Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T17:34:50.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Graded Work, the Activation of Sick-Listed Workers and Employer Participation in Continental Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2020

Thomas Leoni*
Affiliation:
Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), Austria E-mail: Thomas.Leoni@wifo.ac.at

Abstract

There is an increasing emphasis on activating workers on sick leave and on using their residual work capacity. This article compares activation via graded-work schemes in Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands, with a focus on the role of employers. The analysis of literature sources and survey data reveals an ongoing reform activity, as well as great diversity in terms of employer obligations and incentives in the countries studied. These differences are very consequential for the intensity of employer efforts to activate sick-listed workers, even when comparing countries that otherwise share many institutional features. The distinction between public and privatised systems of sickness insurance, on the contrary, seems to be less relevant for the question of employer participation in activation. The findings are consistent with the expectation that less comprehensive employer participation is correlated with stronger selectivity in activation efforts. Depending on the prevailing approach in the individual countries and on developments to date, policy-makers are confronted with different challenges and priorities.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrén, D. and Svensson, M. (2012) ‘Part-time sick leave as a treatment method for individuals with musculoskeletal disorders’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 3, 418–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andrén, D. (2014) ‘Does part-time sick leave help individuals with mental disorders recover lost work capacity?’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 24, 2, 344–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BAR (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation) (2019) Stufenweise Wiedereingliederung in den Arbeitsprozess, Frankfurt: Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft für Rehabilitation.Google Scholar
Barbier, J.C. and Ludwig-Mayerhofer, W. (2004) ‘Introduction: the many worlds of activation’, European Societies, 6, 4, 423–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berghman, J., Nagelkerke, A., Boos, K., Doeschot, R. and Vonk, G. (eds.) (2002) Social Security in Transition, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Bernhard, D., Niehaus, M. and Marfels, B. (2011) ‘Changes in managing disability at the workplace in Germany: chances of professionalization’, in Geisen, T. and Harder, H. G. (eds.), Disability Management and Workplace Integration: International Research Findings, Gower: Farnham, 59–70.Google Scholar
Bethge, M. (2016) ‘Effects of graded return-to-work: a propensity-score-matched analysis’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 42, 4, 273–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
BMASK (Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs, Health and Consumer Protection) (2017) Wiedereingliederungsteilzeit Arbeitsrechtlicher und sozialversicherungsrechtlicher Leitfaden, Vienna.Google Scholar
Böckerman, P. and Maczulskij, T. (2018) ‘Unfit for work: health and labour-market prospects’, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46, 19(suppl), 717.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bredgaard, T. (2018) ‘Employers and active labour market policies: typologies and evidence’, Social Policy and Society, 17, 3, 365–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bundesausschuss (2019) Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über eine Änderung der Richtlinie über die Beurteilung der Arbeitsunfähigkeit und die Maßnahmen zur stufenweisen Wiedereingliederung, 22 November, https://www.g-ba.de/ [accessed 06.01.2020].Google Scholar
Buys, N. J., Selander, J. and Sun, J. (2019) ‘Employee experience of workplace supervisor contact and support during long-term sickness absence’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 41, 7, 808–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cullen, K. L., Irvin, E., Collie, A., Clay, F., Gensby, U., Jennings, P. A., Hogg-Johnson, S., Kristman, V., Laberge, M., McKenzie, D., Newnam, S., Palagyi, A., Ruseckaite, R., Sheppard, D. M., Shourie, S., Steenstra, I., Van Eerd, D. and Amick, B.C. (2018) ‘Effectiveness of workplace interventions in return-to-work for musculoskeletal, pain-related and mental health conditions: an update of the evidence and messages for practitioners’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 28, 1, 115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Jong, P., Lindeboom, M. and Van der Klaauw, B. (2011) ‘Screening disability insurance applications’, Journal of the European Economic Association, 9, 1, 106–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsche Rentenversicherung (2018) Reha-Bericht 2018. Die medizinische und berufliche Rehabilitation der Rentenversicherung im Licht der Statistik, Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund.Google Scholar
Dorrington, S., Roberts, E., Mykletun, A., Hatch, S., Madan, I. and Hotopf, M. (2018) ‘Systematic review of fit note use for workers in the UK’, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 75, 7, 530–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duell, N., Tergeist, P., Bazant, U. and Cimper, S. (2010) ‘Activation policies in Switzerland’, OECD Social Employment and Migration Working Papers, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Dumhs, L., Rijnsburger, P. and van Deursen, C. (2018) Weg naar de WIA – 3. Langdurig zieke werknemers en vangnetters. Tabellenboek tweede meting, UWV.Google Scholar
Ebnöther, E. (2014) ‘Das Arztzeugnis im Brennpunkt unterschiedlicher Interessen’, Schweizerische Ärztezeitung, 95, 4, 108–11.Google Scholar
Eichhorst, W. and Konle-Seidl, R. (2008) ‘Contingent convergence: a comparative analysis of activation policies’, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 3905.Google Scholar
EU-OSHA (2015) Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2). Technical Report, Munich [accessed via UK Data Archive 16.12.2019].Google Scholar
EU-OSHA (2016) Rehabilitation and Return to Work: Analysis Report on EU and Member States Policies, Strategies and Programmes, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2010) European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, 2009, Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service, SN: 6446.Google Scholar
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2015) Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks, 2014, Colchester, Essex: UK Data Service, SN: 7808.Google Scholar
Everhardt, T. P. and de Jong, P.R. (2011) ‘Return to work after long term sickness’, De Economist, 159, 3, 361–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Försäkringskassan (Swedish Social Insurance Agency) (2019) Social Insurance in Figures 2019, Försäkringskassan: Stockholm.Google Scholar
Franche, R.-L., Cullen, K., Clarke, J., Irvin, E., Sinclair, S. and Frank, J. (2005) ‘Workplace-based return-to-work interventions: a systematic review of the quantitative literature’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 15, 4, 607–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frøyland, K., Andreassen, T. A. and Innvær, S. (2019) ‘Contrasting supply-side, demand-side and combined approaches to labour market integration, Social Policy and Administration, 48, 2, 311–28.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. and Gingerich, D. W. (2009) ‘Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy: an empirical analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 39, 3, 449–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoge, A., Ehmann, A. T., Rieger, M. A. and Siegel, A. (2019) ‘Caring for workers’ health: do German employers follow a comprehensive approach similar to the total worker health concept?’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16, 5, 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernæs, Ø. (2018) ‘Activation against absenteeism–evidence from a sickness insurance reform in Norway’, Journal of Health Economics, 62, 60–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herr, D. (2018) ‘Das Konzept einer Teilarbeitsunfähigkeit und weitere Perspektiven der Wiedereingliederung und der Rehabilitation in Deutschland’, Soziale Sicherheit, 12, 513–8.Google Scholar
Hesselius, P. (2007) ‘Does sickness absence increase the risk of unemployment?’, The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 2, 288310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoefsmit, N., Houkes, I. and Nijhuis, F.J. (2012) ‘Intervention characteristics that facilitate return to work after sickness absence: a systematic literature review’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 4, 462–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IGES (2018) Teilarbeitsfähigkeit und Teilkrankengeld. Erfahrungen skandinavischer Länder und deren mögliche Übertragbarkeit auf die gesetzliche Krankenversicherung in Deutschland, report for the Federal Ministry of Health, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ingold, J. and Stuart, M. (2015) ‘The demand-side of active labour market policies: a regional study of employer engagement in the Work Programme’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 3, 443–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, A. (2011) ‘Fit for work? The influence of sick pay and job flexibility on sickness absence and implications for presenteeism’, Social Policy and Society, 45, 7, 752–69.Google Scholar
Johansen, K., Andersen, J. S., Mikkelsen, S., Pass, O., Raffnsøe, S. and Lynge, E. (2008) ‘Controlling sickness absence: a study of changes in the Danish sickness absence legislation since 1973’, Health Policy, 86, 1, 109–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johansen, K., Andersen, J. S., Mikkelsen, S. and Lynge, E. (2011) ‘Decision making and co-operation between stakeholders within the process of sick leave. A case study in a Danish municipality’, Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 1, 5965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, M., Klipstein, A., Knöpfel, R., Rattin, U. and Vallon, P. (2019) ‘Ressourcenorientierte Wiedereingliederung in den Arbeitsmarkt’, Schweizerische Ärztezeitung, 100, 26, 886–8.Google Scholar
Kausto, J., Miranda, H., Martimo, K.-P. and Viikari-Juntura, E. (2008) ‘Partial sick leave--review of its use, effects and feasibility in the Nordic countries’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 34, 4, 239–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koning, P. (2016) ‘Privatizing sick pay: does it work?’, IZA World of Labor, 324, doi: 10.15185/izawol.324.Google Scholar
Kools, L. and Koning, P. (2019) ‘Graded return-to-work as a stepping stone to full work resumption’, Journal of Health Economics, 65, 189209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leoni, T. (2020) ‘Sick but at work: graded sick leave in a comparative perspective’, Social Policy and Administration, 117, https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12612.Google Scholar
Maltby, T. (2011) ‘Extending working lives? Employability, work ability and better quality working lives’, Social Policy and Society, 10, 3, 299308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markussen, S. (2012) ‘The individual cost of sick leave’, Journal of Population Economics, 25, 4, 1287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markussen, S., Mykletun, A. and Røed, K. (2012) ‘The case for presenteeism — evidence from Norway’s sickness insurance program’, Journal of Public Economics, 96, 1112, 959–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneses-Echavez, J.F., Baiju, N. and Berg, R.C. (2018) Effects of Partial Sick Leave Versus Full-Time Sick Leave on Sickness Absence and Work Participation: A Systematic Mapping Review, Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet.Google Scholar
Newman, J. (2007) ‘The ‘double dynamics’ of activation: institutions, citizens and the remaking of welfare governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 9/10, 364–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niehaus, M., Magin, J., Marfels, B., Vater, E. G. and Werkstetter, E. (2008) ‘Betriebliches Eingliederungsmanagement. Studie zur Umsetzung des Betrieblichen Eingliederungsmanagements nach § 84 Abs. 2 SGB IX’, University of Cologne.Google Scholar
Nossen, J.P. and Lysø, N. (2018) ‘Gradert Sykmelding – Økt Gradering, Stabil Varighet’, Arbeid og velferd, 2/2018, 101–25.Google Scholar
OECD (2010) Sickness, Disability and Work. Breaking the Barriers. Synthesis Report, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2014) Mental Health and Work: Switzerland, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2017) Economic Policy Reforms 2017: Going for Growth, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Oliveri, M., Kopp, H.G., Stutz, K., Klipstein, A. and Zollikofer, J. (2006) ‘Grundsätze der ärztlichen Beurteilung der Zumutbarkeit und Arbeitsfähigkeit. Teil 1’, Swiss Medical Forum, 6, 18, 420–31.Google Scholar
Orton, M., Green, A., Atfield, G. and Barnes, S. A. (2019) ‘Employer participation in active labour market policy: from reactive gatekeepers to proactive strategic partners’, Journal of Social Policy, 48, 3, 511–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prümper, J., Reuter, T. and Jungkunz, C. (2015) ‘Betriebliche Wiedereingliederung von Langzeiterkrankten in Deutschland und Österreich’, Prävention und Gesundheitsföderung, 10, 4, 300–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regierungsprogramm (2020) Aus Verantwortung für Österreich. Regierungsprogramm 2020–2024, Die neue Volkspartei/Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative, https://www.dieneuevolkspartei.at/Download/Regierungsprogramm_2020.pdf [accessed 15.01.2020].Google Scholar
Rehwald, K., Rosholm, M. and Rouland, B. (2018) ‘Labour market effects of activating sick-listed workers’, Labour Economics, 53, 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Röhrich, S. (2019) ‘Aktuelles zu fit2work und Wiedereingliederungsteilzeit’, presentation held at the 8. Pension Insurance Agency rehabilitation conference in Pichl/Schladming, 5. June.Google Scholar
Schneider, U., Linder, R. and Verheyen, F. (2016) ‘Long-term sick leave and the impact of a graded return-to-work program: evidence from Germany’, The European Journal of Health Economics, 17, 5, 629–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2016) ‘The end of the conservative German welfare state model’, Social Policy and Administration, 50, 2, 219–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serrano Pascual, A. and Magnusson, L. (eds.) (2007) Reshaping Welfare States and Activation Regimes in Europe, Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Seing, I., MacEachen, E., Ekberg, K. and Ståhl, C. (2015) ‘Return to work or job transition? Employer dilemmas in taking social responsibility for return to work in local workplace practice’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 37, 19, 1760–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sieurin, L., Josephson, M. and Vingård, E. (2009) ‘Positive and negative consequences of sick leave for the individual, with special focus on part-time sick leave’, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 37, 1, 50–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ståhl, C., Seing, I., Gerdle, B. and Sandqvist, J. (2019) ‘Fair or square? Experiences of introducing a new method for assessing general work ability in a sickness insurance context’, Disability and Rehabilitation, 41, 6, 656–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SVR (Sachverständigenrat zur Begutachtung der Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen) (2015) Sondergutachten 2015. Krankengeld – Entwicklung, Ursachen und Steuerungsmöglichkeiten, Bern: Hofgreve.Google Scholar
Trampusch, C. (2010) ‘The welfare state and trade unions in Switzerland: an historical reconstruction of the shift from a liberal to a post-liberal welfare regime’, Journal of European Social Policy, 20, 1, 5873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Borghi, V. (2007) ‘New modes of governance in activation policies’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 7/8, 277–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Berkel, R. and Van der Aa, P. (2005) ‘The marketization of activation services: a modern panacea? Some lessons from the Dutch experience’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15, 4, 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Veen, R. and Trommel, W. (1999) ‘Managed liberalization of the Dutch welfare state: a review and analysis of the reform of the Dutch social security system, 1985–1998’, Governance, 12, 3, 289310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hal, L., Meershoek, A., Nijhuis, F. and Horstman, K. (2013) ‘Disembodied abilities: sick role and participation in ‘activating’ return-to-work practices’, Social Science and Medicine, 96, 916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Sonsbeek, J. M. and Gradus, R. H. (2013) ‘Estimating the effects of recent disability reforms in the Netherlands’, Oxford Economic Papers, 65, 4, 832–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vilsteren, M., Van Oostrom, S. H., de Vet, H. C., Franche, R. L., Boot, C. R. and Anema, J. R. (2015) ‘Workplace interventions to prevent work disability in workers on sick leave’, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10.Google ScholarPubMed
Viikari-Juntura, E., Virta, L. J., Kausto, J., Autti-Rämö, I., Martimo, K. P., Laaksonen, M., Leinonen, T., Husgafvel-Pursiainen, K., Burdorf, A., Solovieva, S. (2017) ‘Legislative change enabling use of early part-time sick leave enhanced return to work and work participation in Finland’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 2017, 43, 5, 447–56.Google Scholar
Vossen, E. and Van Gestel, N. (2015) ‘The activation logic in national sickness absence policies: comparing the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland’, European Journal of Industrial Relations, 21, 2, 165–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weishaupt, J. T. (2011) From the Manpower Revolution to the Activation Paradigm. Explaining Institutional Continuity and Change in an Integrating Europe, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Williams-Whitt, K., Bültmann, U., Amick, B., Munir, F., Tveito, T. H. and Anema, J. R. (2016) ‘Workplace interventions to prevent disability from both the scientific and practice perspectives: a comparison of scientific literature, grey literature and stakeholder observations’, Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 26, 4, 417–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiß, T. (2018) ‘Divergent occupational pensions in Bismarckian countries: the case of Germany and Austria’, Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, 24, 1, 91107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yerkes, M. A. (2011) Transforming the Dutch Welfare State. Social Risks and Corporatist Reform, Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zumbeck, C. (2017) Das BEM-Verfahren – eine betriebliche Bestandsaufnahme Zusammenfassung der wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse im Projekt RE-BEM, Hamburg: DGB Bildungswerk.Google Scholar