Medical and Nursing Leaders Caution Against Low Sick Pay Rates

The government is experiencing increasing pressure from labor organizations to raise the rate of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). A total of 24 union leaders have communicated with the prime minister, expressing apprehension that Labour’s pledge in its manifesto to “strengthen” sick pay is not being upheld, and cautioning that unwell employees are being compelled into financial hardship. They advocate for this issue to be addressed within the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently undergoing parliamentary review, and assert that some of their members are postponing medical treatment because sick pay is considerably lower than their regular earnings. Conversely, certain business associations have cautioned the government that the expansion of employment entitlements is creating difficulties for businesses. When Labour was in opposition, Angela Rayner, speaking at the TUC last year, committed to increasing SSP, although she did not specify the exact amount. It is scheduled to increase by £2 per week starting in April, reaching £118.75. The Department of Work and Pensions has emphasized that the Employment Rights Bill will broaden eligibility for sick pay and ensure it is available from the initial day of illness. Presently, the first three days of absence from work are unpaid. Unions have welcomed this particular change, but they consider the primary concern to be the actual amount of the payment. While numerous employers offer more generous sick pay arrangements, approximately one in four workers must depend on the legally mandated minimum. A recent report from Citizens Advice indicated that SSP constituted the most significant employment-related problem their advisors encountered. The Safe Sick Pay campaign organized the letter sent to the prime minister. Among the signatories are the heads of the civil service union, the PCS; the teaching union, the NEU; the Bakers’ Union; and the postal union, the CWU. Some unions within the health service sector have contended that there are broader consequences for public health. Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, stated that the government ought to “live up to” its manifesto promise. She added, “Forcing nursing staff to choose between going to work unwell or struggling to make ends meet if they take leave is not only unfair but a risk to patients too.” She further noted, “People will only receive £3 an hour when they are off sick.” Professor Phil Banfield, Chair of the BMA’s executive council, commented: “Moving onto SSP often means a huge drop in income for many people, forcing them to go back to work before they are fit to do so. “All of this contributes to further physical or mental ill health, and more sick leave.” The GMB union, which is affiliated with Labour, did not sign the letter to the prime minister but has also voiced its concerns. A survey it conducted among care workers suggested that one in three of them could not afford to take sick leave. SSP amounts to less than a third of the national minimum wage for individuals aged over 21. The DWP has affirmed its agreement that no individual should be compelled to choose between their health and financial hardship, and it has been conducting consultations on enhancing sick pay. The TUC’s submission to that consultation declared: “If the government is to fully meet its pledge to ‘strengthen’ sick pay, the rate of SSP must also increase. “As it stands, the level is inadequate to meet basic living standards and…. is around 20% of average earnings – amongst the lowest of the UK’s European counterparts.” Nevertheless, the government is already encountering vocal criticism from certain business interests regarding its expansion of employment rights. The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), an organization comprising 7,000 lawyers, has cautioned that the legislation—much of which remains open for consultation—necessitates considerable deliberation to prevent burdening businesses with new expenses or responsibilities. Specifically, some smaller companies are apprehensive that increasing SSP would impose an additional burden. The Federation of Small Businesses indicated that companies employing older and younger workers, who generally take more sick days, would be disproportionately disadvantaged at a time when the government aims to boost economic activity. They asserted that allowing employees to claim sick pay from day one could potentially double companies’ financial liability and are urging the government to provide small businesses with a sick pay rebate. Tina McKenzie, the federation’s policy chair, expressed apprehension about the cumulative impact of Labour’s employment reforms. She stated: “We’ve raised significant concerns that the real impact, particularly on small employers, will act as a brake on job creation and have a smothering effect on affordable wage rises over the coming years.” Prior to the election, Labour proclaimed itself to be both pro-worker and pro-business. In its current role in government, it is discovering that achieving this balance can be challenging. Copyright 2024 BBC. All rights reserved. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.