Stress reduces output more than strikes did in the 70s
The loss of output from employees due to work related stress costs the economy more than at the peak of industrial unrest in the 1970s, according to research.
A study presented to the University of Warwick's Social Science Festival showed that at the height of the industrial action nearly 40 years ago, the UK lost 12.9 million person days of output, compared to 13.5 million days lost through work related stress today.
And the figure could be even higher as people who leave the workforce altogether are not accounted for, nor is the output lost by people going to work when ill.
If short-term absence, total withdrawals and 'presenteeism' – working when ill - are added together, work-related stress might cost as much as 1.25 per cent of national output, according to research.
Bernard Casey says: "The current recession is likely to intensify stress at work. Uncertainty, itself, breeds stress. Many organisations trying to survive by raising productivity will be putting their employees under increasing pressure."
Mr Casey added that because people fear for their job, 'presenteeism' is becoming more of an issue and testing management skills.
The news comes as a report reveals that NHS staff are continuing to take more days off sick than any other public sector employees, according to Walesonline.co.uk
Comments
I didn't realise that studies had been done into the amount of working days lost due to working stress. Its a had situation to judge really - a company will push its employees harder to get better results, but in doing so, they're hurting their productivity.
So what are the percentages of days lost compared to the working population? If there are a lot more workers then the figures may not seem so bad.
Looking back, were strikes a way of expressing stress on a mass scale?
Also, is it possible that in the 70's people didn't do stress - they couldn't afford to? Those that did were tainted for life!