Three in four employees would need to make cutbacks within a month if they had to rely on Statutory Sick Pay, research from Legal & General has found.
The poll found almost half of employees – 49 per cent – thought they would only last two weeks without having to make cutbacks if their salary was replaced with SSP, while 76 per cent would last less than a month. The survey found 19 per cent of employees did not know whether their employer paid additional sick pay on top of SSP, which currently sits at £88.45 per week where an employee has been off work sick for four or more days in a row, including non-working days, payable for up to 28 weeks.
The research surveyed 2000 full-time employees and 200 managing directors or HR managers from a range of different sized companies.
Statutory Sick Pay is paid by an employer to a qualifying employee. Some employers offer additional sick pay but most do not, highlighting the need for employees to fully understand where they would stand should they be unable to work.
Legal & General Workplace Health and Protection managing director Martin Noone says: “Many employees don’t realise the impact a long-term absence from work, lasting over four weeks, could have on their finances.
“Our research highlights the need to raise awareness amongst employers and employees of this issue and the role that group income protection can play in providing a solution. It typically costs less than 1 per cent of payroll yet most employers, and employees, think it costs a lot more.”
