happily work a 10 hour day for 4 days a week if I knew I was going to get a 3-day weekend at the end of it (based on average 8 hour day). Remember that great feeling on the Sunday of a bank holiday weekend knowing you still have an extra day off work? You could have that feeling every week.
People would be less inclined to 'pull sickies' too because they would have an extra day in the week in which to recover from illness/tiredness. Surely it's worth a try?
James, Dublin, Ireland,
"No sick pay". What an innovative and original idea.
That should sort out all those of working age lounging about in hospital wards. Making out that they have serious illnesses just so they can have operations or radiotherapy or whatever.
And as for those who have learnt how to fool X ray scanners into showing they actually have broken limbs.
Bob, Northampton,
I think the bigger issue is corprate culture in large Companies your often not allowed to make any diccision even down to having your dinenr 5 minutes early.
Stupid rules for the sake of stupid rules, make emplyees not care, For example I HAVE to start work at 8:30 am but nobdy else starts work till 9:00 thou they still come in earlyer than that and stop in the staff room for brakefast and such.
My role is such that if no one else is there is nothing for me to do, so i started sitting the in the staff room so i could talk to colleges this was 100% work related and often set up jobs for the rest of the day.
This was untill my boss band me from the staff room and insisted i hide in coubard so that "staff could find me" as they could not find me when i was sitting next to them but could if i was out of the way in coubard.
This ofc lead to me doing less as i no longer get a head startupon the day, as i now have to wait till 9 to do any thing.
MR W Jones, Liverpool, England
I'm a doctor and I think I've had 2 days sick inthe last 4 years. Considering I am surrounded by illness every day, surely I would be more sick than average?
But I I go off sick there is no cover so my colleagues and patients suffer
Richard, London, England
Wilfred Knight, Orange County, USA/CA - you are confusing the notion of socialism with the high levels of unemployment in the two areas you refer to but which are not referred to in this article. There is an explanation, which you might care to read. Until the 1980's the area around the City of Manchester, that is Rochdale, Oldham, Bolton, Bury, and a little further north in Burnley and Blackburn, had many thousands of cotton manufacturing mills that all, gradually, disappeared along with the associated trades and of course the mechanical and electrical engineering support to maintain the machinery and Trafford Park in Manchester had many thousands in heavy and light engineering and the area also had many coal pits; and, Liverpool, had many thousands employed in the docks and shipbuilding in that area. Unfortunately, with the loss of jobs, successive government administrations failed miserably to create employment opportunities to replace the ones lost through de-industrialisation.
Kenneth Armitage, Suffolk, England
I've spent all of my post grad life working in Blue Chips, and the rise of the sickies coincided with the removal of paid overtime (or time off in lieu) in most of those jobs.
Contracted to work 37.5 hours a week? But the dead lines don't allow for that? Then you work 50 hours plus travelling, and you get? NOTHING! The work barely acknowledge for fear, God forbid, they have to reflect it in your pay packet... The top end of the food chain gets golden handshakes for driving a company's workforce into the ground, and not even an award for Coronary of the Month or Dead Employee of the Year...
When the work was no longer reward with at least something then people started taking things they regarded as theirs and the devil take the hindmost... Effectively, unless you work for yourself (which I now do) you were working for a capricious, greedy idiot who was ungrateful and had no memory of your successes, but a near autistic ability to recall you being late in 1986. "It was a Tuesday..."
Rodonn, Neston, England
What's this all about? I stroll into the office, have a coffee, chat with my colleagues and my benevolent employer pays me at the end of the month. Fantastic! That means I have the luxury of being stressed about other things in my life.
So the next big article will be about how the vast majority of Britons, being self employed are suffering stress, high blood pressure and other ailments related to being self employed.
Take this line "But for society as a whole, this languid complacency is a disaster." Where do you get off telling us (society) and therefore me, what you consider a disaster. As for the £100bn it costs to be off sick... so what? Do you think everyone cares about money all the time. I choose to have a benevolent employer so I don't have to and can apply my attention to things other than money, like my family and friends. What a load of rubbish! If you're ill, take a day off and recover. If your jobs not fulfilling, go and find another one or become self empoyed
David, Nottingham,
Interestingly, when Royal Mail introduced a scheme where staff with good attendance records were put into a regular draw for prizes such as new cars etc, they reportedly saw a marked reduction in sick leave.
Andrew, London, UK
I am a British person working in the USA. Here we get PTO ( paid time off) sick days and vacation days rolled up. A day off sick comes off your vaction quota! Works well to control skiving
Delila, Columbus, OH
A lot have you have missed the point,when you were self employed like I was for 40 yrs you rapidly learn that when your hands stop,the money stops,because everything is on a price.
So if you stop for a cup of tea your money stops,if you stop for lunch,the money stops,so you eat and drink on the move.The knowledge that if you don't do anything the wife and kids go hungry soon comes home and you get on with it.I am not denying that a lot of the time sick and holiday pay would have been nice but at least no one could ever call you a scrounger
Ron N.Yorks
R Leadbeater, Middlesborough, uK
America supports small businesses, in contradistinction to both Tories and Labour., who both appeal to the UKs ingrained socialism
America recognizes that most new jobs are created by the entrepreneurs who form 53% of companies who start with small workforces, then expand. The US government prefers that people be rich, as they are less of a burden on the state.Its part of the American Dream.
The UK Daily Mail map shows clustering of sicknotes around Liverpool & Manchester.,from whence I came. This saddened me. Work was always hard to get, but experiences on Lancashire farms & factories plus teaching slum kids in Liverpool taught me there had to be a better way to earn a living.
Ask yourselves why most of the new jobs created in the North of England are with local government. Perhaps your bloggers are right.
The gutsy men who brought forth the world's Industrial Revolution are having their entrepreneurial spirit crushed out of them by the unrelenting heavy hand of government.
wilfred knight, orange county, usa /ca
The argument in this article seems to hang on the unjustified assumption that fewer sick days taken means less economic cost of sickness. You've decided that small business workers only take sick days when they need them and that large company employees take extra days out of laziness. It could just as easily be true that the former go to work sick and are less productive in that period and the latter are correctly using their sick leave to recover from illness. Without combining your figures with actual sickness rates they are meaningless and even then they don't tell the whole story.
Your assumptions seemed to be based on the belief that the longer people work, the better for the economy and therefore the better for society. We should be encouraging fewer hours of more efficient work, not justifying one's employment by making work for oneself. It means letting go of the fear of being made useless in the hope that more people can be employed, each for fewer but more productive hours.
PP, London, UK
Smaller companies are less likely in the first place to employ people with health problems (e.g. disability) or women of child-bearing age, to avoid the associated financial responsibilities - as any friend who runs their own small business will tell you.
Jessica, Reading, UK
Working for a public sector employer I am expected to be at my desk for set hours of the day regardless of the job at hand. Flexible working is talked about but very difficult for management to agree to. My sister on the other hand is self employed, she fits her work in around her life and on some days starts late/finishes early and vice versa. If larger organisation were able to trust there employees, setting them clear and realisitic goals to achieve and gave them the flexibility to achieve these goals, people wouldn't need so many sick days as they'd feel a sense of responsibility and respect.
Lindsey, London, UK
Yep......good article.
Sophie, Liverpool........the concentration / hot spots for this were, I believe, published in a newspaper recently.
Phil, Preston,
Wilfred; wrong, it has very little to do with the socialist state, you seem to forget that the conservatives have been in power longer than the Socialists(who are really conservatives in drag)Maggie and her lot encouraged people to go on the sick and disability to fiddle the unemployment figures. The rot starts at the top with people seeing MPs of all colors fiddling and shirking responsibility, corrupt bosses, inefficient and incompetent management and so on. The conservatives under Maggie also wiped out a large proportion of industy and put workers on the dole, consequently all loyalty and guilt is destroyed. If the USA worker is so efficient then why is your hypers full of stuff made in china.
Dave Madley, Alicante, Spain
The facts are plain, simple and have been known for years, the public service employees look at sick pay as an extension of their holiday entitlement. I am retired but during my early working life it was very rare to hear of someone being sick. Toward the end of my working life it was seen as normal to be off sick and one began to hear of 'throwing a sicky' meaning taking time off. I think the worst thing ever being brought in was allowing people to have a few days sick without a sick note from the doctor, this gave rise to the lazy having time off when ever they felt like it without any checks being made. I think those who are caught out should be made to repay the money they have defrauded their employer and the state and given instant dismissal as would happen when any other criminal act occurred at work.
D Case, Newquay,
Look at IRS 35. The government hates the self employed because they don't pay PAYE, and they want to stamp it out.
Also the larger employees (especially the banks) have virtrually been nationalised by regulation, so that's another reason why the sickness statistics for large private employers is similar to large state employers.
We really do need to abolish taxes on savings (including CGT and IHT) so individuals can save and make enough capital to risk starting their own businesses. And we should have different income tax rates for public sector employees (with their index linked pensions), private sector employees and the self employed.
But it is true, if surprising, that Labour taxes labour most of all!
Philippa Pirie, London, England
The answer to your conundrum is simple - the self-employed person works on a contract basis and doesn't get paid when off sick or on holiday. That's why they monitor their own absences very closely.
Contractors in big companies work like employees in small companies, because they are self-employed.
The problem is that NuLab don't like self-employed people. They want everyone in a nice big bucket that can be manipulated by legislation for the masses. Self-employed and contract personnel have seen their remuneration eroded by Gordon Brown over the last ten years to the point where those that can have emigrated or accepted full-time employment instead.
If you want the work ethic you describe above, make contract working easier so that companies can hire services as needed instead of having to budget for employees they don't need.
Nanny culture is for children. Uncle Gordon doesn't want us to grow up. Vote him out and regain the freedom in your life and in your wallet.
KR, Stockport,
While agreeing with the large company related picture David Bolchover paints, I wondered nevertheless whether the (laudable) tendency of small company staff and self-employed to keep on working (perhaps in preference to having real health issues dealt with in a timely manner), ultimately might result in a greater eventual burden on the healthcare system, which is funded by all of us (in Britain, through taxation). Although difficult to readily quantify, perhaps this might be a unconsidered, hidden cost the self-employed and small employers cause. On the other hand, the point made (also in readers posts) about greater motivation is I feel a very valid one. Sadly, however, I cannot agree with the intemperate rant from Wilfred Knight. Perhaps he's an unhappy Brit across the pond with origins in the soft south of England.
Rohan, Solihull, UK
Working in Occupational Health services we see that the problem of sickness absence is not only related to short-term absences, but more particualrly to long-term absences in cases seen as 'hopeless' by employers.
I agree completely with GM that we are more conscious of the effect of absence when working in a small co-dependent environment, but the onus in larger companies must also be placed on employers to maintain contact with any absent employee and involve occupationally trained mediators in cases where an absence of more than 2 weeks is likely.
Work stress and personal problems are valid reasons for absence, but are so badly mannaged by the majority of employers - both public and private sector - that the costs run into millions. Equally debilitating is the scenario of an employee being long term absent for a physical reason, and developing a psychological block to returning to work in this time. re-deploment, re-training and early intervention are key in minimising absences.
amelia, London,
So it's automatically a good thing for people to take less sick leave? What price do angelic self-employed people pay in the long run for rushing back to work before they are properly fit to do so? Why is it that people in high-stress, long-hour professions suffer from breakdowns, heart attacks and addictive problems?
It may be "good" for the economy if we all work 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, but is it good for the individual or for society to do so? I am not defending spongers who take advantage of the system at the expense of others, but personally, I do not live to work - I work to live, and the less time I can spend at work, making money for other people, the more time I can spend on more important things like my children, my friends, my community - my life!
As the old saying goes - noone ever lay on their deathbed, looked back at their lives and said "I wish I'd spent more time at work!"
Elliot, London, UK
There are two issues here.
First the deadly boring nature of most work. Any employER can design interesting work with the most elementary psychological techniques all circa 1950. Why don't they? Will they survive if they don't? The economists must answer that. For an employEE, maybe it is best to copy David and "decide to do something with you life"!
Second would penal measures reduce disengagement? Go the other way? Increase sick leave? Allow everyone a generous amount - many countries do! And then when that has been accumulated, don't write it off - allow employees to cash in excess leave. That is a huge incentive to go to work.
The real issue are the non-jobs. There is a saying that annual salaries may vary but hourly salaries do not! If the job can be done in 2 days and employees will only do it for 5 days pay - well we can see how this works.
So why don't we decide to do something with our lives?
Jo, Olney, England
In smaller companies the jobs are often bigger. One can make decisions and get the job done without being constantly monitored by those so in love with policy & procedure manuals that they stifle all creativity and innovation. Thus in small companies there is challenge and stimuli that overcomes the minor sickness that afflict the undermotivated, over-managed staff of large corporations.
Mike, Milton Keynes, UK
Entrepreneurship will be encouraged in the UK by invitation. The invitation of the HMRC into everybody's workplace and homes and to terrorise all the tax evaders who were 3p out in their self-assessment
george, york,
Wilfrid Knight: where in the article does it claim the 'sicknote' culture is centred around Liverpool and Manchester? Must have missed that. Do you have evidence for it? Or did you see the word 'work' in the title and have your anti-socialism response ready to go before you even read the article?
sophie, Liverpool,
If you pay sick leave then your workers will be sick, whether genuine our fake.
The only way to combat it is to pay all workers their normal wage and no sick pay. The boss could afford to give everyone a pay rise with what he is saving - rewarding the hard workers and not just the shirkers.
Smokers should be made to wait until a proper break to have a puff as all their unofficial cigarettes add up to a lot of 'down time'. Smoking less would improve their health at the same time.
GJB, Slough, Berkshire
Your conclusions are correct at all and you have seemed to forgotten one important aspect of this, Guilt.
When you work in small company your colleagues are often friends, you tend to share a bond that is just not there is larger organisations. Taking a day of sick when you are merely feeling off colour or a little hung over is just not the done thing as you are sticking it to your friends, the guilt of knowing your colleagues are running around like mad trying to cover your duties is too much for most people.
In a corporate environment those bonds tend not to exist, there are also more people and processes in place for your work to taken care off until your return. A sick day when working for a blue chip is a fairly guilt free experience.
Local Government however is a different kettle of fish. There seems to be 5 people employed for every full time position in Government anyway, I would imagine a sick day is needed now again just to plan spending the huge pension awaiting them.
GM, Brisbane,
The sicknote culture centred around Liverpool & Manchester could not exist without your socialist welfare state, and its income redistribution ethos.
Here in the US, where 53% of businesses only have one to four employees, and very limited workmen's compensation, productivity is higher.
Its not the sicknote. Its the underlying socialism hurting the UK.
Socialism is based on the negative , immature ,childlike emotions of resentment , envy , & jealousy.
Socialism's battle-cry is "Fairness" -- a plea from the psychological stage of childhood , which can nonsensically mean whatever one wants, depending on which axe one has to grind.
Its time for Brits to grow up and dump socialism.
Churchill told you years ago..: if a man is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart..if a man is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no brain ." .
wilfred knight, orange county, usa/ca
A very fitting article, which delves deep into the human psyche and work cultures of those being self employed, vis a vis corporate employees, enjoying some cushy, mushy jobs. The prime most factor lies with our human attitude and how we see our work. When an entrepreneur is self employed, apart from his efforts, his money, wealth and captial is attached to the work or vocation. This automatically gives him a source of self motivation, to do better and go for less absentism. Evey man day lost is evaluated into an opportunity cost for loosing some moohlas. There is a sense of direct connect, of ownership and belongingness,with underlying insecurity to suffer business losses. Whereas, people working in public and utility institutions, Govt. sectors and large corporates, often feel over secured, with a dispassionate, lackadaisical approach towards work, productivity etc. Besides, grant of leave for frivolious grounds, add an extra pressure/fringe benefit on job absentism.Hire or fire!!
sandy, New Delhi, India