Who costs more: A sick employee at home or one who comes to work?
April 17, 2008 by Bill MeltzerPosted in: Cutting costs, Latest News & Views
In the last few years, “presenteeism” has become an even bigger concern for many employers than absenteeism. Both are costly, of course. But in many firms there’s no comparison as to which takes a bigger bite out of the bottom line.
Most commonly, presenteeism takes the form of employees coming to work sick. They’re unproductive and endanger co-workers. Meanwhile, the employee is not forced to use a sick day. A bad deal for employers all the way around.
A recent survey by LifeCare revealed that 93% of employees (polled from 1,500 organizations) admit that they at least occasionally come to work when they’re sick enough to stay home. More important, the study looked at the reasons why folks do it.
Troubling rationales
The No. 1 reason employees cited for coming to work sick was a belief that they’d be “letting other people down” if they call out. Nearly 30% of respondents cited this as their main reason. Beyond that, the top responses were:
- It’s too risky, due to office politics or culture, to take time off (26%)
- The employee is too busy at work to be able to stay home even one day (15%)
- The employee saves up sick days for childcare/eldercare emergencies (12%), and
- The employee saves up sick days to use as extra vacation time (8%).
Many of these rationales are troubling to management.
In the first place, supervisors who hassle employees about taking legitimate sick time are, at best, being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Presenteeism costs more than absenteeism, once you figure in the uncharged sick days, lack of productivity and risk of other employees getting sick.
At your firm, does the “tough it out” mentality still apply to people who come in sick? If so, a change in company culture, however gradual, is in order. When upper management looks carefully at the real dollars and cents of presenteeism, reducing the problem usually becomes a priority. At the very least, supervisors shouldn’t encourage it.
In terms of supervisor- and employee-education, repetition of the “stay home if you’re sick” message is the key. Eventually, it’ll sink in, especially if upper management stands behind this goal.
Of course, there’s still the problem — as evidenced by the survey — of employees who misuse their sick days by trying to hoard them for other purposes. Adopting PTO, no-fault absence policies or use-it-lose-it sick time are the three most common ways of reducing the risk, but be aware that each of these policies have risks of their own.
At the end of the day, the more open the lines of communication are between management and employees, the less prevalent the presenteeism problem becomes.

May 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Think of the nightmare where an owner of the company does not believe in giving employees Sick Days? Our’s thinks if they care given any sick days the Employees will use them so Employees come to work sick all the time. One virus went through the building at least 4 times. When a new employee only gets 5 days vacation a year for the first two years of employment, they sure aren’t going to use it for staying home when sick.
Our Employees even bring the children to work when they are sick to conserve the few vacation days they have.
We are in a very competetive business and regularily lose good technicians to other companies becasue they offer sick days and more vacation days.
There seems to be no way to influence the owner to even consider adding a couple of sick days because of the cost.
So we all come to work sick, most of us would love to have the paid day to stay home and get well.
This is just another view of the above problem.