"Wellness" &
"Attendance Audits"

Employers, workers, and tax payers are paying a lot for health insurance, sick leave, workers' compensation, disability plans, weekly indemnity, and on and on. But, the question has been raised, 'are we paying a lot for worker health compared to what it is worth, or are we just paying a lot more compared to what we used to pay?' There could be some interesting debate around that question, but not enough time to give it justice in this brief.

Workers health, fitness if you will, for too long was a free gift to employers, and not given much attention by employees themselves or society in general. This gift was given by productive workers to employers who did not hesitate to cut off employment relationships when workers no longer had their health to give employers, and who in the past and perhaps to a lesser degree today expected employees to fend for themselves when they fail a fitness for duty examination.

We must remember many of the health care costs that we incur are not new, they have just become newly visible. We only need to look at the so-called new injury list now being claimed as compensable. Muscleoskeletal injuries such as Repetitive Strain made up approximately 35% o reported injuries in the past four years. Stress and stress related injuries and occupational diseases have increased at a devastating rate.

Ergonomics make the workplace and the worker more adaptable to each other, thus creating a better working environment, and improving in many cases service provided, and better health. Wellness is a sophisticated approach to organizing work for the betterment of all concerned. Put briefly it provides a healthier and better understanding of ways in which workers can use their skills and training more fully in making decisions at work.

Kathy Green of the University of Massachusetts, in her analysis of 'wellness' and 'employee assistance programs', makes some assertions when she considers who has responsibility for conditions that effect health and who ultimately controls health awareness. Green argues that if we want to promote wellness we must look at all the factors that influence health together, not just those that serve our interests. All the relevant factors that effect health must be worked with and not just those that are considered popular, in fashion, or cleared by the legal beagles. A good faith effort must be made and made quickly.

Green distributes the factors that effect health in a matrix according to who can control them, employers and/or workers. Both employers and employees, she suggests, have considerable control over work practices, workplace hygiene, and up keep of equipment. Neither employers nor workers have much control over genetic characteristics, cultural characteristics or climate.

Employers, not workers in our system, control design of the work environment, substances used, engineering controls and job design. Workers, not employers, can control workers lifestyles and personal health habits. It becomes clear from this analogy that employers and workers who want to promote health should take responsibility for those things they control. Unfortunately the reverse seems more nearly to be true. Employers focus their wellness efforts on promoting lifestyle and behaviour decisions that workers can make, while worker representatives concentrate on purging the workplace of hazards that management ultimately controls.

Wellness programs are part of employer and/or employee strategies that work in their best interest and in the best interest of School District No. 68. Let us be clear on the reasons for the existence of worker health, or wellness programs. More or better service, lower absenteeism and fewer conflicts, and we must not kid ourselves as the employers motivations are all too often a better financial performance for the District or the Province. The characteristics of this new strategy are:

1. A commitment to training, to deepen and broaden the skill base of employees.

2. Initiatives to increase employee involvement and participation in the operation of the organization.

3. Policies to promote sharing, not for financial rewards for good performance but sharing of information and privilege.

4. Family friendly policies to support employees in balancing work and domestic responsibilities.

Roles and responsibilities have to change, and there may need to be some very clear trade-offs which do not have to be offensive or intrusive to either party. If we can accomplish just a few of these initiatives we get closer to what your proposal, on wellness strives to achieve.

Lots of people make presentations every year about adapting this model of health risk and or reward but presentations are not the way to make it happen. Positive action is what it takes. To address the new trend in this district of attendance management or attendance auditing, CUPE Local 606 along with CUPE B.C. are clear in their position with reference to this issue. It is strictly an employer responsibility and within their realm. We are not going to be a part of monitoring people's illnesses. This is not our mandate. Our role is monitoring the collective agreement and both parties understand workplace attendance in our collective agreement.

Parties that enter into negotiations to create letters of understanding on the Modified Work Program/Duty to Accommodate present a positive incentive to address these concerns.

Proactive, active programs versus negative incentives are proven far more successful to all parties in the end. The key to making it better in our workplaces is to build trust and to share power. It is a long road but let's give it a try 'just for the health of it'.