New Health and Work Service to get long-term sick back to work

People off sick for more than four weeks are to be offered advice to get them back to work more quickly under a scheme being set up by the government.

The Health and Work Service, which will cover England, Wales and Scotland, will offer non-compulsory medical assessments, starting in April.

It will be run by the private sector and paid for by scrapping compensation to employers for statutory sick pay. Ministers say employers will save money overall by having fewer staff off sick.  They said it may save companies up to £70m a year in reduced sickness pay and related costs.

No law change

The new scheme will not entail any change to existing laws.

At present, staff who are off work for more than four weeks are considered to be long-term sick and entitled to Statutory Sick Pay of almost £90 per week from their employers.

That will not change under the new arrangements - but the government wants the Health and Work Service to cut the number of people on long-term sick leave.

Under the scheme, employers or GPs will be able to refer employees for a work-focused occupational health assessment.  This is intended to identify the issues preventing an employee from returning to work and draw up a plan for them, their GP and their employer, recommending how the employee can be helped back to work more quickly.

This may include fitness for work advice, medical care, working from home or retraining. The scheme is not compulsory. BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam says workers will be allowed to refuse to follow the course recommended.

'Outdated'

The service will be paid for by scrapping a compensation scheme for employers faced with high levels of sickness absence.

The Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold Scheme (PTS) is being abolished from April. The Department for Work and Pensions says PTS is "an outdated system which does nothing to promote or support active management of sickness absences by either the employer or employee".

Any financial loss to business from the ending of the PTS is expected to be offset by a reduction in lost working days, earlier return to work and increased economic output created by the new scheme, the DWP said.

It said the new scheme should particularly benefit small businesses without access to occupational health services.

Forced back

Work and Pensions Minister Mike Penning said sickness absence had a "substantial impact" on workers, employers and taxpayers.

"As part of the government's long-term economic plan, we are taking action to get people back into work," he said. This is a triple-win. It will mean more people with a job, reduced cost for business, and a more financially secure future for Britain."

The Trades Union Congress said it supported the principles behind the move and that being in a rewarding job with a supportive employer could be good for your health.  But it said care should be taken over how the scheme was implemented. The danger was that people would be forced back to work before they were well.

Britain's rate of absence through sickness is among the lowest in Europe and has halved over the past decade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26105246

The key will be in the implementation.  As someone who had a four month period of being unable to work I would have welcomed this.  I was fortunate and I received a lot of help from my employer and I was able to go back to work full time.  

Being desperate to work and being unable to do so due to poor health can be frightening. You have concerns around money, are you ever going to be able to go back, will you lose your job etc etc.  To have that support structure available to help people back into work sensibly when they are well enough can have a big impact.

I am not so sure on this - we already have one of the lowest rates of sick days and I am not at all convinced that any reduction in sick days will be enough to cover the loss of compensation for SSP for employers.

This does seem to be another case of buying into the illusion that people are trying to get out of working and are using sickness as an excuse.

I would also be worried about how much responsibility employers themselves will take - good employers are already doing all they can do, and are prepared to look at things like flexible hours, a different role etc but what about the bad employers? What are they going to do if the advice involves them making adaptations? Are they going to use this new system as a stick to beat sick employees with?

Im lucky, my place is very supportive over illness and has phased returns and working from home options. Plus I have the bestest boss ever lol

sphinx wrote:I am not so sure on this - we already have one of the lowest rates of sick days and I am not at all convinced that any reduction in sick days will be enough to cover the loss of compensation for SSP for employers.

This does seem to be another case of buying into the illusion that people are trying to get out of working and are using sickness as an excuse.

I would also be worried about how much responsibility employers themselves will take - good employers are already doing all they can do, and are prepared to look at things like flexible hours, a different role etc but what about the bad employers?  What are they going to do if the advice involves them making adaptations?  Are they going to use this new system as a stick to beat sick employees with?

Agreed Sphinx, implementation is going to be the key. Some people would really benefit with assistance back to work and not all employers, particularly small employers have the resources. Getting back to work can seem like an massive impassable mountain to climb but if people have a plan in place to gradually get back it can help.

NemsAgain wrote:Im  lucky, my place is very supportive over illness and has phased returns and working from home options. Plus I have the bestest boss ever lol

Yes me too, I am very fortunate.

My employer was as well - unfortunately I worked from home as a base and was well over 100 miles from the actual buildings. They were prepared to pay to relocate me and re train me but at that point I still had no diagnosis and did not know wrong so felt it was wrong to move house to 100 miles away to undergo training that I still might not be able to do.

sphinx wrote:My employer was as well - unfortunately I worked from home as a base and was well over 100 miles from the actual buildings.  They were prepared to pay to relocate me and re train me but at that point I still had no diagnosis and did not know wrong so felt it was wrong to move house to 100 miles away to undergo training that I still might not be able to do.

I can understand that, to uproot and move at a time like that must have seemed a huge hurdle.  At least they did offer the help though.  Not many would have offered to pay for relocation, they must have seen you as a very valuable employee.

 

TORIES attempting to "put the cart before the horse", yet again...

SO stupid are they, that in their traditional stupor they STILL aren't willing to admit that first you have to PRODUCE the jobs for these people to take-up.. ::dedhrs::   

ALL that this exercise proves is that the British Conservatives are once again more interested in maintaining their traditional antipathy towards the poor, disabled and downtrodden, by kicking their latest scapegoats when they are at their lowest ~ with zero concern for the social, economic and cultural health of the very British citizenry that they are supposed to be looking after !     ::sexbnan:

Beekeeper wrote:  TORIES attempting to "put the cart before the horse", yet again...

SO stupid are they, that in their traditional stupor they STILL aren't willing to admit that first you have to PRODUCE the jobs for these people to take-up..   ::dedhrs::   

ALL that this exercise proves is that the British Conservatives are once again more interested in maintaining their traditional antipathy towards the poor, disabled and downtrodden, by kicking their latest scapegoats when they are at their lowest ~ with zero concern for the social, economic and cultural health of the very British citizenry that they are supposed to be looking after !    ::sexbnan: 

They are talking about people who already have jobs Bee and helping them back to work.

Beekeeper wrote: 

TORIES attempting to "put the cart before the horse", yet again...

SO stupid are they, that in their traditional stupor they STILL aren't willing to admit that first you have to PRODUCE the jobs for these people to take-up..  ::dedhrs::   

ALL that this exercise proves is that the British Conservatives are once again more interested in maintaining their traditional antipathy towards the poor, disabled and downtrodden, by kicking their latest scapegoats when they are at their lowest ~ with zero concern for the social, economic and cultural health of the very British citizenry that they are supposed to be looking after !    ::sexbnan:

I think you are missing the point that this is aimed at those who already have jobs but who are prevented from doing them by sickness.

Would you prefer it if the Tories bought in a rule saying once someone had been sick for 4 months they could be fired?

 

THE term "long term sick and ill" seems to suggest that the illness is pretty serious, doesn't it ???

AND of course, no-one ever seems to be giving a second thought to those poor casualised "temp's" who may have been filling in while the regular worker is off work !

PRODUCING yet another unemployment "recipient" in the process..   

sphinx wrote:

Beekeeper wrote: 

TORIES attempting to "put the cart before the horse", yet again...

SO stupid are they, that in their traditional stupor they STILL aren't willing to admit that first you have to PRODUCE the jobs for these people to take-up..  ::dedhrs::   

ALL that this exercise proves is that the British Conservatives are once again more interested in maintaining their traditional antipathy towards the poor, disabled and downtrodden, by kicking their latest scapegoats when they are at their lowest ~ with zero concern for the social, economic and cultural health of the very British citizenry that they are supposed to be looking after !    ::sexbnan:

I think you are missing the point that this is aimed at those who already have jobs but who are prevented from doing them by sickness.

Would you prefer it if the Tories bought in a rule saying once someone had been sick for 4 months they could be fired?

  

FOUR months isn't normally considered "long term"...

MORE than a year or two is generally considered "long term" in these matters..

IS THIS yet another of those social welfare issues where the Tories are once again changing the rules and definitions, to help fit their policies into their nasty little anti-worker agendas !

Beekeeper wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I think you are missing the point that this is aimed at those who already have jobs but who are prevented from doing them by sickness.

Would you prefer it if the Tories bought in a rule saying once someone had been sick for 4 months they could be fired?

  

FOUR months isn't normally considered "long term"...

MORE than a year or two is generally considered "long term" in these matters..

IS THIS yet another of those social welfare issues where the Tories are once again changing the rules and definitions, to help fit their policies into their nasty little anti-worker agendas !

4 months is long term for a small business which is having to find the money to pay an agency worker to cover the absence. It is also long enough for most workers to develop worries about their return to work. They may well need a graduated return, or adaptations but have no idea how to approach this with their employer. Not to mention the dangers of returning to work too early and causing further health problems.

There are plenty of employers out there who will consider dismissing an employee who is out for 4 months - if this agency prevents that then good. If this agency does work as a proper go between getting employers to do graduated returns, flexible hours etc and helping with adaptations then all to the good.

I do not think it fair or sensible to condemn it out of hand because of the government that introduced it. I do have my doubts about it as I made clear in my first post buy I would hardly call it anti worker.

In short...a threat to get them back to work, just like those ridiculous meeting companies like Tesco have if one has been absent , a meeting to try to intimidate the employee..often regardless of how serious that employee' sickness is.

Who the hell do these companies think they are?if one has a line from a doctor to cover genuine absence , then it should not be questioned,mbut nowadays it often is....firms like Tesco now seem to think they know better than the doctors..

I remember when my wife miscarried our twins , the personnel manageress said that as she also miscarried years back, she knows it was tough...but came back to work after a week...

Good for her, but everyone handles things differently , and thank heavens for the sake of any bairn that the personnel manageress never did have any kids as she was the kind who was always too interested in drinking at any given opportunity, often rolling into work next day still drunk.

Some firms should look at the terrible example some of their managers set...

Seems to be the same old line...one rule for managers, totally different one from normal staff...


If staff are so sick with a doctors line , then it should not be questioned.

They will provide more assistance for those who can go back to work - that's what it means.

Those who can't work, won't.

They should do a test on some really hard cases. Workshyitis is a major problem. I nominate Scatman if they can get him to work then solving the Israeli Palestine problem is a piece of piss.

viruses are rife as people cannot afford to be ill most of the time...