NextFin News - Germany’s coalition government has triggered a row by backing a plan that would let employers require a doctor’s note from the first day of illness and end the pandemic-era option to obtain the certificate by phone. Chancellor Friedrich Merz says the move is needed to confront what he calls excessive sick leave and restore competitiveness, while doctors, labour groups and parts of his own coalition warn that it could increase pressure on patients and clinics without proving that it will reduce absenteeism.
The dispute matters because it is not just about paperwork. The sick-note change sits inside a broader reform package unveiled by Merz and his coalition partners, which also includes tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, changes to pensions and a push to reduce bureaucracy. Germany is Europe’s largest economy, and the political message from Berlin is that the country’s weak growth cannot be fixed without making work, hiring and investment less cumbersome. The immediate problem is that the plan also exposes friction inside the coalition and draws a sharp line between the government’s pro-business argument and the Social Democrats’ caution.
Under current rules, German workers generally need a medical certificate only after more than three days of sickness, meaning on the fourth day, though employers can ask for one earlier. The coalition’s plan would lower that threshold to the first day for all workers and end the ability to call in and get the note by phone, reversing a pandemic-era practice that was introduced to reduce infection risk and avoid unnecessary visits to doctors.
That is a meaningful change because it shifts the cost of short-term illness from an informal, relatively flexible system to a more formal and monitored one. For employers, the appeal is obvious: a first-day certificate may deter abuse and make absenteeism easier to police. For workers, it means a lower threshold for scrutiny and a greater chance that a brief illness turns into a doctor’s appointment and an administrative headache.
Merz defended the plan by saying the country could no longer accept what he called high levels of sick leave. He said Germany was returning to the arrangement that existed before the coronavirus pandemic, though he also said individual companies would still be free to agree different arrangements. Labour Minister Bärbel Bas, by contrast, said she would examine the requirement and stressed that it was not her proposal, a reminder that the coalition is not speaking with one voice even on a policy framed as an economic discipline measure.
The political sensitivity comes from the balance of symbolism and substance. The government wants to present the plan as a practical response to a competitiveness problem, but the public debate has quickly become a proxy battle over trust, work culture and the role of the state in ordinary absence. A stricter note requirement is easy to announce and easy to understand. It is much harder to prove that it meaningfully improves output or reduces genuine illness.
Jens Spahn, the CDU’s parliamentary leader, said Germany has one of the highest numbers of sick days in Europe, putting the figure at around 18 per employee a year. Merz has also argued that the country is suffering a competitive disadvantage from long periods of absence. Those claims help explain the political momentum behind the change, but they do not by themselves establish that a first-day certificate will solve the underlying problem.
“The number of sick days in Germany is too high,” said Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
That is the heart of the policy case: the government believes the visible burden of absence is large enough to justify making the system tougher from day one. But a high sick-day total can reflect many different things, from an ageing workforce and chronic conditions to stress, reporting habits and the after-effects of the pandemic. A first-day note may change behaviour around reporting, yet it does not necessarily reduce the underlying burden of illness.
That distinction matters because the coalition is trying to frame the change as part of a broader effort to revive growth. If the problem is mainly lost output, then a stricter note rule looks like a productivity measure. If the problem is primarily health-related, then the same rule risks becoming a bureaucratic response to a medical issue. The disagreement is not semantic; it goes to whether the government is treating a symptom or a cause.
What The Coalition Is Changing
The proposed reform changes the balance between employee, employer and doctor from the first day of sickness. Under the current system, the note usually becomes mandatory only after several days, though employers can request it earlier. Under the proposed rule, employers would be able to ask for a certificate immediately, and workers would no longer be able to obtain it by phone.
That is why the plan has drawn such a strong reaction. It is not simply a tightening of an existing rule; it is a reversal of a temporary pandemic-era flexibility that has become part of ordinary working life. In practice, the proposal would make even short illnesses more visible to employers and more dependent on a doctor’s time.
The government argues that this is a return to normality. Critics see it as a shift from trust toward surveillance. The difference is especially important in a labour market where employers already have some discretion to demand documentation earlier if they think it is necessary. The new plan would make that logic universal rather than selective.
The coalition’s internal politics add another layer of uncertainty. The plan was agreed by Merz’s Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats, but Merz has pushed the line more aggressively than some of his partners. Bas’s response suggests that the SPD is not fully comfortable with the optics or the practical effects. That does not mean the plan will be abandoned, but it does mean the final shape could still change as the government tests the reaction from businesses, doctors and voters.
“This is a tough decision,” Merz said. “But we can no longer afford this competitive disadvantage caused by long periods of absence from work.”
That statement captures the government’s central argument: competitiveness now requires more friction in the sick-leave system. Yet the coalition still has to show that the benefit will be larger than the cost. If the new rule merely shifts pressure onto clinics and employees without materially improving attendance, the policy could become a politically expensive symbol of action rather than a durable reform.
There is also a practical question that the government has not fully answered. If workers can no longer get a note by phone, a first-day certificate means more in-person medical demand at the exact moment someone falls ill. That may be manageable for some cases, but it is awkward for short, self-limiting infections and can be especially burdensome when practices are busy. The burden does not disappear; it is redistributed.
Why The Row Is Bigger Than A Sick Note
The row is bigger because it reflects the deeper challenge facing Germany’s economy. The same coalition that is arguing over sick leave is also trying to show that it can lower taxes, modernise pensions and reduce bureaucracy. Taken together, those measures amount to a statement that Germany’s competitiveness problem is not one dramatic shock but a pile-up of small frictions that make the economy slower and more expensive to run.
There is logic to that diagnosis. Germany has spent years wrestling with weak growth, slow investment and complaints about administrative drag. From that perspective, the sick-note plan is part of a wider attempt to change the culture of work and signal to employers that the state will back more discipline. For manufacturers and exporters, the message is simple: Berlin wants fewer excuses and more output.
But the same logic carries a risk. Policies that are designed to look tough can sometimes have the opposite economic effect if they reduce trust or increase administrative load. In a tight labour market, workers who feel monitored from the first day of illness may be less willing to see the policy as a productivity fix and more likely to see it as a sign that the government is sceptical of ordinary absences.
That is why the medical criticism matters. Doctors’ groups have warned that a first-day note could create more bureaucracy rather than less. If every short illness requires documentation, clinics absorb the administrative burden that employers are trying to push away. The question then becomes whether the gain in discipline is worth the loss in convenience and trust.
There is also a timing issue. Germany is trying to sell a broader revival agenda, but public attention often locks onto the most visible and contentious rule. The tax and pension measures may matter more over time, yet the sick-note debate is the part of the package that people will feel immediately. That makes it a useful political signal and a risky practical move at the same time.
The broader implication is that Berlin is choosing a familiar path: address the symptoms of economic malaise with rules that are easy to communicate and hard to test quickly. That can work if the public believes the government is serious and if the reform package starts to improve sentiment. It can fail if the economy stays sluggish and the sick-note row becomes proof that ministers are taking a hard line on workers without solving the underlying growth problem.
What Happens Next
The next step is for the coalition to turn the political announcement into workable rules. Bas has signalled that the government still needs to examine whether the new requirement actually works or whether it creates more difficulties, which means implementation details remain open. Businesses may also push for exceptions or alternative arrangements if they think the new rule is too blunt for day-to-day operations.
The bigger test is whether this looks like part of a coherent pro-growth strategy or just a one-off crackdown on absenteeism. If the wider reform agenda starts to improve confidence, the sick-note dispute may fade into the background. If growth remains weak, the rule is likely to be remembered as a flashpoint in the argument over whether Germany’s problem is too much illness or too little trust.
For now, the coalition has chosen a politically easy target and a socially difficult tool. It wants to look tougher on absenteeism while insisting that the broader economic reset is still under way. The risk is that workers and employers will judge the message long before the policy delivers any measurable gain.
In the end, the row is not really about one doctor’s note. It is about whether Germany thinks its competitiveness problem is being held back by too much sickness, or by too little confidence in its own workers.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
