The government is facing increasing pressure from trade unions to increase Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).
A total of 24 union leaders have written to the Prime Minister, expressing concern that Labour’s manifesto pledge to “strengthen” sick pay is not being honoured, and warning that sick workers will be forced into debt. Being forced.
They want it addressed. Employment Bill of Rightsare currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, and claim that some of their members are withholding treatment because sick pay is far below their regular salaries.
But some business groups have warned the government that expanding employment rights is putting pressure on businesses.
When Labor was in opposition, Angela Rayner, speaking to the TUC last year, promised to increase the SSP – although she did not say by how much.
It is due to rise by £2 a week from April to £118.75.
The Department for Work and Pensions has highlighted that the Employment Rights Bill will extend eligibility for sick pay, making it available from the first day of illness.
Currently, the first three days of work leave are unpaid.
Unions have welcomed it – but believe the bigger issue is pay levels.
Although many employers have more generous sick pay schemes, one in four workers have to rely on the statutory minimum.
A recent report by Citizens Advice said that SSP was the biggest employment issue their advisers had to deal with.
The Safe Sick Pay campaign co-ordinated the letter, with signatories including the Civil Service Union, PCS; Teaching Union, NEU; Bakers Union, and Postal Union, CWU.
Some of the health service unions have argued that there are wider implications for public health.
Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said the government needed to deliver on its manifesto promise.
“Forcing nursing staff to choose between calling in sick or struggling to take time off is not only unfair but also a risk to patients.
“People will only charge £3 an hour when they’re sick.”
Professor Phil Benfield, Chair of the BMA’s Executive Council, said: “Moving into SSP often means a huge drop in people’s income, forcing them back into work before they are able to do so. Force to go.
“All of these contribute to more physical or mental ill health and more sick leave.”
Labour’s GMB union did not sign the letter to the prime minister but has also expressed concerns.
It conducted a survey of care workers, which suggested that one in three of them could not afford to take sick leave. SSP is less than one third of the national minimum wage for over 21s.
The DWP has said it agrees that no-one should be forced to choose between their health and financial hardship, and is consulting on strengthening sick pay.
However, the government is already facing an uproar from some business interests over its extension of employment rights.
The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), a group of 7,000 lawyers, warned that the legislation – much of which is still open to consultation – would burden businesses with new costs or obligations. Avoidance requires a lot of thinking.
Some small companies, in particular, are concerned that the increase in SSP will impose an additional burden.
The Federation of Small Businesses said firms employing older and younger workers, who take more sick days, would be penalized disproportionately at a time when the government wants to boost economic activity.
They said allowing workers to claim sick pay from day one could potentially double the liability of companies and are pressing the government to give small businesses a sick pay exemption.
The federation’s policy chair, Tina McKenzie, said she was concerned about the overall impact of Labor’s employment reforms.
He said: “We have significant concerns that the real impact, particularly on small employers, will act as a brake on job creation and have a dampening effect on affordable wage growth in the coming years. “
Before the election, Labor announced that it was pro-worker and pro-business.
In government, it turns out that this can be a difficult balance to achieve.