It pays to be nice:
Employer’s treatment of injured worker more important than satisfaction
with health care in Return-to-Work programs
If the following question were posed to an injured employee,
how does the response affect your bottom line:
“Overall, how satisfied are you with the way your employer has treated
you following your injury? Would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied,
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?”
While most employers recognize the importance of this question, few fully
understand the impact that the answer can have on their Workers’ Compensation
costs. A recent article, It Pays to be Nice: Employer-Worker Relationships
and the Management of Back Pain Claims, by Richard Butler, PhD, William
Johnson, PhD and Pierre Cote, D.C., PhD examined the effects of workers’
satisfaction with their employers’ response to a Workers’ Compensation
back claim over a 12 month period and compared it to the effects of their
satisfaction with health care on post-onset patterns of employment.
The focus on back pain is relevant because of the frequency of the problem
and because, for many workers, back pain follows an episodic course of periods
of recovery and employment interspersed with periods of pain and work absence.
The results: Workers’ satisfaction with their employers’
behavior has a much larger impact on employment stability than does their
satisfaction with health care. The implications of this finding
for employers are significant:
1. Cost savings: reduction in number of lost time claims
The study finds that workers who are satisfied with employer’s response
are more likely to have a medical only claim (64% versus 56%) than those
who are dissatisfied. Also, for those workers who do have at least one lost
time claim there is a lower likelihood of multiple episodes of injury-related
absences. Only 32% of those satisfied with their employer’s
response end up with multiple episodes of injury related absences whereas
58% of those dissatisfied with their employer’s response end up with
multiple absences.
2. The workplace response is key
Even companies with strong return-to-work programs can be challenged by
seemingly conflicting objectives and adversarial attitudes. While employers
and employees benefit from maintaining a skilled workforce, reduced stress
on co-workers who are expected to cover for absences, and improved employee/management
relationships where workers have a greater sense of security and commitment,
there are concerns about how productivity is affected by reintegrating workers
who are not yet “100%” and in some cases injured workers are
treated with suspicion as to the legitimacy of their claims.
It’s easy to understand this conflict. The pressures and frustrations
created by an injured worker on productivity and work flow are immediate.
Although responding in the best interests of the employee will ultimately
benefit the company, it can be difficult to keep the long-term goals in
focus, with the immediate demands of production. Unwittingly
the company can convey to the injured worker that maximizing profits is
the priority and not the well-being of the worker.
Injured workers who feel alienated by the employers’ reaction to their
claim will be reluctant to cooperate and may extend the duration of their
absence or have more frequent reoccurrences as found in the study by Butler,
Johnson and Cote. The bottom line: increased Workers Compensation costs.
3. Supervisors need training
Management and front-line supervisors must establish a relationship
of trust with their injured worker. Besides the basics of injury reporting
and injury management, supervisors must understand the importance of an
empathetic response to injury. If the worker feels needed in
the workplace and is motivated to return, the program has a much greater
chance of success. Frequent expressions of sincere regard
and regular communication with the injured worker help reduce the probability
of lengthy lost time. |