HR for HR: How will the ERA statutory sick pay changes affect short-term work absences?

In April, the Employment Rights Act 2025 (ERA) introduced significant changes to statutory sick pay (SSP) eligibility. How will these reforms influence employee attitudes to taking sick leave, and how can organisations adapt their processes and culture to achieve the best results? Caroline Green asked HR professionals to share their insights.

While the Government has framed its SSP changes around providing financial protection for workers who need it most and reducing presenteeism, the practical impact of the legislative reforms is likely to depend heavily on organisational context, existing occupational sick pay arrangements and workplace culture.

Reducing presenteeism

A key aim of the policy is to reduce presenteeism by removing the initial "waiting period" so that SSP is now payable from the first, rather than the fourth, day of sickness.

In some workplaces where SSP is the only form of sick pay, employees have historically faced three days of unpaid absence at the start of a sickness episode. In HR practice, this is often viewed as one of several factors that can influence decisions about whether to take time off, particularly in lower-paid roles. Removing the waiting period reduces this initial financial gap and may make short periods of absence more straightforward for employees to take.

Support for the intent, but doubts about impact

There is broad HR support for the principle that employees should not feel pressured to attend work when unwell. However, there is less certainty about whether the level of SSP is sufficient to meaningfully influence behaviour in practice.

Questions are therefore being raised about how much difference "day one" access will make in real financial terms.

Tracey Salisbury, an independent HR consultant, notes: "In reality the additional three days of SSP are unlikely to make absence affordable for most people."

This reflects a structural issue in the policy design: removing the waiting period improves access but does not materially increase income replacement. For many employees, SSP still represents a significant drop in earnings, limiting how far financial behaviour is likely to shift. However, for those in the lowest-paid roles, as Tracey notes: "By the time you factor in transport costs to work, lunch, etc - financially there will be no detriment to being off sick. This might result in increased absence levels, more management required to keep on top of this and potentially impact on businesses in a negative sense."

Short-term absence vs reduced presenteeism: Competing effects

Another key uncertainty is whether the policy will reduce workplace attendance during illness or simply increase recorded short-term absence.

Some HR practitioners anticipate a modest reduction in presenteeism and sharing of germs, particularly for short-duration illness episodes where employees previously felt pressure to "push through".

Melanie Folkes-Mayers, director of an HR consultancy, comments: "I think for the majority of employers, SSP changes should mean that staff are off for less time (as they don't wait for SSP to kick in) and those who couldn't afford to be off keep their germs at home."

This aligns with the Government's view that earlier intervention means less prolonged illness and reduced workplace transmission.

However, others expect the opposite dynamic. Shona Hamilton, founder and CEO of an HR consultancy, takes a more sceptical view: "I don't think the SSP changes will have the desired effect of helping people to come back to work sooner or reduce transmission of germs at work. I think the reality is that employees will be quicker to take time off, resulting in higher short-term absence rates and increased costs and time lost for employers."

This highlights a key HR concern: once the immediate financial penalty is removed, short-term absence may become easier to take, may be more appealing even when workers are not genuinely ill and may increase short-term absences. 

The role of culture and absence management

Changes to SSP are unlikely to have a significant behavioural impact in organisations that already have strong workplace cultures built on trust, honesty and responsible use of sickness absence. In these environments, employees generally feel able to take time off when genuinely unwell, while also understanding the expectation not to misuse absence policies.

Where organisations have robust absence management processes in place, including clear policies, consistent monitoring and return-to-work sickness interviews, there is typically already a strong framework that discourages misuse of sickness absence and supports fair, consistent decision-making. In such settings, legislative changes tend to have a more limited effect on day-to-day behaviour.

As Melanie highlights: "The challenge is for those [organisations] who have habitual Friday/Monday sicknesses. They will need to ensure their sickness policies are tightly adhered to and sick days are properly monitored."

Overall, the extent of any impact is less about the legislation itself and more about the existing organisational culture and how consistently absence policies are applied in practice.

Uneven impact across the labour market

One of the most significant features of the change is likely to be its uneven impact across organisations.

Large employers, particularly those with occupational sick pay schemes that exceed statutory requirements, may see little operational change. In many of these organisations, SSP functions as a compliance baseline rather than the main driver of absence behaviour. As one HR professional from the public sector also explained: "In my business we pay contractual sick pay from day one, so it won't have much impact, but I think absence rates will increase in some businesses, encouraging staff to be off longer."

Smaller employers seem to be more exposed. For them, even short absences can create immediate operational pressure, and the removal of waiting days may increase both direct cost exposure and indirect disruption.

As one HR practitioner noted: "For many larger corporates this will make no difference as they pay more than SSP. For smaller companies it will increase costs. I don't see this having the required impact."

This divergence is important: the policy is uniform, but the organisational impact is not.

Practical implications for HR

For HR functions, policies will need reviewing to ensure alignment with the new statutory framework, but the greater challenge lies in management consistency. Line manager capability in handling absence conversations, applying triggers fairly and distinguishing patterns of behaviour will become more important if short-term absence increases even marginally.

There is also a cultural dimension. Organisations will need to avoid sending mixed messages: encouraging wellbeing-based absence while maintaining expectations around attendance and accountability.

The balance between trust and control becomes more visible under a system where financial deterrents are reduced.

Ultimately, the introduction of day-one SSP is unlikely to be a standalone driver of major behavioural change. Its impact will be filtered through existing occupational sick pay arrangements, organisational culture and the strength of absence management practices already in place. For some employers it may slightly reduce presenteeism, while for others it may simply shift when and how short-term absence is taken. The most significant determinant of outcomes is therefore not the legislation itself, but how consistently organisations set expectations, support employee wellbeing and manage absence in practice.