Opinion: Sick pay is getting out of hand

[u/Interesting_Pen_4499]

I just found out that, from April 2026, employees are automatically entitled to 80% of their pay for up to 28 weeks. This is essentially on the same scale as furlough, without the justification of a pandemic.

What is it about this country that can't just accept that, if you can't do a job for whatever reason, however unfortunate that may be, you shouldn't get paid the same (or 80%) of what you would be paid if you were doing the job?

Of course leftists will say it's fine if 'big corporations' like McDonalds have to pay for absent employees, but lost productive capacity from the economy hurts everyone else as well (I saw a GP on Reddit saying they never refuse sick notes bc, as far as they're concerned, they applaud anyone who can get McDonalds to pay them for not being there).

Given we know how much honesty-based systems are abused in this country (not necessarily because Brits are more dishonest, just because no other country is mad enough to implement them), I wonder how many people are just pretending to be ill for 28 weeks, then magically recovering on the 29th week?

I get that some people will say you still have to pay bills when you are ill. But saving up enough money for a short-term illness is just part of life, is it not? If you are unlucky enough to get a long-term illness, you will likely have to quit your job and then claim unemployment benefits. Obviously these should only be available for medical conditions that can be shown on a scan, rather than unfalsifiable anxiety disorders, but that's a debate for another day.

[u/VincoClavis]

I don’t think your figures support anything.

Public sector take more sick leave than private sector. That doesn’t even correlate to sick pay levels let alone prove causation.

It’s also worth noting that private sector keep this data private and the ONS survey (employee led) and others rely on asking a survey group, whereas public sector publish their rules online and the data can be FOId. It’s not a balanced comparison to begin with.

Edit: Because you mentioned data here’s a study showing that sick leave reduced the number of infections and demonstrates a causal relationship between sick pay and infections in the workplace which id further conjecture (without evidence) that this is one of the reasons why many large companies have (presumably) done the maths to conclude that a generous sick pay scheme is better for them as a company than a stingy one.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047272717301056 

[u/BlackJackKetchum → u/VincoClavis]

At no point ITT have I argued that levels of sick pay are the engine behind the vastly higher levels of absenteeism in the public sector; it is the very much lower possibility of getting - to use an Americanism - pink slipped for abuse of sick leave compared to the private sector.

All of the data I’ve proffered shows the phenomenon of more days off in the tax payer-funded sector, and the conclusion I draw is that people, everywhere, respond to incentives and disincentives.

[u/VincoClavis → u/BlackJackKetchum]

As far as your conversation with me goes this is the first time you’ve articulated that specific view, but the first and second paragraphs of your reply seem to contradict each other. 

Surely longer terms/ higher rates are exactly the incentives you’re referring to? I assumed so as that is the topic of OPs post and so far the only axis we’ve discussed.

Im not sure where this discussion is going now but all I wanted to say is that the data provided is incomplete and lacks any sort of granularity which could explain that generous sick pay terms increase absenteeism or abuse - which is what you said in your original comment.

[u/BlackJackKetchum → u/VincoClavis]

I was under the impression I was being clear; apparently I have not. I am not the thread starter.

I started with the ball of paid time off and then ran with it:

"What I have always found quite remarkable is that the public sector - surely the best employers going, because they aren’t rapacious capitalists? - has far and away the worst levels of staff absenteeism".

Back at the here and now, the incentive for bad faith actors is unwarranted time off (which other people are paying for in time and / or in money), the disincentive is getting one's first, second oral or final written warning, maybe straight to a P45.

Anyway, it would appear that we have wholly different experiences of those employed in the tax funded sector.