Christmas PC gone mad!
December 8, 2009
It’s that time of year again where some HR departments start to get a bit twitchy about the forthcoming celebrations around our most widely and loudly celebrated festival – Christmas. Not only are we worrying about what behaviour will happen at the Christmas party (actually I’m more worried about the fact that we are having Karaoke at ours this year!), but in the last few years many organisations have taken the bizarre step of actually banning Christmas in their organisations, for fear of offending any non-Christians!
So, we all have time off at the same time, but we’re not allowed to celebrate the reason for it. A huge amount of our workforce celebrate Christmas, but they’re not allowed to be happy about that in the weeks leading up to the festival – what is happening? I think it all started a few years ago when a few local authorities (wouldn’t you know it) started to ban the sending of Christmas cards within the workplace, would not allow a sniff of tinsel in the office, and did not organise a Christmas party. There was a frankly ludicrous survey carried out in 2006 that claimed that 74% of employers had banned Christmas decorations (if this was true then there are far too many HR practitioners out there that are afraid of legislation).
There is nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas in the workplace, as long as it is recognised that not everyone celebrates it, that there are other religious festivals throughout the year, and that people of different faiths are recognised in their beliefs and are similarly allowed to celebrate their festivals if they want to. Most non-Christians will not be offended by their colleagues celebrating Christmas and will probably be pleased to receive Christmas cards with wishes for a happy holiday period, as even though they will not hold festivities, they will still be spending the Christmas break with their families and catching up on much needed rest. Some small things to consider are that some employees may not wish to attend the Christmas party, and should not be treated any differently if this is the case, also it is a good idea to avoid important sessions such as company updates or team building activities at Christmas events if there are employees that will not be attending for religious reasons. Apart from that, I really don’t see what the fuss is all about, and if we stop letting people celebrate the annual festivities of all the religious and other festivals, then the workplace would become a very dull place indeed.
Would a foreign name put you off?
October 21, 2009
Fascinating Government research has found that many employers are put off applicants with names that don’t sound British, and that people with foreign-sounding names are less likely to secure a job than someone with a traditional British name.
The Department for Work and Pensions carried out research by sending 3,000 fake job applications to employers, with three different names: Nazia Mahmood, Mariam Namagembe and Alison Taylor. All the false applicants had similar backgrounds and qualifications, and were all educated in the UK. The Asian and African named applicants had to apply for 16 jobs on average before getting an interview, but Alison Taylor was given an interview after nine applications.
The worrying results indicate that racial discrimination in employment is still common in UK organisations, more than thirty years after the Race Relations Act was created to try to stop it. It begs the question is the Equality Bill, that the Government is promoting as the magical answer to all of our equality problems, actually going to do more to solve these issues? Jim Knight, minister for employment and welfare reform thinks so:
“We are determined to stop this scourge on society - the equality bill will strengthen our hand and we are already preparing to publish specific plans for dealing with discrimination in the workplace later this year.”
The results suggested that using standard application forms rather than other forms of application, may be more likely to avoid discrimination, as applicants for public sector vacancies were not subject to the same ‘foreign name’ discrimination. Most public sector application forms actually detach the personal details and equality monitoring pages before the application is sent for short listing. However this process is not always possible in the private sector – public sector vacancies are renowned for taking many weeks and even months to be processed, but in my organisation the effect of this kind of time period would be disastrous. In fast paced commercial environments, candidates for roles need to be found efficiently, and in many industries, the need to fill out complicated forms would put a lot of applicants off. In these organisations it is interventions such as equality and diversity training for those involved in selection processes that will have a better impact on reducing discrimination whilst maintaining high volume, high pace recruitment practices.
New report highlights continuing gender pay gap
September 7, 2009
A new report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has highlighted the ‘shocking disparity’ in the way reward is applied between men and women in the financial sector. EHRC carried out an inquiry on 50 leading companies in the City and found that the gender pay gap is a shocking 47% in the sector, taking both bonuses and salaries into account. The national average pay gap between men and women is 17%.
The chair of the EHRC, Trevor Phillips, has commented on the findings by demanding that the sector addresses this issue. Phillips was formerly the head of the Commission for Racial Equality and has come under attack from a number of commissioners for his leadership skills and style since taking the helm of the newly formed EHRC, which requires him to lead on equality in age, gender, religion and belief, sexual orientation, disability and human rights as well as race.
A key reason for the pay gap in the financial sector could be the age profile of its workers – with most employees in the City at an age where women are most likely to have childcare needs. Campaigners for gender equality have highlighted the need to support parents with childcare initiatives and other measures that will encourage women to continue to work and support their progression in their careers. The Government has highlighted that the Equality Bill will continue to highlight these issues with the introduction of compulsory gender pay gap reporting, which will be introduced within large (bigger than 250 employees) organisations initially.
Would additional paternity leave be such a burden for companies?
March 16, 2009
This time last year I wrote about proposals to revolutionise parental leave rights so that fathers would be entitled to take up to 6 months paid additional paternity leave (APL) instead of the mother taking additional maternity leave (Maternity Leave for Men! 25th March 08). I think this legislation is a really important step in family-friendly rights as well as helping to create more equality for women; through the destruction of the myth that employing women will cause later employment problems when they get pregnant and take loads of time off (see Alan Sugar’s famous comments from last year).
Lord Mandelson’s call to postpone any new legislative changes to avoid any further financial burden on companies in the recession means that although this change was due to be introduced by the end of the current parliament, it looks like it might not happen at all or for a long time if Lord Mandelson’s recommendation is adopted.
I’ve just been reading an article in which the pros and cons of introducing the change are examined, and I may be being naive, but some of the comments about why it would be difficult to manage the new laws in organisations seem a little unreasonable if not completely unfounded.
The first difficulty raised in the article is the need to gain confirmation from the mother’s employer that she is returning to work at the end of ordinary maternity leave so that the father can take over the allocated additional leave, and perhaps this would add another level of administration; but would it be that much more that it justifies not having the provision at all? Surely it’s a matter of a few template letters and forms that are sent out by a certain date, and if the other employer does not confirm within a scheduled timescale (an appropriate amount of time to enable the employer to arrange cover for the father), then the father simply cannot take the leave?
Another argument is that it is likely that people taking paternity leave will take a shorter period that women generally take for maternity leave, which will be harder to find cover for. How is this any different to when people suddenly go off sick for a couple of months; which comes with no warning? Companies manage to cope with this; normally with temporary secondments and other short term cover arrangements, which can actually be really good for the development of other staff if handled well. Again, whilst this may be tricky, I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that even small companies cannot be creative enough to cope.
I think the most strange comment in the article I was reading was from a (male) HR consultant who said:
“No one is suggesting people don’t take paternity leave, but APL just adds to the weight of the problem. A specialist role could mean knowledge of the company is really important, so just having one person missing can be absolutely critical, and very often complete projects grind to a halt.”
Hmm… doesn’t that apply equally to having one woman missing when she takes maternity leave? The comment above implied that it is only men that hold ‘specialist’ or ‘critical’ positions, and therefore companies that manage to find cover for women would not be able to do so for men. This simply confirms to me the reason we need to be giving men the same parental leave opportunities that women have; so that women can prove they can and have been managing the same career opportunities as men. The more fathers that take additional leave, giving their partners the chance to return to their career; the more women will break the glass ceiling and move into more senior roles, which will lead to even more fathers taking APL because their partners will be the higher earners. And that’s really what this legislation is all about; giving families flexibility to manage their work patterns in the most financially beneficial way, although it stretches way beyond that into equal opportunities and diversity in the workplace as well.
I’m open to alternative arguments on this subject; if you think that changing the law to allow APL will be a nightmare for organisations, get in touch with your views.
Interview bugbears
February 12, 2009
This week I spent the whole of one day interviewing candidates for a new position. The structured interview is still one of the most common methods used by organisations in recruitment and selection, and having experienced a range of different responses from interviewees, I thought I would put together my top three interview bugbears:
- When the candidate hasn’t bothered to do any research at all on the company. My first question is usually ‘what do you know about the company?’ and one of the candidates this week said that she had not been able to find out anything because the link to our website that was sent in her invitation email did not work. She had apparently not thought to find another way to get onto the site such as typing the url into the address bar, or Googling the company name. After the interview myself and the other panel members all agreed that it was pretty much game over at that point, but of course we gave the candidate a full and proper interview, which felt like a waste of time!
- When the candidate cannot answer succinctly. Have you ever been in an interview where the candidate tells gives you a sufficient, and sometimes event brilliant answer to a question in a few minutes, yet they continue to ramble on and on for a long time, with no additional benefit to the interview. I know it’s easy to ramble when you’re nervous, but it’s good skill to be able to give a full and relevant answer without having to talk for ten minutes, and it puts me off if the candidate cannot realise when they have talked too much. Also, I feel that the best interviews are more like two way conversations, so it’s good for the interviewer to be able to speak occasionally, but with ramblers you can’t often get a word in edgeways.
- When a candidate is late but doesn’t apologise. There’s nothing worse than rudeness, and whilst I understand that there are sometimes uncontrollable circumstances that lead to lateness, if you don’t even acknowledge this then you’re on a path to rejection with immediate effect. If a candidate is going to be late then they should call and ensure the interviewer is aware of this and the reason as soon as possible. If the role is a client facing job, then this is especially important because their behaviour in attending the interview is indicative of their potential behaviour with a client.
So if you’re going to an interview in the near future, the above points are general no-no’s if you want to have a chance at getting the job. If you’ve recently been interviewing, let me know what your biggest bugbears are.
Retirement procedures (2)
February 11, 2009
Yesterday’s article looked at the first two parts of the statutory retirement procedures (part of the Age Discrimination Regulations 2006): which were 1) giving notice of retirement and 2) the right to request to work beyond retirement age. Here is an explanation of the final stages of the statutory retirement procedures:
Considering the request:
The duty to consider the request should basically follow the statutory dispute resolution procedures (which are due to change in April this year). A meeting should be arranged to discuss the request, (unless the employer immediately grants the request) followed by the employer’s decision and the employee’s right to appeal the decision. As with disciplinary and grievance procedures, individual companies’ retirement policies may state time limits within which meetings will be arranged and decisions given, or may simply state ‘within reasonable time’. The employee has the right to be accompanied by a colleague or trade union official at the meeting.
Further requests:
If a later retirement date is agreed, the company needs to go through the correct procedure again to automatically dismiss the employee at their new retirement date (i.e. at least six months notice) unless they have agreed an extension of six months or less. If the employee then wants to work beyond that date, they must go through the whole process again with a request to work beyond the agreed retirement age. This would be treated as a completely different request.
Procedural fairness:
As with other statutory procedures; failure to follow any parts of the above rules could lead to a ruling of automatically unfair dismissal in an Employment Tribunal. It is therefore in employers’ interests to know and understand their responsibilities under the legislation. As I always say, the best thing to do when dealing with a retirement is to consult your employment law advisor or ACAS in plenty of time.
Retirement procedures (1)
February 10, 2009
Yesterday I explained the background and implications of the Heyday case on the default retirement age in the UK. At the moment the Age Discrimination Regulations (2006) still apply, which means that a mandatory retirement age of 65 can still be used and it is lawful to dismiss for reason of retirement after 65, as long as the statutory procedure is followed. Here is an explanation of the current procedure:
Notice of a planned retirement:
The employee needs to be given at least 6 months notice of the intended retirement date – which will be after they have reached the age of 65. It is important to note that if an employee has a longer notice period in their contract of employment (unlikely but possible) then they will be entitled to the longer notice period as you are giving them notice of the termination of their employment.
Requests to work beyond retirement age:
The employee has a right to request to work beyond the intended retirement age, and the employer has a duty to consider this request. When an employer gives notice of the intended date of retirement, they must also inform the employee of their right to request to work longer. The employee should put this request in writing and should indicate whether they would like to continue working indefinitely or until a specified date.
Tomorrow’s article will continue to look at the statutory retirement procedures.
Heyday and the mandatory retirement age
February 9, 2009
If you work in HR or are an employer, you will probably have heard about the famous case relating to the default UK retirement age that has been made by Heyday, which is part of the charitable organisation Age Concern. Here is an explanation of the background to the case, and where it leaves UK employers at the moment:
What is the basis for the case?
The case was brought by Heyday to the High Court, to challenge the mandatory retirement age of 65 that the UK currently has. The mandatory retirement age forms part of the age discrimination regulations that came into force in October 2006, and means that at the moment employers can legally dismiss employees over the age of 65 by reason of retirement (without any other justification), as long as they follow the correct procedure. The mandatory retirement age is due to be reviewed in 2011 but the case brought by Heyday is bringing the question of whether this aspect of the UK law complies with the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (EU Law) forward. The question is to do with the interpretation of the European Directive – and Heyday is arguing that the Directive has been incorrectly interpreted by the UK government when the age discrimination regulations were implemented. Heyday argues that it is against the principle of age discrimination to allow employers to dismiss employees simply because of their age.
What has happened so far?
In July 2008 the High Court referred the question of whether the mandatory retirement age is lawful to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In September 2008 the Advocate-General, who is responsible for making recommendations to the ECJ on these sorts of rulings, gave his opinion, and it was not good news for Heyday. The Advocate-General said that whilst he agreed that the retirement provisions as stated in the UK age discrimination regulations do fall under the Equal Treatment Framework, he did not think that the Directive prevents EU states from introducing a mandatory retirement age. Whilst this is not a binding decision, around 80% of past ECJ decisions have gone the same way as the Advocate-General, so it is quite a telling opinion. The ECJ is due to make its decision this year, and there are around 260 cases in the UK that are waiting for the outcome before they can be decided.
What should employers do for the time being?
At the moment, employers can still dismiss employees after the age of 65 by reason of retirement, as long as they follow the statutory procedure and as long as they are a private sector company. The rules relating to public sector employers are different and they cannot necessarily automatically dismiss by reason of redundancy after the age of 65. This is because of the principle of ‘direct effect’ which means that EU rulings apply directly to the public sector, whereas the private sector continues to rely on UK regulations until they are changed or removed. So if the ECJ finds the UK regulations are incompatible with the Directive, public sector employers will have to immediately change their procedures. Employers need to keep their eye out for the ruling as this may affect their policies and procedures if it means a change to the UK regulations.
British jobs for British workers: is ‘protectionism’ valid?
February 5, 2009
You’d have to have been living in a cave somewhere in the middle of nowhere to have not heard this week’s big news story. This is about the widespread industrial action that has taken place in a row over Italian workers being imported to work on a contracted job at a Total oil refinery in Lincolnshire.
The dispute occurred because a contract at the Lindsey Oil Refinery was awarded to IREM; an Italian Company, who gained an agreement that they could bring in their own workers from Italy and Portugal to carry out the work. British workers and their unions were dissatisfied with this because they feel that British workers are being denied work; as many jobs like this are being given to foreign workers instead. Of course, the recession has exacerbated this debate because so many jobs are being lost or are at risk, so it is angering some people even more to see foreign workers taking jobs that could potentially be carried out by British workers. Once workers had staged a protest at Lindsey, thousands of workers at other sites across the country carried out their own unofficial industrial action in sympathy.
The dispute has been settled to an extent, with strikers having voted today to return to work on Monday after a deal was struck in which an additional 102 jobs will be created for British workers on the contract, without sacrificing any of the jobs that will be given to the Italian and Portuguese workers. However it is likely that the general dispute about these sorts of actions will continue for a long time, especially as job security and financial stability continue to cause concerns for UK workers during the recession. Even union officials have been saying “the fight does not stop here” and there is now more strike action taking place at Staythorpe power station in Nottinghamshire over lack of work.
This is a very strange and interesting debate. On the one hand it is easy to see why people in one country who are worried about their jobs would feel aggrieved to see people from another country effectively ‘stealing’ their opportunity to work; and therefore ‘protectionism’ appears to be a legitimate course of action. On the other hand, we are part of the European Union, and this means that anyone from the EU has a right to work anywhere within it. The unions are trying to argue that giving British companies the opportunity to make agreements with contractors in which they can bring in their own employees is direct discrimination against British workers. If this argument succeeds, then could we see new legislation dictating the way contracts are agreed with foreign contractors in future?
This sounds like an argument that could stretch into other realms of ‘who should be allowed to work (stroke, be) where?’ and it’s a little unsettling for me. What happens when ‘British jobs’ are kept for ‘British people’ and then it turns out that the people that get them are immigrant workers from foreign countries? Will the workers and unions feel that the right person has got the job in the end? John Philpott, Chief Economist for the CIPD, describes:
‘the worrying undercurrent of xenophobia evident in the current rash of unofficial strikes’
and this effectively describes the way that I feel about this situation. What is your opinion on the events that have taken place and the implications for the future of foreign contracts?
Should women ‘dress for success’?
February 4, 2009
Despite more and more gloomy economical news each day with thousands of redundancies, failing companies, strike action and house repossessions, a really surprising news story yesterday was that the Bank of England has held a seminar for female staff on what makeup, clothes, accessories and perfume to wear in the workplace. Apart from the obvious question of ‘haven’t they got more important things to worry about at the moment?’ the bank has come under fire from both the press and equal opportunities professionals for what has been described as ‘institutional sexism’, and could possibly face discrimination claims as a result.
I actually can’t believe that the bank went ahead with such a ridiculous event at a time like this! What’s more surprising is some of the outrageous statements made in the seminar, that have been leaked in a memo from the meeting, such as:
“be careful with perfume; always wear a heel of some sort – maximum two inches; always wear some sort of makeup, even if it’s just lipstick,”
“No-nos include ankle chains – “professional, but not the one you want to be associated with”
Now, I have in the past sent memos and emails about appropriate dress to staff, mainly in relation to dress down day as it is more difficult for employees to assess what is professional when they are given the freedom to wear their own clothes instead of say, a suit. However, the idea of implying that an employee might look like a prostitute is going a bit over the top in my opinion!
Equal opportunities specialists have said that the seminar and memo indicates that the Bank of England is an ‘institutionally sexist environment’ because they are obviously being judged by what they wear and are therefore being treated differently to men. Perhaps then, a better option would have been to have an open seminar that advised all staff – women and men, on professional dress and how to portray the required image in the workplace…
I saw a mini debate on this subject on the BBC Breakfast show yesterday, and there was a woman in the debate that felt very strongly that people should be judged on the quality of their performance rather than their image. On the other hand, an image consultant argued that appearances are judged, and even went as far as saying that you might have a better chance of saving your job in a redundancy selection situation with the right sort of dress. I agree that image is important to a certain extent, but I do not believe that there’s anyone who could dress their way out of losing their job if they were not good enough. In these difficult times, when companies are making redundancies they will be thinking about the core skills and needs that will help that business to survive and thrive, not who looks the most striking or professional – unless your company actually sells or deals in image (like an escort agency or something…)
One comment that made me chuckle in the whole debate was from Ruth Lea, who is an economic advisor to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, who said:
“Surely it is up to men and women, and their peers at work to decide for themselves what is suitable to wear. If you can get a well-paid job, surely you have the nous to choose the right clothes”
Which I think says it all!
What do you think about this subject? Is dress important and should the Bank of England have gone ahead with the seminar?