4

Absence Rate

Hi there,

I've looked on the web but I still cannot find a clear answer to my query so hope you can assist.

To summarise; I work in an organisation that includes shift workers (24/7) and office workers (9-5). Sickness absence rate is recorded in hours or days OR both (which never helps) and isn't always recorded correctly.

As a result, week days between the start and end dates are used (think Networkdays on Excel). Any absences solely on the weekend for the shift workers is calculated using the evidence they have provided and some assumption.

The issue I am having isn't the above, the issue I am having is how to calculate sickness for part-time workers.

The general consensus is working days lost over days available. What isn't clear is whether the above figure is pro-rate to their FTE (shift workers do not work consistent hours each day so calculating hours lost isn't possible.)

Example; Staff A works 3.5 days in the week and is off all of these days. Actual working days available to them is 3.5 although they are off for 4 days (we do not calculate sickness in half days but whole days). This would suggest 4/3.5 which gives us more than a 100% absence rate in that week.

Another method suggested (for all staff) is Total days sickness (full days) / Total working days available (FTE) to anyone who worked in that period.

I may be over complicating this as however it would be good to get some thoughts please.

Apologies for the long opening post.

Thank you

6087 views
  • Hallo and welcome Hakan

    The appropriate percentage absence rate has to be (total days or shifts they should have worked('A') minus total days or shifts they actually worked('B')) / 'A' then * 100
  • In reply to David:

    Hi David,

    Thank you for your welcome and prompt response.

    I've had a look at your calculation above and am trying to put it into context with my data. Unfortuantely, we do not have fixed work schedules for some of our staff due to their shift work so it's difficult to say how many shifts they should have worked. I have tried to work around this using their FTE. So for example:

    A full time employee works 37.5 hours per week.
    Colleague is part-time and works 22.5 hours per week. This makes their FTE 0.6

    They have a sickness from the 17th of the month to 31st of the month. The number of week days (networkdays) in the period is 11.

    So as a full-timer they should have worked 11 days in the sickness period. As a part-timer they will have worked 6.6 days (11 x 0.6).

    The total weekdays in the month is 21 but 12.6 pro-rate to the colleague (21 x 0.6) - the total they could have worked (A)

    Total they did work is 12.6 - sickness 6.6 = 6 days (B)

    12.6 (A) - 6 (B) / 12.6 (A) * 100 =

    52.3%

    Mathematically that looks reasonable but the overall figure for all staff that were sick in the period is very high. This is where I thought time available to all staff entered the fray (anyone who worked in the period but was not necessarily sick.) Would this be a correct assumption when looking at the overall sickness rate of the business?

    Many thanks again
    Hakan

  • In reply to Hakan:

    Hakan
    In one company where I worked about 2400 of the 3000 staff were shiftworkers - distinct shift patterns there were approximately 40-50 distinct 24/7 shift patterns ranging from classic 12-on/12-off and 3x8 (morning/evening/night). There were also shift patterns that varied significantly from day to day based on the train timetables that staff operated. There were also a lot of call centre people covering 3 international time-zones. Finally there were quite a few part-time people.
    In this situation the only pragmatic solution was to calculate absence rates based on the number of working hours lost through sicnkess, divided by the number of planned working hours for the shifts in question.
    This required planned working time to be captured systematically for all staff in the T&A system, and the recording of any exceptions (holidays, illness etc.). This then allowed absence rates to be calculated globally, by department, by job-types, by site, by country etc.
    Naturally the very nature of the business (operating the Channel Tunnel) was operationally driven by the need to plan and optimise working time, and consequently the tools were built and used to support this approach.
    Hope this helps
  • In reply to Ray:

    Hi Hakan
    I agree with Ray’s proposition.
    We also calculate absenteeism based on actual hours worked divided by expected working hours.
    This actually means capturing diligently the rosters and shifts plans and monitoring them again actual attendance to work.
    Trust this helps
    Reena