Ms Maeve McElwee:

I think that question was for me. We did not specifically ask member companies in that particular survey to try to quantify the productivity loss because we understood that a different number would have come back from every respondent. The scale of productivity loss would depend on the role each company was trying to replace and the specific skill set involved. It also might depend on the area of the country the company is in. What we know is that depending on that skill set and depending on the availability of labour, it can be a very different cost and a difficult challenge for many employers. That is the case now. It was also the case before the pandemic and it remains the case since the loosening of some restrictions. The availability of talent continues to be the number one concern for employers. The absence of people within that talent pipeline in the organisation does matter.

The Senator asked whether a longer, more protracted absence is more difficult and costly to manage. In actual fact, many employers find that short-term absences are much more disruptive because staff members are much harder to replace. If we know somebody is going to be unwell and out of work for a longer period of time, it is easier to make sure a replacement is in place. It is easier to plan and manage if somebody is likely to be out for six days, ten days or whatever it might be than it is if somebody is out for multiple, very short periods, which tend not to come with a great deal of notice. There is a cost associated with bringing in somebody from an agency, moving somebody within the business or just doing without and addressing the productivity loss. It is different depending on the role but short-term absences are much more disruptive for organisations.