Aug. 31, 2011
Our global survey reveals that employees in Australia, Canada, China, France, India, Mexico, the U.K., and the U.S., have all, to varying degrees, played hooky - called in sick to work when they were not actually sick. The Kronos Global Absence survey looks at which regions have the highest rates of absenteeism, how the rest of the workforce is affected when employees call in sick, and what employers can do to better manage the problem.
According to Joyce Maroney, director of the Workforce Institute at Kronos, "This survey provides a fascinating look at the issue of absenteeism around the world. It is interesting to see both the many similarities between regions and the marked differences also. Employers everywhere can learn from this survey - about the problem of absenteeism and the possible fixes - from providing more flexible work arrangements, where possible, to enabling employees to work from home."
The Kronos Global Absence survey was conducted online within the U.S. between July 19-21, 2011 among 2,293 adults (aged 18 and over), of whom 1,209 are employed full-time and/or part time; within Canada between July 18-25, 2011 among 1,006 adults (aged 18 and older) of whom 538 are employed full-time and/or part-time; and within the U.K., France, Australia, Mexico, China, and India between July 19-27, 2011 among 6,153 adults (aged 16 and older) of whom 4,860 are employed full-time and/or part-time, by Harris Interactive on behalf of Kronos via its Quick Query omnibus product, the Harris Decima Canada online omnibus, and the Global omnibus product. Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region, and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online. All sample surveys and polls, whether or not they use probability sampling, are subject to multiple sources of error which are most often not possible to quantify or estimate, including sampling error, coverage error, error associated with nonresponse, error associated with question wording and response options, and post-survey weighting and adjustments. Therefore, Harris Interactive avoids the words “margin of error” as they are misleading. All that can be calculated are different possible sampling errors with different probabilities for pure, unweighted, random samples with 100 percent response rates. These are only theoretical because no published polls come close to this ideal. Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.
© 2021 Workforce Institute All Rights Reserved • Designed and Developed by Morether Creative Agency, Temple, TX