It is not surprising, given the prevalence of AIDS, the not infrequent disruptions to a less-than-reliable public transport system, the legacy of group areas legislation and the activist COSATU, that absenteeism ranks high among South African employers’ aggravations. While I believe that low productivity is a management challenge rather than a worker deficiency, it is difficult to improve productivity when workers are absent. That our absentee rates tend to be a good deal higher than our international manufacturing competitors is substantiated by the situation in the clothing sector where the South African rate is 7,93% and the average international rate 4,66%. I searched in vain for a broader sectoral comparison, for it would be interesting to know where absenteeism is worse, and where it is better. In the automotive component sector where research has been intensive and consistent efforts made to improve the competitiveness of the industry, the rate is 3,5% which, I think, illustrates that it is possible to improve attendance.

What is even more significant is that the methods employed to do so have related to progressive production techniques and an overt recognition of the value of a company’s human capital. In contrast, some companies have resorted to incentives which, to my mind, compromise fundamentally the principle of sick leave which is that it is an entitlement only in the event of illness. To pay a person a bonus at the end of the year because they have not fallen ill and taken sick leave is an acknowledgement, and therefore a tacit condonation, of the fact that workers will take the days off whether they are sick or not. In Sweden, which together with Norway, surprisingly, has one of the highest absentee rates in Europe, companies have resorted to providing free use of health centres and gymnasia and free breakfasts in order to discourage absenteeism. What a problem they have! The Swedish absentee rate is 2,9%. But it exceeds the European Union’s average by 1,3%. This information was gleaned from an article in Fin24 where a spokesperson for Scania, which has adopted these measures and brought its rate down to below 5% was quoted as saying: “this is very low for an engineering industry company where the rate is normally 10 – 20%”. I doubt whether many South African companies would commit the money required to entice people to work in these ways. Here, perhaps, it could be done much less expensively by ensuring that the workplace is a place of harmony, personal development and security. And this may be achieved, to a significant degree at least, through Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs).

A company which specialises in the field of absenteeism (Corporate Absenteeism Management Solutions) reckons that the cost of absenteeism in South Africa is R12 billion each year. This does not include the so-called indirect costs: the costs of replacement or overtime for absent workers, for example, or the effects of overwork on the part of those who are not absent and have to fill in for their absent colleagues. It is of some interest to employers, perhaps, that Tuesday is the most unproductive day of the week because it is the one on which most absenteeism occurs. The reason is, apparently, that most instances of sick leave last for two to three days and begin on a Monday. While Friday is generally regarded as a day for ‘casual’ absence, only 12% of sick leave incidents start on the last day of the working week.

South Africais not alone in its concerns about the modern trend. I have read that in the United States in 2004, the rate of ‘unscheduled’ absenteeism was 24% of which only 38% was due to personal illness. The majority of workers stayed away for family matters (23%), personal needs (18%), stress (11%) and because they believed they were entitled to take leave (10%). In the same year, the UK reported the cost of absenteeism to be £12 billion – on average British employees took nine days off during the year. I believe that it is not uncommon for companies to grant so-called ‘duvet days’, a day on which leave (sick, I suppose) is granted to an employee who phones in and advises that he or she is “not coming in today”. With this kind of permissiveness, it is not surprising that there is concern about absenteeism.

Andrew Layman: PCB CEO

This article appeared in The Mercury on the 16 July 2008