Some jurisdictions prohibit it. Others allow it. Employees despise it. We're talking about make-work. Also known as "busy work." Sometimes overzealous employers proudly state, "I'll make him count paperclips for 8 hours a day if I have to!" The good news is, with ecovery, you don't have to.
If you are one of those employers, or a person who has personally suggested this as an option for modified duty, please ask yourself what benefit is being gained from this?
An employer is paying an injured worker wages to do a non-productive task
Why not try to develop some type of work that provides some productivity in exchange for the wages they are receiving? How is this helping you reduce costs or make a case to highlight the benefits of modified duty to your employees?
It sours the employer-employee relationship
How would you feel if you were legitimately injured and were brought in to do such menial, tedious, tasks? I'm not so sure I would be motivated to get better -- some may be motivated to be taken out of work altogether. Employers may think that if the work is undesirable, it will motivate someone to return faster. The message really being communicated is that the employer questions the legitimacy of the injury or the restrictions and thinks they can motivate the injured worker to "miraculously recover faster." This can lead to an injured worker returning sooner than medically advisable and result in a re-injury. Modified duty does not mean "light duty." It is a modification of an injured worker's pre-injury job, or a group of productive tasks that are grouped to create a modified duty position temporarily.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Reasons Injured Workers Return to Work
In a 2010 study of 168 individuals who sustained non-life-threatening orthopedic injuries, it was found that participants who reported "high social functioning" two weeks post-injury, were roughly 2 1/2 times more likely to return to work (Clay, et al., 2010). This same study reported that financial security and perceived ability to return to work were not statistically significant.
Clay et. al, (2010) also found that "Ninety-three percent of respondents who reported the need to use work "to fill the day" were back at work by three months, compared to 66% who indicated other reasons" (p. 7).
The psycho-social factors and environment are equally important as the physical injury in the return to work process. While we cannot influence the injury we can influence the socialization of injured workers.
What amount of effort does it take on behalf of an employer or coworker to make a phone call to chat with the injured worker, keep them apprised of any developments at their workplace, or even to send a "get-well" card? Very little. The ROI on a 99 cent get well card is potentially tremendous.
So when an employer feels as if they don't have control over the WC claim, and that all power rests in the hands of the injured employee and their treating physicians, remember this post, and it might be a good idea to reference this post as well, oh and this one is probably useful, too.
When we discuss the concept of Return to Wellness as opposed to return to work, we’re focusing on all aspects of a workers’ compensation claim. Not just the financial impact, but how we need to treat the injured worker as a person who has sustained an occupational injury and not as a claimant. Returning injured workers to wellness using a bio-psycho-social approach -- treating the injury, treating the individual and acknowledging the positive impact that returning to the workplace (environment) after an injury can have on recovery.
Source: Clay, F. J., Newstead, S. V., Watson, W. L., Ozanne-Smith, J. & McClure, R. J. Bio-Psychosocial determinants of time lost from work following non life threatening acute orthopaedic trauma, Bio Med Central Musculoskeletal Disorders 2010, 11:6. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/11/6
Clay et. al, (2010) also found that "Ninety-three percent of respondents who reported the need to use work "to fill the day" were back at work by three months, compared to 66% who indicated other reasons" (p. 7).
The psycho-social factors and environment are equally important as the physical injury in the return to work process. While we cannot influence the injury we can influence the socialization of injured workers.
What amount of effort does it take on behalf of an employer or coworker to make a phone call to chat with the injured worker, keep them apprised of any developments at their workplace, or even to send a "get-well" card? Very little. The ROI on a 99 cent get well card is potentially tremendous.
So when an employer feels as if they don't have control over the WC claim, and that all power rests in the hands of the injured employee and their treating physicians, remember this post, and it might be a good idea to reference this post as well, oh and this one is probably useful, too.
When we discuss the concept of Return to Wellness as opposed to return to work, we’re focusing on all aspects of a workers’ compensation claim. Not just the financial impact, but how we need to treat the injured worker as a person who has sustained an occupational injury and not as a claimant. Returning injured workers to wellness using a bio-psycho-social approach -- treating the injury, treating the individual and acknowledging the positive impact that returning to the workplace (environment) after an injury can have on recovery.
Source: Clay, F. J., Newstead, S. V., Watson, W. L., Ozanne-Smith, J. & McClure, R. J. Bio-Psychosocial determinants of time lost from work following non life threatening acute orthopaedic trauma, Bio Med Central Musculoskeletal Disorders 2010, 11:6. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/11/6
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
RTW and Off-site Employees -- we have a solution!
One of the greatest challenges of returning injured workers who reside a considerable distance from the office is just that...the distance. Employers often express their inability to offer any type of modified duty in their office because their employees live 50+ miles away and it wouldn't make sense to bring them into the office.
Here are some options to overcoming these challenges:
· If the injured worker typically drives to the office location for his/her regular work day, then it isn't unreasonable to ask them to report to modified duty at the office. Instead of asking them to work 4 hours per day, have them work two, 8 hour modified duty shifts. The benefits are still there -- the injured worker maintains a connection to the work habit, they are able to engage in the social interaction that work provides, and it may help keep them focused on their recovery.
· Consider a transitional duty! For more details, check out our post on using NFPs as a RTW option. Our partners can place an injured worker in their local community, as close to their home as possible. This could be an excellent option for travelling nurses, home health aides, sales people, truck drivers, and any other employee who lives a considerable distance from the office where modified duty isn't feasible. This may also be an excellent choice for injured workers who are given driving restrictions but are encouraged to gradually increase their driving time and distance.
· Are there any aspects of their job (or other jobs within your organization) that can be done remotely? Is it a simple matter of getting them access to work from home? Many companies who employee telecommuters have software that can monitor productivity. Another option would be to complete customer satisfaction calls, schedule appointments, place inventory orders, create hazardous material sheets (most often-cited OSHA violation), create safety training materials, etc. Read the BLS report on telecommuting here!
While these suggestions may not resolve all of your RTW challenges, we hope that they are options that you may have not considered previously. As always, we're here to listen to your RTW challenges, and provide a solution that is right for your unique situation.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Hold your fire!
Things to consider before you terminate an injured worker who is receiving workers' compensation benefits.
Please note, we are not employment/labor law specialists, nor do I play one on tv -- this post should not be construed or used as legal advice on how to handle employee terminations, it is simply an attempt to make employers aware of the impact a termination may have on their workers' compensation program. Now we've got that covered...
Don't terminate an injured worker simply because you [think you] can't accommodate their restrictions
Often times an injured worker is given challenging restrictions that an employer believes they cannot accommodate. The employer sees no possible way of bringing the injured worker back to work, but somehow temporary restrictions result in a long-term action. The injured worker served a key role in their operations, and they need to replace him.
I see two problems with this line of thinking. Problem #1: The employer has assumed that the injured worker can do nothing. That is contradicted by their release to return to work -- the doctor is stating that they can do something, albeit not their pre-injury job. I implore employers to take 45 minutes (not even an hour) to sit in a room and come up with 5 examples of modified duty work the injured employee could perform. Act as if your livelihood depended on it, because in some cases it does.
Example: The employer values the employee's contributions, but needs someone to help pick up the slack. So, while you have Joe working to make up for Maria's work, can't you have Maria help out with some of Joe's duties? Or, perhaps you need to bring in a temporary worker -- there is a learning curve which equates to lost production, increased hours, increased error rates or declining piece rates -- use Maria's skills and knowledge to help train her temporary replacement.
Please note, we are not employment/labor law specialists, nor do I play one on tv -- this post should not be construed or used as legal advice on how to handle employee terminations, it is simply an attempt to make employers aware of the impact a termination may have on their workers' compensation program. Now we've got that covered...
Don't terminate an injured worker simply because you [think you] can't accommodate their restrictions
Often times an injured worker is given challenging restrictions that an employer believes they cannot accommodate. The employer sees no possible way of bringing the injured worker back to work, but somehow temporary restrictions result in a long-term action. The injured worker served a key role in their operations, and they need to replace him.
I see two problems with this line of thinking. Problem #1: The employer has assumed that the injured worker can do nothing. That is contradicted by their release to return to work -- the doctor is stating that they can do something, albeit not their pre-injury job. I implore employers to take 45 minutes (not even an hour) to sit in a room and come up with 5 examples of modified duty work the injured employee could perform. Act as if your livelihood depended on it, because in some cases it does.
Example: The employer values the employee's contributions, but needs someone to help pick up the slack. So, while you have Joe working to make up for Maria's work, can't you have Maria help out with some of Joe's duties? Or, perhaps you need to bring in a temporary worker -- there is a learning curve which equates to lost production, increased hours, increased error rates or declining piece rates -- use Maria's skills and knowledge to help train her temporary replacement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)