GRiD, the industry body for the group risk sector, has found that over a third (36%) of employers fund support for a newly injured or ill member of staff on a case-by-case basis. Although this may appear generous and highly tailored, GRiD cautions that, it is not a practical approach and may give rise to a number of challenges.
Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD, said: “Every employer naturally hopes their staff can return to work and full productivity as swiftly as possible following an absence. However, this is not always the reality. Employers risk incurring prolonged and potentially costly support obligations, often without a definitive endpoint if they fund support on a case-by-case basis.”
Four key issues when employers fund employee support on a case-by-case basis:
· It relies on the employer knowing that a member of staff has a problem in the first place – something employees may not always be willing to divulge.
· It can be expensive. It’s not unheard of for employers to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds supporting their staff in this manner.
· It is challenging to plan and budget for, as the number of employees requiring support can vary each year, and raises the question of what happens after the annual budget is depleted.
· It creates the risk of different employees receiving significantly different levels of support This, in turn, exposes the business to potential criticism or legal challenge for operating in an inegalitarian manner.
When asked about what stage employers provide support for a new illness or injury, a quarter (26%) said they offer this after a set number of weeks’ absence, as set out in the company policy. A fifth (20%) provide support from day one of absence, and 19% after a set number of months’ absence, as set out in the company policy. Only 12% stated that their focus was on preventative care to stop employees getting ill in the first place.
Preventative support on the government’s agenda
Preventative care is a key focus of the Keep Britain Working Review, an initiative being led by Sir Charlie Mayfield for the UK Government, so employers who already offer this type of support may find themselves ahead of the curve when the findings and recommendations from the review are shared later in the year.
There are a wide range of employee benefit options – such as Group Income Protection (GIP) – that meet the needs of both employers and employees by cost-effectively offering comprehensive and equitable support. GIP not only provides critical support at the point of injury or illness, but also delivers significant value through preventative measures and ongoing support, addressing both employees’ financial needs and their health and wellbeing.
Katharine Moxham concluded: “Employers should take a broad approach to employee support, recognising that preventative, immediate, and ongoing interventions are interconnected rather than isolated efforts. While these forms of support can be funded directly, taking advantage of the wide range of employee benefit options available is a more financially effective and comprehensive solution. Organisations that integrate support through employee benefits will also be better positioned to meet the needs of their staff and are likely to be better prepared for any policies or recommendations that arise from the Keep Britain Working Review.”
