The government is facing growing pressure from trade unions to increase Statutory Sick Pay (SSP).
A total of 24 union leaders have written to the prime minister, concerned that Labour’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen” sick pay is not being honoured, and warning that workers who are ill are being forced into debt.
They want it addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, currently undergoing parliamentary scrutiny, and claim some of their members are putting off treatment as sick pay is much lower than their usual salaries.
But some business groups have warned the government that the expansion of employment rights is proving a strain on business.
When Labour were in opposition, Angela Rayner, addressing the TUC last year, promised to increase SSP – though she did not specify by how much.
It is scheduled to rise by £2 a week from April to £118.75.
The Department of Work and Pensions has highlighted that the Employment Rights Bill will extend eligibility for sick pay, and to make it available from the first day of illness.
Currently, the first three days off work are unpaid.
The unions have welcomed this – but believe the bigger issue is the level of payment.
While many employers have more generous sick pay schemes, around one in four workers have to rely on the legal minimum.
A recent report from 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 leaders of the civil service union, the PCS; the teaching union, the NEU; the Bakers’ Union, and the postal union, the CWU.
Some of the health service unions have argued that there are wider implications for public health.
Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive at the Royal College of Nursing, said the government needed to “live up to” its manifesto promise.
“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.
“People will only receive £3 an hour when they are off sick.”
Chair of the BMA’s executive council, Professor Phil Banfield, said: “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 Labour-affiliated GMB union didn’t sign the letter to the prime minister but it has also expressed concerns.
It conducted a survey of care workers, which suggested one in three of them could not afford to take sick leave. SSP is less than a 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 has been consulting on strengthening sick pay.
However, the government is already facing noisy criticism from some business interests over their expansion of employment rights.
The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), a group of 7,000 lawyers, has warned that the legislation – much of which is still open to consultation – requires considerable thought to avoid burdening businesses with new costs or obligations.
Some smaller companies in particular are concerned that hiking up SSP would add an additional burden.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that firms employing older and younger workers, who tend to take more sick days, would be disproportionally penalised at a time when the government wants to increase economic activity.
They said that allowing workers to claim sick pay from day one could potentially double companies’ liability and are pressing the government to give small businesses a sick pay rebate.
The federation’s policy chair, Tina McKenzie, said she was worried about the cumulative effect of Labour’s employment reforms.
She said: “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.”
Before the election, Labour declared it was both pro-worker and pro-business.
In government, it is finding that this can be a difficult balance to achieve.
