Sick pay options an ill-omen says RHA
Page 3
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
E GOVERNMENT's latest proposals for compensating employers der the proposed statutory sick-pay scheme (CM, September 19) ie been given a big thumbs down by the Road Haulage Associan.
ronically, the RHA's cornints, along with those from ier employers' organisations the trades unions, will be long the first matters to be isidered by Social Services cretary Norman Fowler since moved from the Department Transport.
The Government's latest )posals centre on two options, awn to the Department of alth and Social Security as opns three and four, as earlier Dices met with industry's unim disapproval.
Dption three involves the selfduction by employers from ntribution remittances of 50 r cent of the statutory £37 sick y actually dispersed, and a ,neral reduction in the ondary Class 1 contribution e of one third of one per cent. Jnder this proposal, cornflies with a higher than avere level of sick payments )uld receive compensation )ich reflected this, but it would ;o place a greater administrae burden on the employer to would have to calculate the :es of pay involved.
Dption four would reduce the nployer's 13,7 per cent condary Class 1 National Inranee rate by 13.2 per cent, d firms in certain industrial ctors with a high sickness cord would be entitled to a -ther reduction to 12.8 per nt.
The additional reduction auld go to such industries as ining, quarrying, shipbuilding, igineering, and construction, id small businesses — those nployirig up to nine earning JNIOR Transport Minister Kenath Clarke will make the lening address at next week's W Fleet Management Conferice in London, in place of Noran Fowler.
Transport Secretary David well has other engagements xt Thursday, but Mr Clarke, ho has occupied the junior nition since the Government ,ok office in May 1979, has reed to stand in.
the average wage for full-time males — would also qualify.
According to the DHSS, this scheme is easier to administer than option three. Employers would receive and operate contributory tables as now, and the scope for error and abuse is small, as the tables could be checked against end of year returns to the Inland Revenue.
The principal difficulty with option four, according to the DHSS consultation document, lies in devising a satisfactory system of classifying which employers would qualify for the additional 0.4 per cent reduction.
The RHA has highlighted this problem in its response. Industrial relations officer Doug Taylor told CM that many anomalies could arise in the case of a general haulier serving a diverse range of industries.
"If a haulier is working for the coal or steel industry, would its drivers come in-scope for the extra 0.4 per cent? National Coal Board drivers might, but hire or reward drivers on the same site might not," he argued.
He added that a haulier with some drivers working on a dangerous site, and others carrying pillows, could have problems in assessing the correct entitlement, and this could become an even greater difficulty if the same driver was required to undertake mixed duties.
Mr Taylor said the RHA's view was that the proposals would merely transfer Government costs on to the private sector. "Our members' job is to create wealth, and not to administer a social security service," he added.
A DHSS spokesman said that it would be up to each employer to apply for the additional 0.4 per cent, and the DHSS would then decide whether it fell wholly or mainly in the eligible sector.