In the future, sick employees should be able to work part-time if they are unable to work for at least four weeks. The federal government recently passed this regulation in a draft law as part of the health care reform. The possibility of part-time sick leave has been on the table for a long time. At the beginning of 2025, the Federal Government’s “Expert Council on Health and Resilience” formulated a much-discussed proposal on this matter.
Sharp criticism of the regulation was voiced again and again. Most recently, this also came from Andreas Gassen, head of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians (KBV), who saw the procedure as unsustainable for doctors and as an additional bureaucratic effort. How does the HR scene and WHM experts view part-time sick leave?
At the end of March, the part-time AU was already discussed at the DAK’s WHM expert dialogue in Berlin. During the panel discussion, Dr. David Matusiewicz sees the concept as fundamentally sensible. Matusiewicz is professor of medical management at the FOM University and head of the research institute for health and social affairs there as well as managing director of the DMX Group. Today he describes the decision to our editorial team as a “fundamental paradigm shift in German labor and social law” that certainly offers opportunities from both an HR and WHM perspective.
The advantages of part-time sick leave
“It can help make reintegration easier, keep employees cautious in the work process and reduce absenteeism,” says Matusiewicz. Especially in the case of minor illnesses or longer recovery phases, this would be more in line with operational reality than the current regulation.
Aude Masserann is a consultant for personnel development and employee retention for the S-Finanzgruppe and a member of the executive board of the “Association of Human Resources Managers” (BPM). She also sees a possible earlier return to work after illness as a sensible step towards more flexibility and personal responsibility in working life. What is important, however, is that the decision to take part-time sick leave in each case is made jointly by those affected, the doctors and the employer.
Bastian Schmidtbleicher-Lück, managing director of the BGM service provider Moove (proper spelling MOOVE), sees it similarly. He has long been in favor of introducing part-time AU and considers the decision to be correct and overdue: “Partial incapacity to work takes up an idea that we already know from gradual reintegration – just much earlier than in the classic BEM (company integration management, editor’s note).”
He points out the numerous cases in which completely leaving work is not the best solution, either medically or organizationally. “Particularly in the case of mental illnesses, measured participation can have a stabilizing and health-promoting effect.” Even with physical limitations, it often makes more sense to continue working in an adapted manner rather than completely removing people from the operational context.
Part-time sick leave: additional pressure and additional effort?
However, there are also risks. Matusiewicz points out that presenteeism could increase as a result of the new model. The regulation could also create pressure situations in performance-oriented work environments. Aude Masserann from BPM is optimistic here: “We do not share the fear that this could be to the detriment of employees: HR managers already have a high level of responsibility in company health management and will act with the necessary care.”
For Schmidtbleicher-Lück, everything depends on implementation that also preserves the operational perspective. “For managers, human resources departments and payroll, part-time AU means a massive increase in complexity: more coordination, more documentation, more questions of interpretation, more interfaces between employers, employees, health insurance companies and doctors. It is precisely this additional administrative effort that has so far been significantly underestimated politically.” Masserann also sees some open questions that need to be clarified, especially when it comes to the specific design of processes, responsibilities and boundaries.
The goal of part-time sick leave must be well communicated
How can companies best implement the regulation? Christian Lorenz, Managing Director of the German Society for Personnel Management (DGFP), advises the principle of double voluntariness: “Both employees and employers must agree – a one-sided claim must not arise from this so that the simplest possible implementation in practice is guaranteed.”
Schmidtbleicher-Lück sees the risk that the regulation only seems flexible in theory, but is not so in its implementation. “If partial ability to work is actually associated with financial disadvantages or with the impression that one should be able to function more quickly despite illness, then there will be defensive behavior.” In the worst case, the part-time AU could be perceived as an imposition if its logic is not clearly explained, fairly designed and culturally embedded. Schmidtbleicher-Lück sees managers primarily as responsible here.
The focus, says Lorenz, must always be on the complete and quickest possible recovery of employees. Matusiewicz and Masserann both also point out potential health consequences caused by exposure that is too early or too high, which could have an impact on operational practice. And then of course: Part-time sick leave is not the solution to reducing sick leave. “It is clear that part-time work can only be a partial solution to high levels of sick leave. The causes are complex and multi-layered,” says Christian Lorenz.
Angela Heider-Willms is responsible for reporting on the topics of transformation, change management and leadership. She also deals with the topic of diversity.
