Latest news with #sickpay
.png%3Fwidth%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
7 days ago
- Health
- The Independent
‘We haven't learned anything': Readers despair over UK's Covid response in 2025
Big disasters often change how we see the world. The Lisbon earthquake in 1755 shook people's faith in religion. After the 1918 flu pandemic, there was growing interest in fresh air, better hygiene, and healthier living spaces – ideas that influenced architecture and public health policy at the time. Covid, though? So far, the public inquiry has focused more on WhatsApp messages and political drama than on the bigger lessons. But many Independent readers believe there were lessons, but we haven't necessarily learned from them. Before the pandemic, there were fears that people wouldn't cope with restrictions – that 'behavioural fatigue' would kick in and we'd all give up. That fear led to delays in lockdown and, in the end, cost tens of thousands of lives. But that view turned out to be wrong. Faced with a shared threat, most people acted with care and responsibility. Communities pulled together. Many went without seeing loved ones, missed work, lost income – all to protect others. Now, readers feel much of that collective effort has vanished. When we asked for your views, you told us that people no longer wear masks on public transport, and sick people are back in offices and schools. The things we learned – about clean air, proper sick pay, the importance of staying home when ill – are being forgotten, even though the virus hasn't gone away. Many of you told us that the return to 'normal' is anything but normal. You're frustrated by the lack of public messaging, the scrapping of protections, and the ongoing risks, especially from long Covid. Here's what you had to say: Covid is more like polio than flu Unfortunately, Covid is still here, still causing ill health and disability. Doing nothing is a false economy: in terms of impact, Covid is more like polio than flu – and we don't ignore polio. We don't need extreme measures, but good ventilation, FFP masks (especially in healthcare), HEPA filters in enclosed spaces like classrooms, wards, clinics and offices would all make a difference and aren't difficult. Reversing the removal of NHS vaccination from most groups, and ensuring access to vaccines and antivirals – the norm in other countries that are doing better – is essential. Multiple Covid infections, even if mild, increase the chance of complications, including cardiac, and damage the immune system, making it harder to shake off other infections. Long covid is now the most common illness in US children, and the UK is on the same trajectory, for the same reason. In children, Covid can cause metabolic dysfunction and lead to diabetes. This is all avoidable. Housemartin We know what to do – we're just not doing it We haven't learned anything. We need clean air in public spaces (especially schools and health settings); proper sick pay; to stop the ridiculous pressure to send infectious children into school; better public information about the benefits of masks and ventilation; use of high-quality masks where appropriate (certainly for people with symptoms, and routinely in healthcare settings and for travel); and vaccines available to anyone who wants one. Affordable tests should also be widely available. We know what to do to reduce the spread of Covid – we're just not doing any of it. Kittensarecute We didn't learn anything No, we didn't learn anything from the Covid pandemic. It was all done through panic. It wasn't handled right at all, money was wasted, and greedy firms faked the prices to make obscene profits. No medical authority had the faintest clue how to handle it. This must never happen again – separating families, causing misery and sheer panic. We have had pandemics before and will again. Lessons must be learned from that last fiasco and handled totally differently. People will catch it regardless of what they do; it cannot be avoided. Time for a total rethink from these so-called medical experts. Annieinthecastle Long Covid is the main danger The main danger with Covid is getting long Covid. The science says no one is immune to suffering from it, and it's likely a lifelong chronic condition that could end your ability to work. 3.2 million English people know that is what they are suffering from, and the number goes up every year. The only defence we really have against Covid now, since most of the vaccines have been withheld, is wearing an FFP2/3 respirator, which is hugely effective at stopping infection. These masks also stop hay fever and most other infections as well. People who have started wearing them haven't been sick in years. Paul Covid could be eradicated – but there's no will Covid-19 could be eradicated pretty easily in this country with ventilation, investment in proper HEPA infrastructure in all public buildings, a functioning vaccination programme, and – most importantly of all – those who can mask to wear FFP2 or FFP3 respirators when indoors anywhere. If the government could be bothered to protect our public health, it should lock down the country – properly – for a couple of weeks. With all that in place, it would disappear. There is no will or impetus among our leaders to protect us from this incredibly disabling illness. Bumblebee Covid is here to stay. There is growing consensus it probably escaped from a lab, and it will carry on rapidly mutating – picking off the vulnerable and elderly – saving governments a bit of cash, somewhat offset by the cost of Long Covid. I mask in shops but rarely see anyone else doing so. Sooner or later, a vicious strain will emerge, and we'll be back to square one. Galileo666 Learn from countries like Japan We should take the findings of other countries ahead of us into account – e.g. Japan on the spread of the virus – and improve ventilation of buildings, trains and buses... even doctors' waiting rooms in the winter! Jennifer Covid is an inconvenient fact Covid is an inconvenient fact that governments and the right-wing press prefer to suppress. Sadly, it's still very much around, and it's still killing the old, the very young and those with a compromised immune system. It's also leaving a trail of devastation in the shape of long-term damage caused by long Covid. And all of this relates just to people – there's also the impact on the economy. Drugs which would have enabled the immunocompromised to live normal lives (hundreds of thousands are still shielding) have been denied by the UK government to cut costs. Drugs like Paxlovid – literally a life-saver for any immunocompromised person unlucky enough to contract Covid – have been made near-impossible to access. The treatment of immunocompromised people by this government and previous ones is shameful. And to cap it all, there are still plenty of clowns around who somehow feel threatened by anyone taking the sensible precaution of wearing a mask, and feel the need to mock or display outright aggression. DavidM The conversation isn't over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking 'log in' on the top right-hand corner of the screen.
Daily Mail
16-06-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
One MILLION workers on the verge of quitting their jobs over illness or poor mental health, study suggests
More than a million workers are likely to resign in the next year due to illness or poor mental health, a study suggests. The fragility of the workforce is a 'direct challenge' to the Government's ambition to grow the economy and boost living standards, the Work Foundation warned. Researchers found the results are 'particularly concerning' among younger workers, where there is risk a new generation will be 'scarred by unemployment and economic inactivity'. The foundation's experts, based at Lancaster University, analysed 3,796 workers' health and employment data. They found one in 17 (6 per cent) believe they will leave their job in the next 12 months due to their health, with these employees seeking a role that is less stressful or quitting the workforce altogether. Overall, 20 per cent of workers say they are in poor health, with these twice as likely to expect not be employed in three years' time. Young workers aged 16 to 24 are 1.5 times more likely to report poor mental health than any other age group – with a rate of 23 per cent. They are also the most likely to report that their job negatively affects their mental health (34 per cent), with 43 per cent worried that their declining health could push them out of work in the future. The researchers say jobs should be 'redesigned', with firms expanding access to flexible working, occupational health services and more generous sick pay to keep employees in their roles. They also want stronger employment rights and protections and improved access to NHS mental health services, tailored support for those out of work and a 'guarantee' that all young people have the ability to take up 'good quality work'. The report will be launched at the Work and Health Summit in London today. Ben Harrison, director of the Work Foundation, said: 'This new analysis suggests that without additional support, we could see a new generation scarred by unemployment and economic inactivity in the early years of their working lives. 'This could have major implications for communities, employers and local economies.' He pointed out that workers on low incomes and already experiencing poor health face similar risks, adding: 'Without a national reset on health and work that expands access to flexible working, occupational health services and tailored employment support, many more workers could leave work early due to ill health. 'This will provide a direct challenge to the Government's ambition to grow the economy and boost living standards.' A Government spokesman said: 'We are determined to create a welfare system that supports people into work and out of poverty – backed by £1billion to help sick or disabled people find good, secure jobs.'
The Independent
04-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
UK workers are taking less sick days as figures reveal new average
The average number of sick days taken by UK workers has fallen, according to new data, as the average amount taken by each worker is revealed. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates that 148.9 million working days were lost due to illness or injury in 2024. This equates to 2 per cent of total working hours – a decrease of 0.3 percentage points from the previous year. Minor illnesses were the most frequent cause of absence, accounting for nearly a third of all cases. Musculoskeletal problems were the next most common reason, responsible for 15.5 per cent of absences. The ONS data indicated that women, older employees, individuals with long-term health issues, part-time workers, and public sector employees had the highest rates of sick leave in 2024. The average time lost per worker in 2024 was 4.4 days. Amanda Walters, director of the Safe Sick Pay campaign, an alliance campaigning for sick pay reform, said: 'The fall in sickness absence may seem a positive development but the figures mask the fact that far too many UK workers regularly go to work when they are too ill. 'We are amongst the least likely to take sick days in Europe as our woeful statutory sick pay system is forcing millions of people to drag themselves into work ill, risking their long term health because they need to pay the bills. This costs the economy billions in lost productivity. 'The Government is fixing one part of the problem by improving sick pay coverage for some lower earners in the employment Bill, but is not doing enough to sort out the sorry state of our sick pay system. 'The weekly rate of sick pay remains just £3 an hour for a full time worker. If we are serious about improving the health of the working age population, the Government needs to stop ignoring the elephant in the room and put statutory sick pay in line with the minimum wage.' Ben Harrison, director of the Work Foundation at Lancaster University, said: 'Enabling people to take time off when they are sick to get better and return to work in good health is critical for a robust and successful labour market. 'Workers feeling unable to take time to recover and recuperate can lead to health issues becoming more serious over time, increasing the risk that they might join the near record number of people who are already out of the labour market due to ill health. 'The UK's statutory sick pay of £118.75 a week is lower than the majority of OECD countries, and our research shows that 47 per cent of UK businesses do not pay above the statutory minimum. 'This can mean those who rely on statutory sick pay can face a choice between making ends meet or looking after their health.'
Irish Times
14-05-2025
- Health
- Irish Times
Can you afford to get sick?
No one expects to get injured or sick but it happens and it can have a significant impact on your household finances. That's why it pays to know where you stand. If you get sick or injured, you have a statutory entitlement to five days' sick pay a year – about the duration of a flu. And this is an improvement on what was in place – just three days annually up to January last year. A planned increase to seven days was stalled by Government last month amid protests from business. Statutory sick pay is paid at 70 per cent of your normal pay, up to a maximum of €110 a day – the legal minimum your boss must pay. Some employers will have more generous schemes, but employers can't give you less than the statutory amount. You must be an employee in the job for at least 13 weeks and be able to provide a sick cert. READ MORE 'A generous scheme would be anywhere between 21 and 28 days where the employer is paying the sick pay directly,' says employment lawyer Barry Crushell. 'That may be at the statutory rate of €110 a day, or it may be the full rate of pay,' he says. Few employers pay for sick pay from their own coffers after a month, he says. Where this perk is available, the employer is probably paying a third-party insurer to provide the cover. The insurance company pays the sick pay to the employee. 'These policies will cover absences due to illness, typically over a six-month period,' says Crushell. 'After that, in my experience, insurers tend to significantly scrutinise the condition of an employee who is availing of sick pay,' he says. 'Employees can find themselves in a vulnerable position after six months where the insurance company is trying to divest themselves of the liability,' he says. 'After a period of time, the illness of the employee doesn't necessarily become a concern for the employer because it's an insurance company matter. The insurance company can often take a more robust, aggressive and inquisitorial approach to the employee's illness to ensure they are not continuing to pay if they no longer deem it's warranted. 'I have employees coming to me because the employer is saying the matter is out of my hands and the insurance company may be refusing to pay after a particular period of time.' An employer, with the best of intentions, might try to support you for as long as possible, but they are under no legal obligation to do so beyond the five days statutory sick pay or in accordance with their own policy, he says. [ Plans to increase paid sick leave for workers to be stalled under Cabinet proposal Opens in new window ] Where the employee has mostly recovered and wants to return to work on a phased basis, on partial pay for example, things can go awry too, says Crushell. 'There can be a disconnect between the employer and the insurance company about the availability of an employee to work. We have encountered instances where insurance companies are not willing to pay the difference. They say their cover is based on the employee being completely incapacitated for work.' If you are off work sick for more than five days, you should apply for state illness benefit whether your employer pays you or not, says the Department of Social Protection . Illness benefit is a weekly payment of up to €244, depending on your earnings and on any adult or child dependents you may have. It's paid for a maximum of two years to those with sufficient PRSI contributions. Employers keep records on sick leave. Photograph: iStock How to prepare Serious illness is a 'black-swan event' for which you should try to prepare, says Lorraine Cooke of Jigsaw Financial solutions. It's rare and unexpected, but it can have a significant impact. 'In order of priority, I tell people to put aside emergency cash for that unforeseen event; that's a minimum of three months net salary,' says Cooke. The right insurance policy can keep a roof over heads and bills paid. She recommends taking out income protection. 'Your income is your most valuable asset and you need to ensure it's protected,' says Cooke. 'If you get a short-term or long-term illness and your income is not protected, you are going to be financially impacted.' Depending on your policy, income protection can pay up to 75 per cent of salary, less social welfare benefits, up to a maximum age of 70. The payment is treated as income for tax purposes. Some people are unaware they have cover as part of their employment contract. Cooke has seen plenty of examples of this. For those taking out cover themselves, the cost of the premium, fixed at the time you take out cover, depends on a number of factors. 'It's very much determined by your age, your health and the amount of income you are covering, when the policy is going to start to pay out and when the policy will expire,' says Cooke. The good news is that there is tax relief on income protection premiums. And if you are paying 40 per cent tax, relief is paid at this rate. Insurers will do at least a mini medical – recording height, weight and blood pressure, says Cooke. Policyholders decide their own 'deferred period' – the amount of time that must elapse before the policy starts paying out, basically how long you can get by without a salary. 'You might be paid sick leave at work for a period, you might have savings, or a partner may be working and you don't need it to kick in immediately,' says Cooke. 'The default deferred period before a claim can be made is four weeks with the longest being 52 weeks,' says Cooke. 'If you are paid by your employer at six weeks' full pay and six weeks' half-pay, for example, you might opt for a 12-week deferred period – the longer the deferred period, the cheaper the premium.' Shop around and compare quotes is her advice. Critical illness cover Critical illness cover, or specified illness cover, is paid as a tax-free lump sum in the event of a person being diagnosed with an illness specified in the policy. These include things such as heart attack, stroke, loss of limbs or sight, and cancer. If your illness falls outside those listed in the policy, cover will be useless, which is a regular bone of contention. 'The minimum amount of cover that somebody should have is two years of net salary because that's typically the rehabilitation period if someone is going through treatment or surgery,' says Cooke. Insurers can be rigid about illnesses covered and payouts. 'Carcinoma in situ of the breast is a big claim the insurance companies are seeing coming through. That is a woman having a lump in her breast that is not cancerous but it may still need to be removed with possibly chemo, but it's not essentially cancer yet,' says Cooke. 'Insurance companies were getting a lot of claims in and were declining them until they decided to include them as 'partial' payments where they will pay out, say €15,000, where something is classified as carcinoma in situ. If she went on to develop cancer, the balance of her specified illness cover would be paid out,' says Cooke. Data from Irish Life on its critical illness cover claims shows some new trends. While cancer remains the leading cause of claims by women, other health issues such as heart conditions, strokes and other serious illnesses are becoming increasingly common among women, says Martin Duffy, head of underwriting and protection claims, at Irish Life. Men accounted for 59.5 per cent of all specified illness cover claims to Irish Life last year. The top three illnesses men experienced were prostate cancer (malignant), heart attack and stroke. For women claimants, it was breast cancer (malignant), stroke and heart attack. Mental health difficulties are not regarded as a specified illness, says Cooke. They can, however, be covered under income protection policies. 'Since Covid, mental health is now the biggest claim under income protection policies,' says Cooke. 'It was musculoskeletal issues like back and neck, but the majority of claims now are actually for mental health,' she says. Being sick costs Nobody wants to pay another monthly direct debit for an insurance policy but it is worth at least game-planning how your household might manage if an earner, or the person who minds children, gets sick. A 2019 study by the Irish Cancer Society estimated the average cost to someone dealing with cancer was €756 a month, rising to more than €1,000 in some cases. The cost comprised things such as GP and consultant fees, travel, parking and hospital stays, extra heating and lighting costs, additional personal care and clothing costs, childcare costs and the loss of income, according to the survey. The average drop in the income of cancer patients was €1,527 per month, or €18,323 annually. One in three of those diagnosed changed their employment status, one in four changed their approach to work, and 45 per cent of carers' employment was affected, it found. If you are ill from work, make sure you get sick certs and give them to your employer. Photograph: iStock Return to work For those who are sick, dealing with their employer or an insurance company can add to the stress. Be diligent about providing medical certs to your employer, advises Crushell. These may be required on a weekly basis, though generally less often for long-term illness. Sometimes, an employer will take the approach of filling the employee's position with a temporary hire. The sick employee may be kept 'on the books' as an employee while not being paid. 'For employers, the least risky option is to keep the employee on the books for an indefinite duration rather than take any action that might result in a legal claim, like unfair dismissal,' says Crushell. There have been 32 cases in the Workplace Relations Commission under sick leave legislation, he says. An employee who has recovered and wants to return to work can ask for reasonable accommodation, or modification to working terms and conditions. Keep your employer appraised of events, Crushell advises. If you don't tell them how your illness affects your work and what modifications you might need, the employer is under no legal obligation to provide necessary adjustments, he says. Where an employee is no longer able to do the job for which they were hired, and no reasonable accommodation can be met, the employer is within their rights to dismiss the employee on the grounds they no longer have the capability to perform the role for which they were hired.
Telegraph
13-05-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Workers will skive off if sick pay offered from day one of illness, say Tories
Labour's plans to introduce sick pay from day one of illness will cause workers to skive, senior Tories have said. Critics of Angela Rayner's Employment Rights Bill claim the proposals will lead to soaring absenteeism. The Bill will end the current situation where new workers are not entitled to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for the first three days of a sickness – a so-called three-day waiting period. The Bill will also remove the lower earnings limit to qualify for the payment. Labour argues the existing situation can force people to work when they are unwell, leading to the spread of infection and poorer productivity for businesses. Lord Hunt of Wirral, the Tory business minister, argued the legislation brought with it 'a raft of unintended consequences'. He said: 'Absenteeism is a critical issue for many businesses especially those in hospitality, retail and other service-based industries, where staff shortages can lead to disruption, cancellations and even closures. 'With the removal of waiting days for SSP and the expansion of eligibility it is essential that all of us should understand fully how these changes are going to affect absenteeism patterns across various sectors. 'One of the sectors most concerned with the potential rise in absenteeism that these changes will cause is of course hospitality. 'The concern is that the reforms could result in workers taking sick leave when it may not be strictly necessary as the financial implications of their doing so would be mitigated by the statutory sick pay payment.' He added: 'We believe it is essential that the Government thoroughly evaluates how these statutory sick pay provisions would affect absenteeism. 'When workers can call in sick and expect SSP from day one businesses will inevitably be forced to deal with more absences at short notice.' Baroness Noakes, a fellow Conservative peer, said: 'Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. 'The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be – whether positive or negative – but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.' 'Bad for business' However, Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway, the former general secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and a Labour peer, said: 'The Covid pandemic exposed just how precarious life is for those in insecure, low-paid work, and we do not know how many preventable illnesses were caused by people struggling into work and spreading the virus because they could not afford to stay home. 'But we do know, as we have heard, that forcing people back to work when they are ill is bad for workers and bad for business, puts pressure on the NHS and is costly for the economy.' She argued SSP had failed to keep up with the cost of living or increases in the living wage. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, the business minister, said the proposed changes to sick pay would cost businesses around an extra £15 per employee, which she described as 'a relatively modest amount'. She said: 'I assure the House that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. 'Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work. 'For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor,' she added.
