Unwell workers pose a dilemma

Good employers like to look after their staff and providing appropriate employee benefits can also be a sound business strategy. One example is preparing your workplace for what is unfortunately a fairly common scenario – namely, a ‘‘bad news day’’ when a long-standing, valuable staff member reveals that they are now battling a major illness. In many such cases, extensive treatment is required as the employee fights to prevent the prognosis from becoming terminal.

Traditionally, such circumstances have been regarded as entirely personal. The employee concerned is directly and critically affected, but with the exception of a few words of humane concern, a bit of sick leave, and a staffsponsored sausage sizzle, the wider business continues to trundle on, largely unmoved and uninterrupted.

It can therefore be something of a rude awakening when an employer finds that their staff member’s misfortune is also impacting the workplace with awkward and disruptive consequences. Especially when there is a financial cost being incurred.

These difficult, often highly sensitive circumstances can come about in cases where an unwell employee wishes to continue their employment, but – naturally enough – is unable to work at the capacity they managed prior to their diagnosis. In extreme cases, they might be physically present, but prevented by their health and circumstances from contributing.

Moreover, in roles with significant health and safety risks, a normally competent employee may now represent a serious risk to themselves and others. Other employees may also be affected – for example by being overworked, overextended, and stressed by having to cover the workload of their afflicted colleague over a long period of time.

While these scenarios may cause problematic issues for an employer, the motivations for unwell employees to carry on working are numerous and eminently sensible.

The workplace often provides individuals with important social and support networks, and many staff have a genuine commitment to the company and a strong desire not to let others down.

Our sense of identity and selfworth is commonly tied to our employment; there may be a need to maintain as much normality as possible, and work is often a useful distraction from the difficult times faced when we are seriously ill.

Above all, in many cases the key reason why an employee keeps working while seriously ill is simply because they cannot afford to be without their income. Many would actually prefer to be focusing all their energy on treatment, rest, family, and recovery. But, the reality is, they need the money.

The generous but often misunderstood nature of our ACC system may be one reason why many New Zealanders do not have the ‘‘stop work’’ option. In my experience, individuals have commonly assumed that ACC will cover them if something goes wrong. In fact, ACC protects us against injuries only. For serious illnesses – such as aggressive cancer, life-threatening heart complaints, or degenerative conditions (like parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis) – there is no cover under ACC. As a result, many Kiwis have omitted to protect their most valuable asset – the ability to earn an income.

So, purely from a management perspective, what impact can this scenario have on a business? An employee has a major, ongoing illness and cannot afford to cease work while undergoing many months of highly intensive treatment. As a result, they continue to come in to work as and when they can, and sometimes return to fulltime work before they have fully recovered.

Such situations present a genuine dilemma for business owners and senior management.

First of all, let me say that bosses are not monsters and I have seen many instances where senior figures have gone out of their way to assist and support an unwell employee, well after the traditional sick leave and holiday pay have been exhausted.

But in today’s cost-focused environment, many businesses are operating in conditions that simply preclude a magnanimous approach. And even the most generous employer will reach a point where they can no longer afford to keep paying an incapacitated employee, especially if, at the same time, they are also paying for a replacement person.

First of all, let me say that bosses are not monsters . . .

Obviously, the decision to terminate an employee who is seriously unwell is one that most employers will rightly blanch at – for besides the obvious ethical and emotional questions, there is the possibility of legal action as well as the risk of seriously damaging the morale of remaining staff members.

Faced with such a hot potato, many managers will tough it out and hope the problem goes away.

But what if you had a plan in place to help?

One option is for the employer to provide, by full or partial subsidy, a programme of Income Protection insurance for staff members.

This employee benefit can be low cost to the employer, while still paying an afflicted employee a replacement salary so they can finish work and instead focus on treatment and recovery. The savings on salary or wage costs mean the business can then hire a replacement worker without undue financial strain. Such a valuable benefit also sends a powerful message to current and new staff members that your business cares about them, and that the company will be there for them when the going gets tough.

Employees who get sick can focus on their health, while the boss can take comfort in knowing that their careful planning has ameliorated the suffering, not only of the business, but also of a human being who is very often a hard-working and loyal employee. And the wider workforce gets a boost from seeing a colleague treated well.

Hayden Ryan is the Manager of Crombie Lockwood’s Employee Benefits practice.