Return to work or job transition? Employer dilemmas in taking social responsibility for return to work in local workplace practice

Abstract

PurposeThe aim was to analyse the role and activities of employers with regard to return to work (RTW), in local workplace practice. MethodSemi-structured interviews were conducted with sick-listed workers and their supervisors in 18 workplaces (n=36). The analytical approach to study the role of employers in RTW was based on the three-domain model of social corporate responsibility. The model illustrates the linkage between corporations and their social environment, and consists of three areas of corporate responsibility: economic, legal and ethical. ResultsEmployers had difficulties in taking social responsibility for RTW, in that economic considerations regarding their business took precedence over legal and ethical considerations. Employers engaged in either 'RTW activities' or 'transition activities' that were applied differently depending on how valued sick-listed workers were considered to be to their business, and on the nature of the job (e.g. availability of suitable work adjustments). ConclusionsThis study suggests that Swedish legislation and policies does not always adequately prompt employers to engage in RTW. There is a need for further attention to the organizational conditions for employers to take social responsibility for RTW in the context of business pressure and work intensification.3

“Dis-able bodied” or “dis-able minded”: stakeholders’ return-to-work experiences compared between physical and mental health conditions

“…[4,23] This is because scholars have either addressed RTW experiences in relation to a specific symptom group, such as musculoskeletal disorders, [7,14] cancer, [13,17] common mental disorders [19,24] and depression, [20] or have not distinguished between the two health conditions in their findings. [6,9,11,12,15,16,18] As a result, the limited available research has proven inconclusive so far: While some literature reviews suggest the existence of similarities between RTW experiences in physical (here, musculoskeletal) and mental health conditions, [23] such as the importance of work adjustments, [4,25] qualitative studies noted differences in RTW experiences between both health conditions. For instance, with regard to early contact, Tjulin et al [26] found that supervisors and coworkers felt that the timing of the RTW should vary between physical and mental illnesses, and Hoefsmit et al [10] observed that in mental cases, supervisors and employees tended to not have early contact, compared to physical cases.…”

“…[13,14] Moreover, employers' actions appear influenced by the value and the replaceability of the sick-listed employee, and by the presence of goodwill and trust. [4,6,[15][16][17][18][19] Finally, research has pointed to the potentially facilitating role of OHPs in the RTW process, [4] the stimulating role of unions on employers taking proactive RTW measures, [8,20] and to the relevance of coworkers in the phase before, during and after the RTW. [21,22] As such, these studies highlight the significance (and complexity) of workplace relations and multidisciplinary collaboration in the RTW process.…”

“…[1] In doing so, employers are expected to be able to reduce the economic burden of sickness absence to society. [6] Consequently, the RTW process has become the domain of a multiplicity of workplace stakeholders, such as sick-listed employees, immediate supervisors, Human Resource (HR) managers, occupational health physicians (OHPs), unions, and coworkers. [4,7,8] Recently, researchers are catching up on their understanding of how workplace actors actually experience the RTW process, thereby revealing how workplace relations -especially those between sicklisted employees and employers (represented by supervisors and HR managers) -affect this process.…”

Stratégies de retour au travail d’employés ayant fait l’expérience d’une dépression : perspectives des employeurs et des cadres des ressources humaines

“…Pour compléter la typologie de Kristman et coll. 12 , les orientations des employeurs et des ressources humaines concernant la gestion de l'incapacité au travail sont teintées par des approches plus macroscopiques, de nature purement économique comme nous l'avons vu plus haut, mais aussi légale ou éthique, voire les trois simultanément 18 . Pour l'approche dite légale, ce sont les règles, les normes et lois qui vont influencer l'employeur à intervenir sur l'incapacité au travail 19 .…”

“…Quant à l'approche dite éthique, elle s'attarde à des activités volontaires basées sur les principes moraux et éthiques de la société. Par exemple, la plupart des acteurs s'entendent sur les étapes de RaT, la santé et la sécurité au travail 18 . En ce sens, les acteurs de l'organisation et ceux provenant d'autres systèmes pourraient suivre les grands principes du RaT, en débutant par le respect d'une période de récupération lors de l'absence maladie et se terminant par le suivi du RaT de l'employé, en passant par une évaluation de l'employé et la mise en place d'un plan d'aménagement de travail ; étapes qui ont été recensées dans la littérature comme essentielles pour le RaT de personnes en absencemaladie due à un trouble mental ou un trouble musculosquelettique 20 .…”