UNFAIR USE OF PERMITS/AUTHORIZATION

Often the word absenteeism is generally referring to public administrations or to controlled entities and private companies that provide public services.

Cases referring to the private sector therefore are out of the counting, both for an importance relating to the sale of news and for a lack of willingness to make them public due to obvious reputation problems.

The literature defines absenteeism as the systematic absence from the workplace and is measured according to two units of measurement: frequency and duration.

Frequency is the number of times an individual has been absent from work in a specific period of time while the duration is equivalent to the number of consecutive days for each absence.

The absences with a longer duration are statistically those relating to real diseases and therefore framed in involuntary absenteeism; on the contrary, short and frequent absences are those most related to voluntary absenteeism.

Systematic absences refer to permits, whether paid or unpaid, due to illness or law 104, required on hot days (e.g. weekends and weekends, bridges, pre / post-holidays) or in any case implemented frequently and beyond above the corporate average.

According to some studies, around 80% of companies use overtime to work around the absence of their employees, paying a total cost of around 2% of the paycheck.

Another cost is related to the loss of productivity due to the replacement of workers, which is around 31.1% on average.

In addition, the action of executives in the control and management of absences must be considered, requiring an average of 4.2 hours per week, practically 10% of their working week, reaching a total of 210 hours per year for each manager.

Other non-measurable costs are those related to the motivation of non-absentee employees who perceive the incorrect behavior of their colleague without this actually encountering a risk or a penalty, and that relating to employees who are forced to replace, perhaps with overtime, absent colleagues.

All these aspects, in addition to personal motivation, harm the atmosphere within the company with risks of falling productivity and internal divergences, often more dangerous than technical / productive hitches.

An employee who regularly performs two jobs is not punishable, but if due to a double job there are important causes of absenteeism, then the employer can act against him.

Italian law provides for dismissal for legitimate reason if a worker is absent to perform a double job.

However, where there is only a double job, of which one is aware, without any problem of work or absenteeism, the employer cannot dismiss.

An employee who does a double job has incorrect and harmful behavior towards the company and this conduct can be considered much more serious if practiced in return for illegal work or in competition with the employer company or in the absence of a duty of confidentiality.

The percentage of employees who become absent to do a double job is quite significant, to the detriment of the company not only in economic terms but also in terms of productivity and competitiveness.