Read between the lines, the quick survey drawn up by the Luxembourg Employers’ Association (Union des Entreprises Luxembourgeoises, or UEL) with the support of polling company Ilres gives an instructive initial idea of what is in the pipeline on the part of employers to make progress in the management of absenteeism at work. The fifteen or so questions posted online--available until 19 July--reiterate the main arguments already put forward by the professional federations since a report by the General Inspectorate of Social Security (IGSS) at the end of last year predicted a record absenteeism rate of 5.2% in 2022, a jump of 0.8 points over one year.

A few weeks later, Fedil’s ex-president was the first to fire a shot in the arm, of “a phenomenon damaging to the economy,” the cost of which is estimated by the IGSS to be in excess of a billion euros and “which needs to be combated effectively.” But “the ,” warned legal and social affairs adviser Philippe Heck. Heck put forward four recommendations: the introduction of a one-day sick leave, legislation on counter-medical examinations, tighter administrative controls and a freeze on bonuses for employees with a poor attendance record.

Controls and sanctions

These four items permeate the UEL questionnaire, which--on the whole--is less interested in the roots of the phenomenon than in ways of curbing it, including by moving towards greater repression. This is even its raison d’être.

One question deals with the factors that explain or “encourage” absenteeism, but that’s all. The survey, on the other hand, asks about the measures already put in place by companies to combat absenteeism (or those that could be put in place), whether in the area of sanctions or monitoring, and their effectiveness. The question asked was: “In your opinion, do you have the necessary resources to check that an employee is properly incapacitated for work?” This is, to say the least, a “closed” formulation that leaves little suspense as to the answer that will be given, and therefore the conclusions that will be drawn. In the same vein, employers are also asked whether they have ever had “doubts about the validity of an incapacity certificate.”

Electronic certificate

The survey, on the other hand, makes no direct reference to another proposal heard at the beginning of the year “in terms of monitoring and documentation,” but which has passed relatively unnoticed. Michèle Marques, head of social security, and Fabienne Lang, senior adviser of social security, of the UEL, wrote last March: “There is an undeniable need for an anonymised and exhaustive health database to provide a more complete and accurate understanding of the occupational health situation in Luxembourg, with a view to reducing absenteeism and managing prevention. A database of this kind would make it possible to carry out more in-depth analysis, to anticipate trends in absenteeism and the medical reasons for absences, and to provide more for the health needs of the insured population. This would be essential for developing an appropriate and effective health policy aimed at improving the health and well-being of employees in Luxembourg.”

Consequently, the UEL called for “the rapid introduction of a single electronic certificate of incapacity for work for both residents and non-residents, with uniform and more detailed diagnostic codes. This is all the more important in view of the IGSS analysis, which shows that the absence rate for cross-border employees is higher than that for resident employees in the private sector.”

Marques and Lang added: “More comprehensive data would also make it possible to better target both administrative checks, carried out by the CNS, and medical checks, carried out by the Social Security Medical Inspectorate.”

Political dialogue

In the email it sent to business leaders to encourage them to respond to the UEL questionnaire, the Chamber of Commerce explained that “your participation is important in two respects. First, your answers will help us to better understand the impact and issues associated with absenteeism, particularly abusive absenteeism. Second, they will help to support the analyses with concrete data with a view to identifying effective solutions to reduce absenteeism, and thus fuel a constructive dialogue with political decision-makers.”

More after the summer…