Frustration with recruitment agencies!
April 15, 2008
I’m sick to death of working with recruitment agencies. Honestly, if I could do without them then I really would but in the current labour climate, the industry I work in and the increase in competition from agencies for candidates there’s no option but for me to use them for at least some of the high volume of recruitment I’m doing this year.
I’ve just had yet another heated conversation with a recruitment consultant following an interview that was a complete waste of mine and my colleague’s time, as the candidate (who came for a sales position) didn’t even know what we did as a company, hadn’t been given any information on us and had been ‘led to believe’ that he would not be able to make any sales for a couple of months (which is complete rubbish)! He’d really been sold the job well I must say.
This incident, together with other, has made me wonder who is the client for a recruitment agency? The candidate or the recruiting company? The consultant’s excuse for the candidate’s confusion over what we did as a company was that he had been put forward for several different positions and had got them mixed up. I’m not certain this is true, but in any case that’s not really allayed my concerns about the agency’s service anyway. Many agencies wouldn’t ‘double book’ a candidate for more than one position at a time as it can create a conflict of interest and affect the long term relationship between them and the client, but obviously this isn’t the case for all of them. I understand that the recruitment consultant has a dual responsibility to two clients on either side of the table; the candidate and the recruiting company, but surely honesty and integrity is the best way forward for developing strong and lasting relationships with both. If an agency is wishing to put forward a candidate for more than one role, they should give a company a limited time to make a decision on that person, and make it clear that after this time they might lose them to another company: that’s a fair system for everyone. The recruitment industry has a bad rep in terms of qualities such as honesty and integrity, and we all joke about recruitment consultants in the same way as we do about other perceived ‘nasties’ such as estate agents. With my recent experience, it’s not difficult to see why.
Perhaps I need to re-read my own advice from a couple of months ago on working with recruitment agencies!
The Corporate Manslaughter Act – Are you prepared?
April 14, 2008
6th April 2008 saw the Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007 come into place. This means that organisations can be prosecuted for the offence of corporate manslaughter (corporate homicide in Scotland) where a fatality has occurred due to a ‘gross breach of a duty of care’, and if senior management can be shown to have been party to that breach. The legislation is aimed at strongly encouraging organisations to ensure they have adequate health and safety arrangements, and police will be able to investigate health and safety management systems to ascertain the level of a breach.
A key aspect of the law is the link between the fatality and senior management, and investigations will look at any actions or failures to act that may have taken place, such as the failure to carry out a risk assessment, or poor delegation to an unprepared employee.
For many organisations this legislation will mean a need to review or even overhaul the health and safety management systems in place. For some well prepared organisations, who already take their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at work Act 1974 very seriously, the new law will probably require very little change to the current arrangements. However even in organisations where there is a Health and Safety specialist or team, the Act will require a great deal of input from HR in terms of driving the agenda forwards in the company. HR will need to look at the levels of responsibility for health and safety within the organisation, and documents such as job descriptions and contracts of employment will need to establish health and safety responsibilities for senior managers. Performance management systems will need to include health and safety as a consideration to ensure that every employee’s performance in this area is considered seriously, and this will link into training needs and obligations. Finally, it needs to be made clear to all how disciplinary procedures can and will be used in relation to health and safety requirements for senior managers. Compliance with health and safety procedures should be part of the company rules and all employees should be aware of the disciplinary sanctions that apply to a breach of these rules. It is clear, therefore, that the new legislation has implications for every main area of HR practice.
The Act will probably provide a great deal of high profile case law in the coming years, and HR professionals will need to maintain an awareness of the developments that take place. As well as the fact that a workplace death would be tragic for the individual and horrific for their family and colleagues, organisations in breach of the Act will now face fines of between 2.5 and 10 per cent of gross annual turnover, and additionally courts can impose an order to make organisations publicise the incident and the fine incurred. There have been a few high profile cases of this kind in the past, in particular in the rail industry, and the publicity for those involved was not good. Being unprepared for the changes is something organisations simply cannot afford.
The growing issue of employee wellness
April 11, 2008
According a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the expected rise in chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer over the next two decades is going to hit UK businesses hard financially. The effects of chronic illness on the availability of labour as well as productivity losses are going to increase, leaving companies out of pocket and struggling to fill the gaps. The report estimated that over the next ten years, £16 billion will be lost due to chronic illness, and it is claimed that productivity losses associated with chronic diseases cost a lot more than actually treating the illness.
Many companies now invest a lot of time and resources in programmes associated with staff ‘well-being’ or ‘wellness’ (rather than sickness absence management programmes) as a proactive measure to cope with these sorts of issues and promote the health, rather than deal with the sickness of employees. There are many different ways this can be done and organisations need to develop a culture based around well-being, as well as integrated policies that promote it throughout the employee experience. Well-being covers aspects of mental, emotional and physical health, and the approach to developing a well-being culture needs to consider all these facets. Some ideas that can be used in a well-being approach are:
- Physical health areas such as exercise programmes, teams or groups, health checks, healthy meal options and health awareness programmes.
- Mental health areas such as an effective stress management programme, relaxation techniques, a positive approach to people management and conflict resolution.
- Emotional areas such as social responsibility programmes, team building events, a strong anti-bullying approach.
- Rest facilities where employees can escape their workstation and relax. Somebody was telling me today about an organisation that has a chill out area for stressed out sales staff with fish tanks all around the room and soothing sea sounds being played, which I thought sounded really great.
This is a big issue for today’s organisations, the news is constantly full of stories about the latest obesity statistics or number of people on anti-depressants. The key is to understand the link with these problems that are part of society and workplace problems that are created as a result. Organisations that recognise this link and take opportunities to contribute to the reduction in health related problems will see the benefits over the longer term in increased productivity, motivation and commitment, as well as reduced absence.
New pay rates for statutory leave
April 10, 2008
From 6th April the rates of pay for Statutory Sick Pay, Statutory Maternity Pay, Statutory Adoption Pay and Statutory Paternity Pay (SSP, SMP, SAP, SPP) have been increased. This is an increase that takes place each April and is important to note if you are responsible for payroll within your company.
SSP has increased to £75.40 per week. SMP,SAP and SPP are now £117.18 per week. There are specific pieces of legislation relating to the payment of each rate, as summarised below:
SMP is payable to employees who have had 26 weeks’ service with the company by the 15th week before the expected week of childbirth (EWC). These employees are entitled to 90% of their weekly earnings for the first 6 weeks of maternity leave, followed by 39 weeks at SMP rate. All employees regardless of their length of service are entitled to 52 weeks maternity leave, so some employees who’s length of service is too short may be entitled to the time off but no statutory pay, although they may be entitled to claim Maternity Allowance. SAP is payable in the same way and at the same rate for adopters, with the same qualifying requirement, however the qualifying needs for adoption leave are different. Fathers (and in many organisations, the other parent in same sex relationships) are entitled to two weeks’ paternity leave at the same rate as SMP. There are many specific rules and requirements relating to these types of leave and pay, and organisations need a clear policy that outlines exactly how it will work in the company and if there are any enhancements to the statutory minimum payment. For more information on maternity leave and pay rights click here.
SSP is payable to an employee after three waiting days. The rules relating to SSP and how it is payable are quite complicated, for more information go to the HM Revenue and Customer Website.
Why e-learning doesn’t always work
April 9, 2008
Yesterday I wrote about the benefits an e-learning programme can bring to a business. Today I’ve been thinking about the problems that can limit the positive effects of the learning method:
- The pressures of time on employees has a negative effect on e-learning as it relies on people making the time themselves to participate in learning. Obviously in light of a set of work-related priorities the first thing to be dropped will be the e-learning course an employee is due to complete. The only area this may not be applicable is where e-learning forms part of a compliance-related training course, for example on-line driving awareness courses. Somebody I know used to work for a company where going out to a site visit was not permissible without first completing a set of on-line learning tasks to make them aware of the risks.
- Whilst many e-learning opportunities do allow for interaction with other people, those that don’t can lack the support and discussion required for effective learning to take place. E-learning can be a lonely activity and self-motivation can be affected.
- Access to e-learning opportunities may be limited, especially in companies where not everybody has PC access (e.g. in manufacturing)
- Whilst ongoing e-learning activities are inexpensive, the set up of a programme can be very costly – if you get it wrong first time there may be a loss of faith in the potential benefits.
- E-learning is not an appropriate method of learning for skill development, as the learner is too distanced from the situation the skill will be needed for, and there is no practical element to the method. This is why e-learning will never take over as the main learning method used by organisations, although it could be really useful when used in combination with other methods (referred to a ‘blended learning’) as a feedback and communication tool following more practical activities.
- As we all know, technology isn’t always as reliable as we’d like, and frustrations with system failures can lead learners to lose interest in the method, especially if it is not linked to other learning activities that can help maintain the momentum.
So overall it looks like there’s more cons than pros for e-learning. The picture isn’t as bleak as it looks though, it is simply important to recognise these pitfalls when embarking on an e-learning programme to help it become as successful as possible. The main thing to ensure, I believe, is that the e-learning courses are integrated with other activities and learning methods rather than as a stand alone project. Also, it is important to recognise that e-learning will not be appropriate for all learning needs, and HR/L&D professionals should not attempt to implement it because it is the latest fashionable idea or that they’ve heard it works well at another organisation. Learning activities need to be tailored to the needs of any particular organisation, and e-learning is just another option in the learning and development mix that can be utilised to meet these needs.
E-learning – what’s so good about it?
April 8, 2008
According to a new survey by the CIPD, almost a third of learning and development professionals think that in a few years time between 25-50% of training will be carried out by e-learning, although few of those surveyed thought it was an effective learning method. The survey found that whilst e-learning was becoming increasingly available to staff in many organisations, the number of employees actually using it or completing courses was still quite low. E-learning can be described as any type of learning that is delivered through electronic communication methods (e.g. through the internet) or electronically based technology (e.g. on a CD-ROM). E-learning can be a really useful addition to an organisation’s learning and development programme, but there are important pros and cons to using the method that need to be considered to enable the right choices to be made about using it. The rest of this article will look at how e-learning can benefit employees and organisations.
Benefits of e-learning
- The learner can access the course at any time and in any location. This is obviously beneficial now due to the increased occurrence of home working and ‘virtual’ teams, as well as pressures on workers’ times meaning that training courses do not always fall at convenient times. You can do e-learning in your pyjamas if you want to!
- E-learning doesn’t always just involve a person carrying out a course on their own: other e-structures include virtual classrooms and online discussion threads with other people who are learning about the same subject. This can lead to the development of networks of professionals that can provide a continual support and learning environment.
- E-learning can be a fairly inexpensive way of delivering a message to a large number of people, quickly (providing they carry out the course!). Many national multi-site and international companies now use e-learning as a key part of their learning strategies.
- E-learning works well for knowledge-based learning, for example it might be useful to deliver employment law developments to line managers.
- E-learning can be used in some organisations as a way of providing risk based initial training without the risks, through the simulation of a situation to test the reaction of the learner. This is similar to the driving theory test that is now in place for learner drivers.
- It is easy to track and log learning activities for an individual with e-learning. It is also possible for the learner to carry out part of the course and then come back to it at a more convenient time at the same point. This can also help in relation to motivation – sometimes you just can’t be bothered finishing something off and arguably you’d be better coming back to it when you’re in a better frame of mind.
So e-learning can be a fantastic way of enabling employees to get the development opportunities they need in their busy working lives. It’s certainly something I could see being beneficial in my organisation. However, of course, it is necessary to think about the pitfalls and how to overcome them before diving headlong into an e-learning programme that might never achieve its full potential due to poor planning and implementation. The next article will look at the issues that companies can face.
Mixed reactions to health service pay deals
April 7, 2008
It’s all going on in the public sector at the moment! There seem to be daily reports on the reactions of different professions to pay deals being negotiated with the Government. Last week members of the NUT voted in favour of a teachers’ strike after a less than satisfactory pay offer, this week its NHS workers’ reactions to the latest offer.
The pay offer for nurses is based over the next three years, and is the highest in all the public sector pay deals. This is broken down into 2.75% this year, 2.4% next year and 2.25% the year after. The deal also provides for the capacity to re-open negotiations should inflation rise sharply in the next couple of years. The Government has made this arrangement to try to avoid any industrial action such as the walk out planned by teachers.
The deal has been welcomed by some groups more than others. The Royal College of Nursing said the deal was better than expected, and meant that nurses could now concentrate on providing high quality patient care whilst maintaining some security over their finances. The public sector union Unison also welcomed the package and said that it would be recommending it to its members. However the Royal College of Midwives feel that the staged implementation may leave its members short changed if the second and third year increases prove to be lower than the rate of inflation, and as a result will not be recommending the package to its members. Also, the British Medical Association said that the offer of a 2.2% increase for doctors was ‘disappointing’ in the light of proposals for longer surgery opening hours for patients only able to attend at evenings and weekends.
Important ruling in part time workers’ terms and conditions
April 5, 2008
A recent employment tribunal: Matthews v Kent and Medway Town Fire Authority has brought new clarity to the differences in pay and terms and conditions between full and part time workers. The claimant argued that under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, he was entitled to equal terms and conditions on a pro rata basis as his work was comparable to that of his full time colleagues. After the case going to the House of Lords and back to the Tribunal for re-consideration, the claim was upheld.
The key factor in this decision was the similarities in the key duties of the part time firefighter in comparison with the full timers. The original tribunal hearing, it was found, had placed too much importance on areas of the role that were deemed ‘peripheral’ in finding the roles to be incomparable. As the second tribunal found that the roles of the full and part-time firefighters were similar enough, there could be no justification in treating the workers differently in terms of their pay and conditions.
Going forward, employers will need to address these issues to ensure they are not in breach of the legislation. The correct approach would be to look at all the terms and conditions that will differ for a part time worker one by one, and check that the remuneration or other benefit was paid on a pro rata basis in comparison to the full time pay and benefits they would be entitled to. If there are differences and the remuneration was not calculated pro rata, then this would need to be carefully justified in order to avoid the risk of a claim.
Another point to remember is the additional risk of discrimination in the unequal treatment of part time workers. A large proportion of part time workers are women, and so the issue relating to parity of treatment for part time workers could lead to a claim of sex discrimination if the full time worker that was effectively receiving more favourable terms was a different sex.
As always, if you have part time workers that you do not feel are entitled to pro rata terms and conditions, but you’re not certain how you can justify it, you need to liaise with an employment law advisor to ensure you are not taking any risks.
Sales recruitment woes!
April 4, 2008
I’m recruiting for a telesales role at the moment and finding it really difficult to get candidates to even attend an interview, never mind find people who have the right experience and skills for the job. The sales industry, I have found, is really fast moving and if you don’t grab the right people and entice them as soon as you can, they’re gone in a flash. They all seem to have so many new job possibilities at any one time that the drop out rate for recruitment activities is proving to be really high. I’ve been told this is quite common with this kind of role, and that at the moment its a ‘candidate’s market’, but it doesn’t make the situation any less frustrating.
I’ve found this recruitment drive to be as much of a sales job for me as it will be for the employees we take on, as I’m having to work really hard just to try to get the candidate interested enough to come and see what it’s like here, and I don’t think there’s anything about the company or the role that should be putting people off. It seems that the candidates are less likely in this type of role than others to attend a few different interviews to compare the possibilities – unless they’re not very good they go ‘off the market’ within a really short space of time, or so I am being told by the increasing number of recruitment agencies I have involved so far.
The earning potential for this role is fantastic, but I’m finding candidates do not necessarily believe me when I explain how it works as many have been burned before by employers promising the earth and then introducing loads of conditions before any money can be made. I’ve just had a look at the statistics and in the last couple of weeks I’ve had three applicants disappear off the face of the earth before we can even attempt a phone interview, two that sound really interested on the phone but fail to answer their phone after this, and one who looked like a great prospect that did not turn up for a face to face interview, with no contact whatsoever to explain why. I’m not sure if it’s just me, but I’m astounded by the number of recruitment candidates I have come across recently that have no manners! If I was pulling out of an interview for whatever reason, there’s no way I would not get in contact with that company to let them know what was going on, it’s just common courtesy.
I’d be really interested if anyone else has faced these issues and if there’s any advice they can give me.
Jips for jobs?
April 3, 2008
I’ve just read an article and blog on the guardian website that suggested that prospective employees should be given the employment version of the Home Information Pack (Hip) that home vendors are now required to provide. The Job Information Pack (Jip) would provide the candidate with a ‘warts and all’ set of in-depth information including the company culture, the reason the predecessor to the job left and exit interview feedback from that person. The reason for this argument was that many people end up in situations where they move to what they perceive to be their dream job and subsequently find out there are major issues that were not indicated at interview stage, such as company politics, funding difficulties, dysfunctional teams or Neanderthal management attitudes.
Having a Jip would help jobseekers make more informed choices about the roles they are moving to – but on the flip side some employers would end up with no staff! In theory though, the Jip should be good for employers as well as potential staff as this should encourage companies to resolve issues rather than leaving them to fester when introducing new staff. Also, employing quality people only for them to leave soon after is worse in many ways than not finding the right staff in the first place – as retention problems can affect the morale and motivation of the existing staff.
I have experienced this situation myself as a candidate only last year – the job sounded fabulous, the organisation really supportive and forward thinking and the managers I met in the interview were the type of people I could see myself working really well with. However the reality of the job was the biggest nightmare ever. The internal structures of the organisation were a shambles, and there were major staff shortages in every department with no commitment from senior management to increase staff levels. The organisation was so bureaucratic that almost every decision needed authorisation from the CEO, despite there being 1600 staff and about an 8 level management structure, and on top of all this the CEO was obsessed with tendering for every single new contract available, with no strategic approach to choice or timing, and no planning systems for how the organisation would cope with the increasing size. The operational staff numbers had almost doubled in 18 months, whilst the central services had stayed the same size. I hated every minute and left after three months. The next role I went to, whilst not without its problems as with any job, has proven to be closer to the impression I gained at the interview, although I feel that this is as much down to my stringent questioning at the interview, having been burned badly, than the willingness of the interviewer to impart relevant information about the types of scary demons I might encounter. I do feel that whilst organisations should maybe try to give as honest a picture of the company as possible to the candidate, the responsibility should not all be on the employer. Interviews are a two way process – the candidate should be finding out about the company as well as the other way around, and each candidate will have different ideas of what is attractive about a prospective job. Whilst a Jip might tell an applicant for a HR role that there are problems with employee turnover, they may view this as a challenge, but then arrive on the first day and be mortified by something else that wasn’t even considered for the Jip. Candidates need to think about what it is they are looking for and what they want to avoid – and use the interview to assess this. This is what I learned the hard way and I guess experience counts for a lot.
I have also been on the other side of the coin. After the recruitment of an employee in one particular department, a number of problems suddenly arose that were completely unexpected, and I almost ended up feeling as if I had mis-sold the role to the candidate as I had not given a warts and all account of what they would be faced with, simply because I hadn’t realised. This experience made me think that in the future I would try not to recruit someone into a role when there were problems that could not be solved by that person, but sometimes you just cannot predict the way a situation will develop. Also, you don’t always have the choice or influence to be able to refuse to recruit new staff into problematic situations.
I don’t think Jips are a good idea – at the end of the day they cannot be an equivalent of Hips, because the ‘product’ is different. Hips tell the prospective buyer about issues they might have to resolve when they buy the house – this is quite easily rectifiable at the point of sale by negotiating a lower price relevant to the likely cost of the remedial work. If a prospective employee receives a Jip that looks like a dodgy buy, what can they do? I suppose in theory they could negotiate a bonus or increase if they come in and resolve the problems, but I bet nine times out of ten the issues aren’t relating to their specific role.
I do however think the theory behind the concept is a worthy one. People should not be employed in a role where they are not going to a) be able to do it and b) enjoy it. If the reasons for this are the problems within the organisation then addressing this is more important than getting bums on seats, because sooner or later the same issues will start to affect existing staff if they haven’t already.