An interesting round table was held on 15 October at the meetings of working economists. It was attended by employers, the National Social Security Institute and a trade union centre in Osakidetza. The topic of debate was the absenteeism that increasingly has an impact on the world of work.

Each organization chose the definition or the point of view that interests it. The problem was that those who defend the interests of entrepreneurs did not make their point of view visible and tarnished the debate. In addition, to establish a concrete “common sense”, several fallacies around the table were used. For example, compared to other territories of the Kingdom of Spain, in the CAPV there are lower labor losses. It is not correct to deduce from this data that this is a greater irresponsibility towards work, but indirectly it was intended to influence this “common sense”. Another plot was to take an anecdote and count an interview in the hallway: a worker expressed satisfaction for prolonging his leave and, what he wanted to infer indirectly, that the workers in general want to extend their period of absence from work. The list of fallacies that was used was broad, always to criminalize workers, of course.

The employers did not want to discuss the definition, but, by not defining absenteeism at work, they wanted to set their point of view. Talking about the concept is fundamental, as it will determine the measures to be implemented. In labour law it is defined as the unjustified absence, with the penalties it entails. But what employers use, as a professor of the subject of Management and Personnel Management said, is absolutely economist, of the human resources departments: although justified, it is absenteeism not being. Either by sickness or by the exercise of the right to reconcile work and family life by a post-natal permit. In this way, the main media and the various working forums fall into the economic definition and complicate the way in which the issue is addressed. Reducing workers’ rights can therefore be a measure against absenteeism. In addition, other elements such as on-site work absenteeism, work breaks or mental disconnection are included in the public debate.

Where do we prevent absenteeism if we use these kinds of tricks in the definition? Rights cannot, in any case, be touched upon but must be increased. To avoid unjustified absenteeism there is labour legislation (sanctions and dismissals). The margin we have left is related to occupational health. The main key is the prevention of occupational risks. Absenteeism, if we associate it with the disease situation, is not the origin of the problem, but the consequence. Work overload, more intense work rhythms, structures that encourage alienation of workers, companies that consider natural workplace harassment, the existence of jobs they considered normal to work in stressful situations... To do so, the prevention of occupational risks is fundamental, even more so in psychosocial risks. Real involvement of workers and their organisations in prevention is essential, and not with the current pantomime, which aims to avoid corporate responsibility.

The need for real and effective participation was put on the table as a tool to cope with absenteeism. The attitude of the business world was evident: none of that. In this sense, the problem is not absenteeism, but the conflict between work and capital.