Alan’s outburst
February 15, 2008
Following up on yesterday’s post about the gender pay gap, I’ve read a surprising bit of news about Sir Alan Sugar’s opinions on sex discrimination in the recruitment process.
Sir Alan thinks that it is Equality Law itself which hinders women’s chances of getting jobs – as employers cannot ask women things like “how would you cope with the pressure of balancing family life with work?” He reckons lots of employers still disregard applications before they even get to interview stage simply because the applicant is female. Apparently, employers would rather not employ a woman because they would be concerned about her family commitments interfering with work, but if employers could question them about how they would cope, then interviewees could give an explanation which would reassure the employer and increase the chances of them offering the job. To quote directly “if I am employing you to do a job, I want to be sure you can be there so I want to be able to ask what provision you have for children”.
This has got to be the most bizarre opinion I have heard in a long time – and quite worrying considering Sir Alan’s reputation and influence in the business world.
Firstly, his outburst indicates a completely old fashioned view of employment and social norms – assuming that only women have childcare commitments is something only a very narrow minded and quite frankly foolish employer would do. Yes, the majority of childcare responsibilities are probably still with mothers rather than fathers – as indicated by the report on the gender pay gap – but to only ask women about childcare provision in an interview is a bit if a wild assumption. My most recent request for flexible working arrangements under the statutory right has actually come from a man who needs to contribute to childcare arrangements in his family.
Secondly, the assumption that it is not possible to balance work and family commitments is a bit of an insult to many parents and carers, male and female, who do just that, and very well.
Sir Alan also implies that it is entirely the individual’s responsibility to make provisions for managing the dual responsibilities. If this is so, then why do lots employers introduce family-friendly arrangements such as flexible working, childcare vouchers and enhanced maternity / paternity policies to attract a wider range of people? If you only employ people who do not have obvious or potential commitments outside of work then you are not only indirectly discriminating against certain applicants, but you are greatly limiting the pool of talent to select from, and creating a workforce which is lacking in diverse work and life experience.
Considering my post from yesterday about the gender pay gap, this view from a prominent business figure is quite frightening. If there are lots of employers out there with this view, then what chance is there that the gender pay gap will be overcome?
I agree that there is still a lot of discrimination in the workplace which hinders many women’s chances of having a successful career. However, the idea that being able to ask women directly what their intentions are in terms of children will help to overcome this, is assuming that a) men don’t do childcare, b) all women have children, and c) you can’t have a job and manage childcare. This assumption, to me, is just ludicrous.
The gender pay gap
February 14, 2008
The pay gap between women and men is still very wide – and according to a Select Committee of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), the government is not doing enough to tackle it. In 2004 the Women and Work Commission was set up to try to reduce the pay gap, which was then 18% for full time workers and an enormous 40% for part timers.
The report by the Select Committee said the Commission had made several good proposals to deal with this problem, but had not done enough to implement them. It pointed out that one of the reasons for the continuation of the pay gap is that women tend to work in a small number of occupations, which tend to be low paid, and that many women work part time.Many women experience gaps in their careers, or end it completely as a result of starting a family. The need for flexible or part time working due to childcare arrangements can be very limiting on career prospects. The Select Committee recommends the Government extending the right to request flexible working as a measure to help improve women’s chances of increasing their salaries. Allowing women to work flexibly helps them to balance work and family commitments and retain the higher paid positions they have previously worked in, rather than having to give up their career and take jobs that fit around their lifestyle better, but are lower paid.One measure the report proposed was to introduce mandatory auditing of companies’ pay by gender; which is already done in the public sector. Would this lead to more “quota” issues, with companies making poor recruitment decisions in order to comply with required levels of female employees? Possibly in some companies, although for many it may force them to create workplaces where a diverse range of employees are able to contribute at every level.
Industrial action
February 13, 2008
Today, Hollywood writers are heading back to work after a three month strike, as a deal has been reached on new contracts with the Hollywood studios. This got me thinking about the law relating to industrial action in the UK.
Organising or participating in a strike in the UK is not straightforward, and can very easily bring legal consequences, including dismissal and claims for damages if certain procedures are not followed. By organising or participating in industrial action, you are breaking the law, but there are statutory immunities from legal action available to individuals and Trade Unions. However the conditions that need to be met to gain immunity can be tricky and in some cases can limit the effectiveness of the industrial action.
Whilst industrial action still occurs in this country (only recently the National Union of Teachers decided to ballot its members to strike), it is no longer a common occurrence as it was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Conservative Government in the 1980s introduced a number of pieces of legislation which gradually increased the difficulty for Trade Unions in organising strikes whilst maintaining statutory protection. This legislation was consolidated into the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA). The introduction of all the legislative changes has contributed to the decrease in occurrences of industrial action and Trade Union presence in the UK.
In brief, some of the rules governing the organisation of industrial action include the need for a properly conducted secret ballot – there are a number of points needing to be fulfilled for it to be considered properly conducted. The law also makes picketing at a place of work other than your own unlawful. Secondary action is not allowed – this is action that involves an employer not directly involved in the dispute. (This is not an exhaustive list of requirements under the legislation).
So, from this brief overview of the law, it is clear to see that organising industrial action is not an easy business. I’m not sure how this law would have affected the screen writers’ strike if this had taken place in the UK, however for most UK industries the law has a huge effect on the way that Unions and Employers can use industrial action as a way of bargaining over pay and other conditions.
For more detailed information on the law relating to industrial action, go to www.berr.gov.uk.
Don’t stress out
February 12, 2008
The Health and Safety Executive’s (HSE) statistics on work-related stress are quite alarming: work-related stress accounts for over a third of all new incidences of ill health, and a total of 13.8 million working days were lost to work-related stress, depression and anxiety in 2006/07. It’s not surprising when British employees work longer hours than in any other country in Europe. On top of costly sickness absence, stress also causes loss of productivity, higher turnover and will inevitably have an indirect effect on customer satisfaction.
Employers have duties under health and safety legislation to assess the risk of work-related stress within the workplace, and also to take measures to control that risk, but how many employers actually carry out a formal stress-related risk assessment, or even know how to do it? The HSE has a wealth of excellent practical advice on managing stress in the workplace, including how to carry out a risk assessment. The Management Standards for work related stress are a set of standards to help employers minimise the negative effects of stress, and the information helps to identify the gap between current practice and ideal conditions. The standards highlight six key areas of work that can potentially lead to stress, including the amount of support provided, the amount of control an employee has over their own work, and the ways in which organisational change is managed. All the information relating to work related stress and the management standards is available at www.hse.gov.uk/stress.
Ways of trying to reduce stress include ensuring that jobs are designed effectively and the responsibilities are appropriate for the level of the role and the person carrying it out. Additionally, employees need to be able to speak to managers about their role, and receive feedback, support and encouragement. The opportunity to have a regular break away from the work environment will give employees much needed relaxation that will make them more productive when they return to their desk or workstation. This might mean providing a staff room, or even an outside space where employees can get fresh air and stretch their legs, (obviously this depends on the size and location of the workplace). Workplace relationships can have an effect on stress levels, and organisations must ensure that they take steps to identify and stop negative activities such as bullying.
Workplace stress is such a common issue in the UK, and has such a huge effect on many areas of managing people and businesses that it is something that no employer can afford to ignore.
Monitoring internet usage
February 11, 2008
I’ve recently had to write an internet usage policy that I will soon be implementing, and it’s opened up a lot of questions about what is acceptable, what is not and how the issue can be managed. This subject has become popular again in recent years because of the rapid growth of social networking websites such as Facebook, and MySpace, which have apparently massively increased the amount of personal use of the internet within work time. Now that it is possible to download TV programmes on sites such as BBC Iplayer, the issue is sure to raise its head again in the not too distant future.
My opinion is that for the purposes of understanding productivity losses from internet use, blanket monitoring of everybody is way over the top, and a “big brother” culture is not ideal for encouraging staff commitment and motivation. Developing mutual respect and a healthy “psychological contract” between employers and employees requires each party trusting the other. Monitoring all employees, even those who have not indicated any tendencies towards internet abuse, implies that trust is not there. Many employees see the opportunity to use the internet for personal use in break times as an additional perk of the job, and companies who have well established performance management systems and skilled line managers should be able to spot productivity lapses whatever the reason, be it excessive internet use, skill shortages or personal problems. Monitoring employees’ internet use is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998, and should be done for a valid reason, rather than just as an overall policy. Employees must also be made aware that their internet use is monitored.
However, for the policy I have recently written, the main purpose was in fact for system security purposes rather than productivity. A number of sites that were previously acceptable are now considered security risks for the business, and a new policy was required that went further in terms of restrictions than the previous one. Some sites, including the likes of Facebook, have even been blocked. This throws a new light on the idea of big brother style monitoring, as failure to adhere to this policy, as well as causing a drop in productivity, could also be extremely damaging to the business. Monitoring every employee’s internet use could therefore be seen as relevant and appropriate under the DPA.
I think the way to implement this policy is to make sure every employee has a very clear understanding of the risks and the reasons for monitoring, exactly what is acceptable use, and which sites are blocked and why. In terms of ongoing monitoring, employees need to know that they are trusted to behave appropriately at work, and that their every move will not be watched, but that due to the very serious nature of the security risks, it will be possible for the company to trace internet usage to an individual. The consequences of breaches of the policy will also need to be very clear.
I think it is likely that dealing with this issue will be a common part of many HR professionals’ work in the future, given the constant evolution of the internet and the increasing number of employees with access to it. It is a complicated matter to deal with, and the best way to go about it is probably to ensure consistency, in terms of allowances for employees and dealing with breaches of policy.
Going green or going to court
February 8, 2008
I’ve just read an article about discrimination and environmental policies which I’m really not sure what to make of. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations came into force in 2003. This made it unlawful to discriminate directly or indirectly against an employee on the grounds of their “religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief”. This was tested recently in Harris v NKL Automotive Ltd and Matrix Consultancy Ltd, where it was conceded that Rastafarianism was a religious belief within the regulations. Fair enough.
Now, according to this article (People Management Magazine 7th Feb 2008), it is possible that employees could make a discrimination claim in the future if they were prevented from following their environmental beliefs! This is because the Equality Act 2006 removed the requirement for the “philosophical” belief to be similar to a religious belief; it just has to be a strongly held belief that affects an employee’s lifestyle. So for example, an employee could request that the company only use recycled paper, or provides recycling facilities, and a refusal could amount to indirect discrimination in the same way that refusal to allow an employee time off to attend a religious festival could do.
Of course, “discrimination” could be justified if it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, however this would probably relate to costs, and it is fairly easy to achieve a more green operation in many establishments, before the costs start to become unreasonable. There are loads of ways to do this, some of which are:
- Recycling
- Using recycled and less environmentally damaging materials
- Policies to encourage less wastage of resources (don’t print everything, turn off PCs etc
- Setting printers / photocopiers to double sided
- Implementing a travel policy that promotes the most environmentally friendly modes of transport
- Reducing the number of external meetings or planning them close together to reduce the need to travel
- Incentives for car sharing or using public transport
- Flexible working to reduce traffic around rush hour times
Because of the obvious benefits of workplaces becoming more environmentally friendly, part of me welcomes the possibility of discrimination law relating to environmental beliefs, as it might make many employers reduce their carbon footprint just to avoid a claim. Another part of me thinks that this is a ridiculous addition to the wrong part of the law; when the government will be introducing more and more environmental legislation anyway in the coming years. I just don’t see being environmentally friendly as a philosophical belief, even though clearly for many people it is a major contributing factor in their lifestyle. There has been no case law on this issue yet, and I wouldn’t want to be on the tribunal panel of the first case that’s brought forward; their decision will shape the way “green” people are regarded within UK organisations going forward. For the time being we’ll have to watch this (polluted) space.
Working with recruitment agencies
February 7, 2008
I have been in my current role for a few months now, and prior to this I worked in a HR capacity in the non-profit sector. There, attracting candidates was a matter of placing an advert in the local paper or on a specialist website, and literally hundreds of applications flooded in, a great many of which were good quality. I really took this for granted as the normal way to recruit candidates.
Now, working in the private sector in an IT based company, things couldn’t be more different. It must have been a combination of a more open labour market plus a more traditional approach to job searching that made my previous recruitment activities so effective. The labour market for candidates with IT and web-based skills is extremely tight, and unfortunately for my company’s bank balance, most job searchers go straight to a specialist recruitment agency to find their next role. So this is where I now source most of my new employees.
I hadn’t had much experience of working with recruitment agencies. My opinion was that they were very expensive for the service they provided – and I still feel this to a certain extent, although now, having experienced difficulties in recruitment, I’m starting to appreciate the savings in time and hard work that can be provided. I’m also becoming more “agency-savvy”. I came into this industry fairly naive and trusted everyone. However there are a number of issues that can arise when working with agencies that you need to be aware of; so that you can spot the ones that are only in it for the money – and build up effective working relationships with the others. Here are some tips that I have developed from my recent experience:
- Remember that recruitment specialists work on commission: they are sales people. Don’t let them bully you into interviewing a candidate or offering a position if they are not right for you. In a recent CIPD survey (available at www.cipd.co.uk), 45% of respondents felt that agencies focus on making a sale rather than delivering the best candidate. I had one recently who persuaded a candidate to phone in sick for work so that they could come to an interview earlier – not because I wanted them earlier but because he wanted to get his commission quicker – I was not happy!
- Find out what they do for their money – some will just search the major job sites such as Monster for CVs and forward them straight to you (which you could do yourself if you had the time). You need the recruiter to understand the role completely and pre-screen candidates thoroughly before sending to on you; otherwise they’re not taking much of your work away. Good recruitment companies will hold an interview with each candidate prior to sending their CV; this results in a lot fewer candidates but they’re more likely to be of the right calibre. If a company is based too far away to do this they should still carry out a thorough interview over the phone.
- Try to meet your agencies face to face. Ask them to come to visit you at the offices where the employees are going to work – they’ll have a much better idea of the atmosphere and culture, as well as the exact location of the workplace; and will be able to describe this better to potential candidates. It’s also much easier to develop a good relationship with someone you have met.
- Make time to clarify expectations and ensure there is a clear understanding of what is required on both sides. The more time you spend up front discussing a role, the better chance the recruiter has of finding exactly what you’re looking for. Also – be honest with the feedback on each candidate; the clearer you are about why they were not right, the closer the next offering will be to the mark.
- Don’t be afraid to haggle over the fees. If there’s a chance of building up strong ongoing relationships for future recruitment needs, the agency will be able to offer specialist rates. However, don’t forget that cost isn’t everything – what you need is value for money and this might mean a slightly higher fee.
- Make sure you read the terms and conditions: These will include any refund details if the employee does not work out, as well as any exclusivity requirements. You need to know where you stand with every aspect of the relationship.
- Test out what the agency tells you: ask candidates what they have been told about the role when they come for an interview, and double check their salary expectations – I have been burned by this particular issue a couple of times.
The CIPD is working with the Recruitment and Employment Confederation (REC) on a research project to investigate the relationship between HR and recruitment agencies; and will publish guidance on this relationship as a result. This is something I will look forward to seeing in the next few months.
McQualifications - The new A Levels?
February 6, 2008
McDonald’s, Flybe and Network Rail have been approved to offer courses that can be accredited up to the level of A Levels or advanced diploma; their in house training schemes have been accredited by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). This is designed to equip young people with work related skills that are not currently provided within the formal education system. The qualifications would give the learners credits which could be used in applications to universities in the same way as A Levels and other national qualifications.
This is a really interesting development and something that will probably be a regular news item going forward. Becoming an accredited centre is a very proactive way of meeting the needs of your business in a tight labour market where there is often a limited level of core skills. The opportunity to gain a qualification which can be used elsewhere is also an attractive draw for a potential applicant. On the other hand, becoming accredited means you are opening yourself up to close scrutiny and regular assessment: a negative review could have damaging PR effects in the same way a terrible Ofsted report affects a school. If this initiative doesn’t work then it could have devastating affects for these companies, which they don’t need when they already have to contend with business-damaging issues such as obesity and climate change.
Another problem is the question of legitimacy. Critics of the schemes have already said that the qualifications are not “academically rigorous” enough; and many Universities have said that they will not accept students on the new qualifications. I can imagine some employers viewing these qualifications with the same snobbery in future – would they rather have an employee who has been through school to get their qualifications or someone who has a “Basic Shift Manager” diploma from McDonalds? On the other hand, I’m sure there will also be many employers who can see the merit of a “McQualification” and realise the potential transferrable skills, which may be more useful in a work situation than A Level Geography.
One other potential issue of these qualifications is that it could possibly place a higher importance on formal training than on other types of workplace learning. Informal learning methods may not be recognised in a formal way but they are nevertheless a critical need in a business and in a career. Many companies focus all their learning on informal internal methods, and this doesn’t mean that their employees are going to develop any less. I’m slightly concerned that the positive promotion for the likes of McDonalds from this new initiative could impact negatively on other organisations that decide not to follow suit, due to raised expectations and the focus on formal qualifications as the most important organisational development option.
I look forward to future developments in this area.
Terrifying TUPE
February 5, 2008
TUPE: Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) 2006 is a difficult piece of legislation for Employers to handle, and something I’ve still not managed to fully get my head around. The legislation exists to protect employees’ terms and conditions, including length of service, when a transfer of the “undertaking” they work for takes place. These days it’s a common issue, as mergers and acquisitions have become a major part of business.
The 2006 regulations brought about changes to the existing legislation, most notably relating to provision of services: if an outsourced business function or service is changed, e.g. through re-tendering, then the existing individual(s) carrying out the service may be entitled to transfer under TUPE to the new provider (this might depend on how long they had been carrying out the work and how much of their time was spent on it). This has implications for many services provided to companies including financial services, outsourced functions (e.g. HR), security and cleaning services.
Another uncertain area of the law relates to changing an employee’s terms and conditions following a transfer. The law states that all changes to terms and conditions are unlawful, even when they are favourable changes and even when the employee agrees to them, unless there is a valid economic, technical or organisational (ETO) reason. This obviously makes it difficult for companies to harmonise terms between merged companies following a transfer, which could have negative effects on the merge by making it more difficult to integrate employees.
However, government guidance now tells employers that changes to terms and conditions that are beneficial to the employee are valid, and this guidance was recently supported by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in Power v Regent Security Services Ltd. This could change again though if the case goes to the Court of Appeal. There has been no case law so far on how unfavourable changes would be treated by the courts, so the whole issue is still a bit of a legal minefield My advice when handling issues relating to TUPE is to always seek legal advice from an employment lawyer prior to taking any action.
Agency worker rights
February 4, 2008
The possibility of an EU Directive giving full employment rights to agency workers is in the news this week. Previously the government as well as many UK employers and professional bodies have been in opposition to this piece of legislation, due to its probable effects on the flexible labour market that the UK enjoys. The flexibility of the workforce in the UK has in the past contributed to the strength of the economy as it enables employers to be more reactive to market and competitive needs. However the Prime Minister’s aides last week met a number of MPs who are backing the directive, who believe that many agency workers in the UK are not treated fairly in their employment. Could this meeting indicate that the government is willing to back down on its opposition to the directive? We’ll have to wait and see. This issue is to be discussed again in Brussels this year, and may go to a vote, in which case the directive may be imposed on the UK.