Promoting Healthy Workplaces

Establishing the Employee Well-Being Research Territory Well-being in the workplace is one of the essential domains for contemporary organizations. Several reasons can be advanced for the importance of studying employee well-being at work. Historically in the late nineteenth century employers paid little attention to employee well-being, though there were some exceptions as some employers (Quaker Cadbury family and Lever Brothers) generally cared about employees’ well-being and introduced practices that assisted employees in the workplace and life outside of work (Cooper and Robertson, 2001; Newell, 2002). However, most employers at that time held a different view. Regarding employees as a necessity, but burdensome financial evil was a far more frequent phenomenon (Currie, 2001). Social and economic history shows that it took centuries to develop the employment relationship where well-being is recognized as an organizational responsibility (Cooper and Robertson, 2001). However, one often wonders if, under the organizational façade of “putting people first,” whether this attitude is still uppermost in contemporary employers thinking but is being stopped by the now pressing “best practice” and employment legislation standards, unions and human rights corporative. The nature of global, technological, economic, demographic and social changes in the 21st century have affected, and will continue to affect work, workers and management in the coming decades as emphasis is placed on revolutions in business concepts and incremental progress, a little cheaper, better and faster (Armstrong and Brown, 2001; Berman et al., 2010; CIPD, 2008; Casio, 2010; MacDonald, 2005). These changes have transformed the way people live and work, revolutionizing the rules of the game by creating a 24/7 service work culture, resulting in individuals working longer hours and experiencing job insecurity. All of these have implications for increased work-related stress and negative well-being (ESRC, 2006; Green and Whitfield, 2010). ESRC (2010) further argues that the risk of losing jobs is greater in large organizations and has shifted from blue to white-collar workers with professionals experiencing much of the job losses. Work-related stress is another salient principle of growing importance for policymakers and organizations, as the growing intensity and pressures of work are major problems facing workers in the 21st Century, contributing to rising demands and placing an ever-increasing burden on those of working age in the delivery of products and services (DWP, 2005; HSE, 2004, 2007a; 2009). The negative effects of the levels of stress and pressure experienced by individuals have health implications such as depression and anxiety, mental ill-health and other psychological and physical well-being factors, resulting in high cost to business and the public purse (MacDonald, 2005). Harrington (2013) states that stress is a generic term that can be substituted for apprehension, fear or anxiety, and stress is not limited to emotional experiences but also encompasses the psychological, behavioral and cognitive. Harrington defines stress as underisable and harmful to one’s health and well-being. Spurgeon et al. (2009) argue that ill-health relating to pressure at work doubled between 1990 and 2007 and highlight that stress is now the second biggest cause of employee absence behind musculoskeletal conditions. This view is echoed by the World Health Organization (1999), predicting soaring levels of stress and other mental health problems in the next few years (CIPD, 2010c; Grant et al., 2007; Thompson and Bates, 2009). Stress, anxiety, and depression are part of an explosion in workplace mental health issues now costing the Canadian economy an estimated $50 billion a year in lost productivity. The Canadian economy also loses billions more in medical costs, with millions of Canadians suffering from a mental health disorder, which is now the fastest growing categories of disability insurance claims in Canada (Maclean's, 2007; Mortillaro, 2016). The Conference Board of Canada (2012) states that mental illnesses are costing Canada about $20.7 billion in 2012 by reducing the number of workers available in the labor force. The cost is growing at a rate of approximately 1.9 percent every year and is expected to rise to $29.1 billion annually by 2030 (The Conference Board of Canada, 2012). Nationally, in Canada, an estimated 35 million workdays are lost to mental conditions among ten plus million workers. The annual cost of treating depression and distress is at $6.3 billion and $8.1 billion in lost productivity. Just as serious may be “presenteeism” – the phenomenon of stressed-out workers who show up to work anyway and accomplish little. It’s estimated to cost Canadian employers $22 billion a year (Maclean’s, 2007). The United States workforce illness costs $576 billion annually from sick days to workers’ compensation. Forbes Business research reveals that from absenteeism due to illness, to the cost of disability and workers’ compensation and poor health costs the U.S. economy more than a half a trillion dollars a year (Japsen, 2012). The cost of workers’ ill-health to organizations and the economy is astronomical, with the average cost of sickness absence in the United Kingdom (UK) being £600.00 per employee per year, resulting in 35 million working days lost yearly to occupational ill-health and injury, with absence due to sickness costs of around £12 billion each year (CIPD, 2007; HSE, 2004a, 2009; Silcox, 2007). In the public sector, British employees’ average absence levels are 8.5 days per employee compared to 4.89 days for the private sector, costing around £4 billion a year to the taxpayer (DWP, 2005; HSE, 2000, 2009; Silcox, 2007). Therefore, promoting and maintaining employee well-being in the public sector, in particular, is essential given the high absence levels and cost to individuals, organizations and the economy as a whole.