Unions put pressure on ministers to increase sick pay for employees

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, saying they are concerned that Labour’s manifesto commitment to “strengthen” sick pay is not being honoured, and warned that workers who are sick could be left in debt. Being forced to drown.

They want it to be resolved in employment rights billare currently undergoing parliamentary investigation, and claim that some of their members are avoiding treatment because sick pay is much less than their normal pay.

But some business groups have warned the government that expanding employment rights is proving a drag on business.

When Labor was in opposition, Angela Rayner promised to raise the SSP when she addressed the TUC last year – although she did not say by how much.

There are plans to increase this by £2 a week to £118.75 from April.

The Department for Work and Pensions has highlighted that the Employment Rights Bill will expand eligibility for sick pay, and make it available from the first day of illness.

Currently, the first three days of leave are unpaid.

Unions have welcomed this – but they believe the bigger issue is pay levels.

While many employers have more generous sick pay schemes, one in four employees 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 leaders of the civil service union, PCS; Teaching Union, NEU; the Bakers Union, and the Postal Union, CWU.

Some healthcare unions have argued that this has broader implications for public health.

Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive of the Royal College of Nursing, said the government needed to “make good” on its manifesto promise.

“Forcing nursing staff to choose between going into work unwell or struggling to make ends meet when they take leave is not only unfair, but also a risk to patients.

“People will only get £3 an hour when they are sick.”

Professor Phil Banfield, chair of the BMA’s executive council, said: “Going on SSP often means a huge drop in income for many people, forcing them to go back to work before they are fit.

“All of this contributes to poor health, whether physical or mental, and more sick leave.”

The Labour-affiliated 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 one in three of them could not afford to take sick leave. SSP is less than a third of the national minimum wage for those over the age of 21.

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 sharp criticism from some business interests over the expansion of employment rights.

The Employment Lawyers Association (ELA), a group of 7,000 lawyers, has warned that the laws – most of which are still open for consultation – need considerable consideration to avoid burdening businesses with new costs or obligations.

In particular, some small companies are concerned that increasing the SSP will lead to additional burden.

The Federation of Small Businesses said that at a time when the government wants to increase economic activity, companies that hire older and younger workers who take more sick days are disproportionately penalized Will go.

They said allowing workers to claim sick pay from day one could potentially double companies’ liabilities 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 cumulative impact of Labour’s employment reforms.

He said: “We have significant concerns that the material impact, particularly on smaller employers, will act as a brake on job creation and have a serious impact on affordable wage growth in the years to come.”

Before the election, Labor announced that it was both pro-labor and pro-business.

The government is realizing this may be a difficult balance to achieve.