When an employee is on sick leave in Spain, he is considered “temporary incapacity for work”. In the same situation, an Italian worker receives a benefit that could be translated as “sick pay”.
However, in Sweden, a sick employee is referred to as an “insured person with reduced capacity”. And in the UK, this worker is classed as “unfit for work” or “potentially fit for work”.
Does this mean that the legislators in Sweden and the UK are more optimistic because they talk about capacity and fitness, rather than disability and illness? Do Spain and Italy see the glass as half empty while the others see it as half full?
The truth is that these terminological differences demonstrate the existence of two very different perspectives on the same question: whether or not the recovery of a sick employee is compatible with the development of a particular professional activity. The answer to this question determines the configuration of social protection that is offered in each country.
All workers in the European Union have the right to leave when a health problem prevents them from performing their job and receive an economic benefit during their absence from work that compensates for the lack of salary. This right has important economic implications for businesses and social security systems. Hence the growing concern of employers and governments about the costs of temporary disability
Temporary disability is not unified by the European Union and national regulations regulate it in a very different way, with different levels of coverage, duration and financial protection. But above all, European legislation has recently been distinguished by the way in which it regulates the return to work of employees on sick leave.
In fact, this has been the central theme of some reforms made over the past two decades, with the dual purpose of:
– Stop the increase in the cost of government subsidies for temporary and permanent disability.
– Protect the health and working ability of employees.
Spain still has a traditional concept of temporary disability. This means that employees do not return to work until they have recovered from their illness. For this reason, the leave lasts until the doctor judges that the employee is able to perform his work. This means that you resume all your tasks to the same extent and with the same intensity as before you left. No transitional measures are normally applied for reassignment after dismissal.
This model has been surpassed in countries such as Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, where the focus of social protection has shifted from what workers cannot do to what they can do when they are ill. Based on scientific evidence that illnesses that render workers completely incapacitated for a long period of time are the least common, they are encouraged to return to work as soon as possible.
For example, employers are required to provide workers with the necessary assistance to resume work during their recovery, in accordance with medical recommendations. For example, adapting the tasks they perform or adapting their job to their state of health. This also mitigates some of the disadvantages that absence can have for employees, such as missed promotion or training opportunities.
The practical implications of both models are best understood with an example. Imagine a warehouse worker who suddenly suffers a back injury. In Spain, this worker would likely be absent from work until fully rehabilitated. Adjustment of their position is only considered if consequences are identified after dismissal that entail new occupational risks.
In the second group of countries, on the other hand, the worker could return to work once he had overcome the first phase of acute pain. This is due to the medical observation that inactivity is detrimental to many musculoskeletal conditions and that maintaining a moderate level of activity can be beneficial for recovery, even if some symptoms persist. For example, the employee can temporarily perform office tasks that do not require heavy lifting, or work fewer hours to avoid overload.
Facilitating the return to work of employees on sick leave has several benefits. Most importantly, by reducing the duration of inactivity to what is strictly necessary, the chance that the employee will leave the labor market prematurely and become dependent on disability benefits is reduced. It has even been observed that the longer an employee is absent, the more likely it is that he will not return to work.
Therefore, in a context of population ageing, a gradual return to work policy should be widely implemented to encourage workers to work healthily and for a long time.
Another benefit is that, unlike measures designed for workers with disabilities or workers facing occupational hazards, return-to-work programs can benefit all workers who are absent from work due to a health problem. This is especially important for workers with chronic diseases, a vulnerable group that is increasing dramatically in Europe.
This article was published in ‘The conversation‘.
Source: La Verdad
I’m Ben Stock, a journalist and author at Today Times Live. I specialize in economic news and have been working in the news industry for over five years. My experience spans from local journalism to international business reporting. In my career I’ve had the opportunity to interview some of the world’s leading economists and financial experts, giving me an insight into global trends that is unique among journalists.
