8 keys to developing a successful return to work program
What does your return to work program look like? Read this blog post for 8 tips to developing a successful return to work program at your organization.
No matter the size of your organization, there’s about a 99% chance at some point dealing with employees going on leave. Most HR professionals are well-versed on the logistics of what to do when an employee is on short- or long-term disability — but what sort of culture do you have in place that encourages and supports them with a return to work (RTW)? Developing a positive and open RTW culture benefits not only the organization but the employee and their teams as well.
An effective RTW program helps an injured or disabled employee maintain productivity while recuperating, protecting their earning power and boosting an organization’s output. There also are more intangible benefits including the mental health of the employee (helping them feel valued), and the perception by other team members that the organization values everyone’s work.
See also: 7 Ways Employers Can Support Older Workers And Job Seekers
Some other benefits of an RTW program can include improvement of short-term disability claims, improvement of compliance and reduction of employer costs (replacing a team member can cost anywhere from half to twice that employee’s salary, so doing everything you can to keep them is a wise investment).
Some of these may seem like common sense, but I’m continually surprised how many (even large) organizations don’t have an established RTW program. Here are eight critical elements of a successful program.
1. Support from company leadership.
2. Have a written policy and process.
3. Establish a return to work culture.
4. Train your team members.
5. Establish an RTW coordinator.
6. Create detailed job descriptions.
7. Create modified duty options.
8. Establish evaluation metrics.
Study Reveals Importance of Personal Interactions in Return-to-Work
Originally posted March 03, 2014 by Kristy Tugman on https://www.voluntary.com
Most HR managers are aware of the impact that disability absences have on an organization’s bottom line. But what they may not realize is that the costs associated with these absences are also having an effect on the global economy, as businesses everywhere struggle with getting disability-related costs under control. In fact, one study showed that disability costs were 8 to 15% of payroll in 2002. Seven years later, a similar study found that statistic to hold true, while also suggesting that disability costs would rise by 37% in the future due to the aging population.
Other studies confirm that disability costs are indeed a concern for countries around the world: the U.K., Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Australia and Canada all report escalating disability payments. In Norway, for example, disability payments are about 2.4% of the country’s gross domestic product. And Canada reports that close to 10% of its working population is receiving disability benefits.
Unfortunately there’s no magic bullet for solving the challenge of disability absences, as employers have come to realize. But with so little research supporting effective techniques for return to work, most employers would agree that it’s time for researchers to explore the possible factors − particularly behavior-based techniques that have shown promise − involved in helping employees get back to work successfully.
A recent qualitative study of employees in a cross-section of industries, including manufacturing, television production, financial services and the legal profession, explored patterns and trends of those who went out on disability and their return to work experience. The findings were particularly instructive for employers seeking answers for how to motivate employees on disability to make the transition back to work.
Positive and negative consequences
The study identified several key themes of note, starting with the consequences of not returning to work. The researcher concluded that participants in the study experienced a range of consequences that evolved throughout their experience of being out of work. These included negative consequences, such as financial impact (not having enough money to pay the bills), a loss of personal identity (defining one’s self in terms of job duties) and a loss of control (over one’s destiny). Yet consequences could also be positive, with some participants expressing relief that they didn’t initially have to resume their job duties.
It also became clear that personal interactions were very important as motivators, and were linked to both positive and negative consequences. Not surprisingly, the most significant interactions for employees were those with their co-workers and managers. Employees who experienced negative interactions with their manager had a decreased sense of connection with their employer – and were less motivated to return to work. In addition, participants indicated that when their manager reached out to express concern about their disability, it helped to strengthen their sense of loyalty to the company. However, if a manager reached out only to inquire about when they planned to return to work, it put undue pressure on the employees and created anxiety.
Interactions with co-workers were even more significant for employees. Employees noted that positive interactions with their fellow workers made them feel as if they “owed” it to their peers to return to work. But when co-workers failed to reach out to those who were out on disability, employees said they felt a strong sense of disappointment and isolation.
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the study revealed that negative consequences related to a loss of identity and control were factors that led to return to work in many cases. Employees expressed a direct connection between their identity, self-worth and work. Some participants said they were motivated to return to work because they feared “losing themselves” if they did not.
Likewise, when employees gave control to their physician about their return to work, they were not as likely to return. Initially, most of the participants did release control to their doctor, but as they began to recover from their disability, they slowly took control back through small steps toward independence and each made the decision to get back on the job as they felt more in control.
The findings from the study have clear implications for employers. For example, although co-workers play an important role in helping employees with disabilities feel connected to the company, they are often unsure about how to appropriately stay in touch. Some said they didn’t want to bother the employee or intrude on what they were going through. One simple way to reach out is to send a card from the team, letting the employee know he or she is being thought of. In addition, managers can contact the employee to ask about their well-being, rather than requesting a return-to-work date.
Employers also need to realize that what type of consequences the employee is experiencing can be useful in helping overcome the barriers to return to work. The study showed that what an employee was thinking and feeling played a significant role in influencing the level of recovery. For instance, when employees started to believe they were in control, they felt a sense of empowerment. When they began to take responsibility for their productivity, they saw it as a positive sign that they could adapt and ultimately recover and return to work.
If rehabilitation practitioners and employers can understand the consequences an employee is experiencing, they can both interact and intervene more effectively with their employees who are out on disability to produce a successful return to productivity – an outcome that is beneficial to all.
Sick of Sick Time
By Kathryn Mayer
Source: Benefitspro.com
All week, I’ve been hearing hacking and sneezing and various other upsetting noises coming from all different corners of my office.
It’s likely you have, too.
According to a survey of office workers by Staples, nearly 80 percent of office workers come to work even when they know they’re sick. That’s a whopping 20 percent increase just over last year.
And even worse, for those who stay home, more than two-thirds return to work when they’re still contagious, putting coworkers’ health and business productivity at risk.
This isn’t good news: For one, it’s flu season. (If you haven’t heard, that spreads easily and fast.)
It’s a pretty obvious problem we have here, and of course, a pretty obvious solution: Workers who are sick shouldn't come to work. Period. Instead of getting better, you’ll prolong your recovery and sulk around all day not getting work done while spreading germs to a significant amount of people. And that’s just mean.
Too bad following that solution isn’t all that easy. For the sickly workers, they have a valid excuse to show up: For example, the survey shows nearly half of workers cited concerns about completing work as the reason they don’t stay home sick. And, more than a quarter of respondents come to work to avoid using a sick day, even though a majority of those surveyed indicated their average productivity level while sick was only around 50 percent.
In a struggling economy and competitive job market, workers are less likely to spend their time away from the office even if it’s truly needed. And for PTO workers like myself, if you want to take a vacation, it means you better not get sick. If I caught the flu this year, I’d have to cancel a visit to my parents’ home in Boston. That’s a tough, if not unfair, decision to make.
It’s a two-way street to fix the issue. Employees shouldn’t be coming to work, but employers need to encourage them not to—and that’s not happening in a lot of places. If there really needs to be something done, employers should encourage a telecommuting option so they still work while quarantining themselves (win-win—at least for the employer).
But the main issue is our country’s lack of sick time. The United States is actually the only country that doesn’t guarantee paid sick leave. As a result, close to one quarter of adult workers say they’ve been threatened with termination or fired for taking time off for being sick or taking care of a sick family member.
I don't know about you, but that makes me feel ill.
Employers Fear Supporting Staff Return to Work
By Owain Thomas
Source: Workplace Savings and Benefits
A large majority of employers feel ill-equipped to help staff return to work after illness while a significant minority are calling for auto-enrolment into group risk schemes, new research finds.
The Aviva survey revealed that just one in five (20%) organizations felt equipped to offer their employees rehabilitation support following long-term illness.
Nearly a quarter (22%) said they do not have the resource or expertise to manage people back into the workplace effectively and a similar number (25%) worried that they would have to carry on paying sick pay.
The survey of 500 employers also highlighted confusion about new state benefits and fears that introducing measures to respond to this could adversely affect workers.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) admitted they did not know how much benefit is paid through Employment and Support Allowance while nearly three quarters (72%), didn't know that people in the work related activity group could find their entitlement to ESA could stop after a year.
Just one in ten (11%) employers had reviewed their sick-pay arrangements following the welfare reform changes.
When the situation was explained, over a third (38%) of employers felt it would be a good idea to have a different approach for different conditions.
However, a quarter (24%) recognized the potential impact this could have on their workforce, noting that they would worry that employees would be forced back into work when they are not well enough to do so.
One in five (22%) also felt that it would be very difficult to have the correct measures in place to decide whether a person is fit for work.
In response to these problems, a significant minority (43%) said they thought employees should be auto-enrolled onto a scheme that gives them financial protection in the event of long-term sickness absence.
And around one in five (17%) added that they were already considering taking out group income protection.
Aviva head of group risk Steve Bridger said: "There is a concerning lack of awareness amongst employers about the State benefits relating to illness or injury.
"However, we're encouraged to see that employers recognize the benefit of auto-enrolling employees onto a scheme that gives them financial protection if they are unable to work due to long-term illness and aids rehabilitation."