Disability, Sick leave | Stop shaming them

(Trønder debate): The work to reduce sickness absence has stood with its feet deep in an ideological and attitudinal quagmire for all these years. Countless projects, programs and initiatives have overall had little effect.

But after attending the seminar A good working life – society’s engine at Frosta on 19 April 2024, it may look like a new entrance to the challenges is possible.

Workplaces can be health-promoting and health-damaging. People who are struggling in life will seek activities that they know better their health. If the job is healthy, they will be at work to take care of themselves. If the job is harmful to health and stressful, many will ask for sick leave to reduce the burden.

Can this simple reasoning be used for anything?

Read also: Today’s 30-year-olds should be dissatisfied

The sickness absence debate flares up at regular intervals. This time I thought I would speak up before a new wave of moaning is published in DN, Aftenposten and similar media.

I have the impression that those who go to the media and moan about how bad things are are people with high professional status, good upbringing, luck, money on the books, limited ability to take the perspective of others, financial interests or managers who struggle to keep the budget.

Underneath is often an attitude about people’s weak morals, laziness and evasion. Thus, the measures are designed with the view that people need a whip and not a carrot, demands and not shock, duty and not inner motivation.

I don’t know if there is much to learn from Kompani Lauritzen, because there it is also about individualizing responsibility and staying the best version of yourself. That’s probably why the series is so popular.

It hits the community spirit that cultivates the successful and ideas that some provide while others enjoy. And one might like to think so, but the problem with this attitude is that it has not contributed to solving the challenges we face in working life. But there is perhaps something to take away from the series: The concept norm.

In my opinion, the sickness absence debate has been below norm as long as it has been followed. Why? Yes, when the norm is that everyone of working age must be in 100 percent work until they are 67, at least, then the whole of Norway is by definition below norm always.

And who is to blame? Those on sick leave and those unable to work. Setting yourself a totally unrealistic goal is the guarantee of ending up below norm.

The aim of simultaneously employing more people and reducing absenteeism is also special, simply a lack of logic. Because it is people who are outside the working world who have the greatest morbidity.

Do we want zero sickness absence, as one can get the impression? No. It is smart that people with contagious diseases stay at home so that they do not infect others. It is smart for people with chronic conditions who are at high risk of long-term deterioration due to the overall load to reduce their workload. Excessive sickness absence has been shown to increase the risk of long-term sickness absence in the long term.

What if we set seven percent sickness absence as the norm on average in Norway. Higher in industries where, in terms of experience, sickness absence has been higher, and lower where it has been lower. Leave the budgeting after that. Then we could actually have the opportunity to be on the norm and even above norm in many workplaces.

We are facing a very serious challenge. Mental ailments and disorders are the main cause of sickness absence and disability benefits in Norway today.

And not enough of that. Data from HUNT and similar surveys show that in the new generations, the problems with mental illness are even greater. As the youth cohorts are no longer getting bigger, we have a sustainability challenge in working life. We have a shortage of healthy people. We have to rethink.

Read also: Illness and injury have no age

The People’s Health Alliance in Trøndelag has done that. We want to spread knowledge about Mental Health and that mental health is not the same as mental ailments or illnesses. But a health we all have, which can be good, average or bad. Which can be promoted with simple moves. Which we have opportunities for if we know what we can do, for ourselves, but not least for others. ABC for good mental healthare three simple pieces of advice everyone should know:

• A: do something active (physically, mentally or socially in everyday life)
• B: do something together
• C: do something meaningful (contribute something of value)

As a partner in the People’s Health Alliance, Nav arbeidslivsenter has prepared the ABC of Work: Your work should be Aan activity you enjoy B, take place in a workplace where you have an affinity and thrive, and Ca place where you experience and receive feedback that you are contributing something of value.

Also read: Nav works worst for those who need it most

An ABC workplace is beneficial to health. An ABC workplace is a place people want to be when life hits, because it promotes their mental health. Research shows that sickness absence is significantly lower if people are doing well at work.

I think we need to accept that we have a certain amount of sickness absence, stop adding stones to the burden of people with health problems by shaming them, admit that sickness absence is both positive and negative, focus on promoting mental health, roll up our sleeves and drive a large-scale working life investment to make working life health-promoting for everyone.

We have the tool ready, it says The ABC of working life. We already have workplaces that are well under way. We must evaluate the investment.