Being present when very ill is not always better than staying home and there can be direct costs to a company when someone forces themselves to work when they are ill.

First, you can physically be present but not productive. I have been at work with the stomach flu and spent most of the day in the washroom. The work I did had to be redone. The business lost the work time when I was there ill and lost more of my time when I felt better and had to correct the mistakes I made when I was ill.

Secondly, you are much more likely to make mistakes because of illness and the medications you take to allow you to crawl to work. If someone has a desk job, it depends on their level of responsibility as to how much a mistake could cost the company. If someone does a more physical job, the safety issues are more tangible. Dropping a plate of food on someone, getting into a car accident or using bad judgement on the production line can mean a hospital trip, a workers comp claim/liability claim or even death. I don’t want to be anywhere near a pilot, crain operator or bus driver with a 104 fever, tweaked out on sinus pills and cough syrup.

Businesses are for profit but the cost of a legal, WC or liability claim or the cost of losing a large client’s busness will have a direct impact on profits. It is a calculated risk but it is still a risk. Some risks are greater than others but depending on your business, there can be a significant financial risk.

Also, someone doesn’t have to have H1N1 to be contageous. Illness spreads through the office like wildfire when you have a cubicle farm. I know I come to work more often than I should when I am ill but I can also work from home or close my office door and stay away from everyone.

So I disagree with your blanket statement that coming to work sick is always better than staying home for the profitibility of the business. Someone should not stay home for every sniffle but if someone is genuinely ill and should stay in bed, I don’t want them anywhere near me.

Patricia

“Presenteeism” as it relates to H1N1 is not acceptable. If deseases can affect others then stay at home.

“Poor health and/or chronic conditions” is a totally different subject. Again, either employees are at work or they are not. Don’t confuse the “health” issue with the demands and requirements of the job. Companys are not welfare states and are “for profit”. They have to be to pay for the costs of benefits.

Regarding the separate issue about chronic health issues, I firmly believe offering preventative care is the best course of action to take to make a dent in this expensive trend. The reason many people don’t get help is because it is financially out of reach since their problem is not covered by insurance. Obesity is a perfect example of this. Do we help obese employees lose weight and thus probably change their health outcome or do we pay for the major health issues that typically develop over time when a person is obese? Depression and anxiety, if left untreated, get worse and more difficult to treat and have a very negative impact on overall physical health when not addressed. If adequate treatment is provided initially, before these problems become “set in concrete,” additional related problems can be avoided and extensive treatment down the road can be circumvented. Mental health issues take a heavy toll on the body, as does stress, and they eventually have physical manifestations. But since preventative care is often not covered, particularly if that care involves something that pertains to mental health or “willpower” and choices (your thought processes), people go untreated and reap significant health issues at some point in time. Unfortunately, there is a prevailing feeling that a person who needs assistance with mental health issues is defective because they need help with things that the “normal” person doesn’t. The shame plus the financial cost for uncovered treatment cause them to avoid assistance until medical problems that can’t be ignored finally develop. Offering preventative care for both physical and mental / emotional conditions early on could significantly change the individual’s overall health picture. I would rather pay up front and provide the coverage to give employees the help they need early on because I believe this is a smart investment in the future of the organization…it will significantly reduce major claim costs down the road. And I believe data from various studies is bearing this out.

Some conditions are genetic and are not avoidable. We should never discriminate against a person because they face health challenges others don’t (yet?) face. Next year, you may be the person who has a heart attack before you’re 50, even though you eat healthy foods and exercise, or who has lung cancer even though you’ve never smoked and haven’t regularly been around second-hand smoke. Basically, I don’t think we should penalize employees who have health problems, but rather should provide viable coverage early on so they can obtain assistance before a condition becomes a major chronic health issue, provide information, resources and education so they can make educated decisions and then reward healthy choices. I don’t have all the answers, that’s for certain! But I do think this approach would have a positive impact long term.

But I think the point of the article was that allowing people to work while sick creates a greater loss to the organization that just having the employee stay home due to mistakes made and sickening their coworkers. But the article really isn’t talking about people with the flu when it starts discussing big money – its talking about chronic issues. So I’m still unclear on what the message really is. I get that sick employees cost money. Does that about sum it up? I didn’t see any eye-opening information there.

If all you ever work with are scammers, cheaters, liars and self serving greedy folks you may assume that is how everyone is. But America has a lot of folks who follow the original “Golden Rule” to the best of their ability and resource.

I am making a distinction here between minor sickness such as the flu, versus debilitating illness such as cancer, that a company’s STD and LTD may well provide for in coverage.