Yahoo Finance A year's unpaid leave for carers – what do SMEs think?
SME owners share their views on Tory proposals that would give workers a statutory right to up to a year of unpaid leave to care for loved ones.
Among a slew of proposals on workers’ rights in the Conservative manifesto is a commitment to introduce a new statutory right
for employees to take up to a year of unpaid leave from work to care for loved ones.
It has faced a mixed response. Critics have argued that it places too great a burden on employers, while a year without pay might mean that workers struggle to manage on the £62.70 a week that they could qualify for in carer’s allowance.
But what do owners of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) make of the proposal?
After all, these are the employers with the smallest teams and will likely experience the greatest level of disruption.
Join the community | Share your small business story
Adrian Harvey, chief executive of training company, Elephants
Don’t Forget, manages a 15-strong team. While having few employees means that he can’t spare anyone easily, he’s broadly in favour of the proposal and believes that employers with a longer-term view on
staff retention will see the benefits outweigh the costs.
“You need to see beyond the immediate [negative] impact on your business – not granting employees time off inevitably ends up with a super stressed, under-performing individual and an increasingly resentful relationship with other colleagues, who are taking the strain,” says Mr Harvey.
Other business owners think that while the care leave promise is potentially viable, it lacks vital detail. “In principle, this isn’t problematic,” explains Tom Davenport, co-founder of tech start-up, Talent Pool. “But as ever, it’s all about the details, which are not included in the manifesto.”
Mr Davenport’s chief concern is the notice period within which employers will be expected to respond to such requests – he suggests that a month is a reasonable time to ensure vital business continuity planning.
His other concern is how, were the need more urgent, business and employee could manage financially.
“If the requirement for leave were urgent – such as when a family member is taken ill suddenly – then I would suggest that the Government step in with an allowance: perhaps half of the individual’s salary, for a reasonable period, to assist the business,” he suggests.
Mr Davenport does believe that allowing an extended period of leave may in fact be better for employee and employer alike, if managed effectively. It’s a view echoed by Sarah Dowzell, chief operating officer at Natural HR. “[The proposal] could actually minimise disruption to the business,” she says, noting that employees and managers find planned, rather than ad-hoc, absences less stressful.
But businesses can only reap the potential benefits of continuity planning if there’s a limit on the minimum time spent away from work and the gap between periods of leave, thinks Mr Davenport:
“A series of short periods of leave would be much more damaging than a longer, fixed period.”
And as many employers know, workers’ lives don’t fit into a tidy timetable; sickness often hits teammates simultaneously and the same is often true for relatives.
Mr Harvey is concerned about the impact of two or three of his small team needing concurrent long periods of absence. “That will be
hard [to manage], but I would like to think that the loyalty this will engender from the employees will be worth the pain.
"We cope with maternity, so we will cope with this,” he says.
Mr Davenport also suggests that any proposal for unpaid leave ought to draw on the lessons of Ireland, France and Germany, which have similar statutory rights.
“In Ireland, the entitlement of 104 weeks doesn’t have to be taken in one continuous period,” he explains. “But any gaps must be of
at least six weeks, and requests for less than 13 weeks off may be turned down on 'reasonable grounds’ – this feels pretty sensible.”
