The rise in absenteeism has become one of the leading topics in Luxembourg’s economic debate. , absenteeism has never before reached such a level in the country. This has prompted a reaction from the Chamber of Commerce, which, in its opinion on the draft 2025 budget, called for tougher measures, .
But while those who don't come are being scrutinised, another indicator reveals a very different reality: in Luxembourg, employees mainly come... too much. This is what the Luxembourg Chamber of Employees (CSL) points out in the latest edition of its Econews, highlighting the phenomenon of presenteeism.
Twelve days. That, according to the CSL’s Quality of Work index, is the average number of days employees have gone to work while feeling ill over the past 12 months. This is more than double the number of days absent due to sickness (5.3). In other words, in 69% of cases where they do not feel fit to work, employees choose to do so anyway.
The most precarious are the most exposed
Whilst all occupational categories are affected, the disparities are striking. Elementary occupations--domestic helpers, manual workers, manual labourers--have both the highest number of days absent (7.7 days) and the highest number of days spent sick (26.5). Conversely, senior managers report only 3.3 days of absence and six days of presenteeism.
With regard to occupations, the highest rate is observed among employees in the direct service staff group such as cooks, hairdressers, caretakers as well as shopkeepers and salespeople, who work an average of 80% of the days they feel ill. This category is closely followed by employees in elementary occupations, which report a rate of 77%.
As far as sectors of activity are concerned, “other service activities” such as laundry-dyeing, hairdressing and beauty care, funeral services and also the activities of voluntary organisations stand out with a high presenteeism rate, reaching 87%. This rate falls to 60% for employees in the human health and social work sector. Even in professions in contact with vulnerable people, staying at home in the event of illness therefore remains difficult to envisage.
Between personal arbitration and social pressure
The IGSS data confirms this underlying trend: 85% of employees who were ill at least once during the year worked during their episode of illness. Half of these episodes (49%) resulted in zero days of absence, 26% in total absence and 25% in partial attendance.
In a context where fears about job stability, loss of income or the image reflected back to the employer weigh heavily, presenteeism is becoming a strategy for professional protection--even if it means compromising your health. “An employee whose risk of losing their job is high, and who assumes that their absence could penalise him, is more likely to choose not to be absent at all,” explains the Chamber of Employees. “In addition, when the state of health deteriorates, individuals, over the course of episodes of illness, move from total presence to partial presence, then from partial presence to total absence.”
In France, the directorate of research, studies and statistics (Dares) adds that a good quality of life at work--i.e., a certain degree of autonomy, good relations between colleagues, a supportive work group--is associated with less presenteeism. Conversely, excessive workloads, imposed working hours and insecure contracts encourage presenteeism.
Real consequences
This choice is not without consequences, insists the CSL. At company level, the effects of presenteeism are anything but marginal. Not only does it delay employees’ recovery, it also increases the risk of errors, damages the working atmosphere and fuels disengagement.
Many studies estimate that the economic cost of presenteeism could exceed that of absenteeism, due to its indirect impacts: lower performance, turnover, increased work stoppages in the medium term.
There is therefore a need to rethink policies to combat sickness absence by placing employee health at the heart of the discussion. “Prevention, non-stigmatisation, improved working conditions, a calm working climate, the sympathetic reintegration of people who are ill and an effort to understand absences seem to be fundamental to preventing both presenteeism and absences due to illness,” concludes the Chamber of Employees.
This article was originally published in .