Recognising employee achievements
July 17, 2008
We all know that recognition can be a great motivator, and it’s important as an employer to ensure that staff receive positive feedback as well as being told when they’re not doing something right. In my organisation we are going to be doing just that this week when we present awards and prizes, in front of the whole company, to those employees who have achieved personal success or made a good contribution to the business or their colleagues’ jobs in the last 6 months. My favourite is the ‘Employees’ Employee’ award, which has copied the format of the FA’s ‘players’ player’, enabling all employees to vote for their top three colleagues in the business. I really like this because quiet often, recognition from your peers can be even more of a feel good factor than from your boss, and it’s a testament to the individuals’ contribution to the business as a whole. The other good thing is that the individuals will be able to add the awards to their CVs which will look good for future promotions etc.
Staff awards are used at many organisations to engage staff through recognition. Two good examples are Knowsley Primary Care Trust, where staff turnover and performance were positively affected by the recognition of individual contribution to patient care, and Bupa Care Homes, who’s “personal best” initiative, which included staff awards, won the company the CIPD People Management Award in 2006.
Staff awards are a good way of boosting employee confidence and morale, and aren’t even that expensive. We’ve purchased some really nice awards and we’re having the company logo and the names of the awards engraved onto them, which can be done easily with laser engraving. We’re also giving prizes out to the winners. I’m really looking forward to the presentation as I think it will give everyone a great boost!
Do maternity rights damage women’s careers?
July 16, 2008
Recently it’s been all over the news that Nicola Brewer, Chief Executive of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission has voiced her opinion that maternity and family friendly reforms have actually damaged women’s career prospects, because they reinforce the traditional model of women being the primary carer for their children rather than the father. Brewer argued, in a newspaper interview, that many employers are now avoiding employing women of childbearing age because of the risk that they may take up to a year’s maternity leave and/or exercise their right to request flexible working (even though fathers have this right as well). A while back, Sir Alan Sugar made similar comments about the negative effects of discrimination law on female candidates.
Brendan Barber, General Secretary of the TUC has hit back at Brewer’s comments, saying that the situation with the ‘myth’ that women’s job prospects are damaged by family friendly rights should be resolved in the future if families are able to transfer part of the maternity leave entitlement to the father, allowing equal time off for each parent. Barber said that ideally flexible working rights should be extended to all workers so that it is not a particular group that is affected by reluctant employers. I’m not so sure though. I think that the issue of employers assuming that employing women of a certain age will bring a bagful of people management headaches is down to much more than just the rights available to women. There’s the issue that women on the whole are paid less than men, which means that even if men are in the future able to take extended parental leave when their partner has a baby, it’s likely that the mother will still take all the leave as she will probably be the lower earner, and not many families can afford to drop the bigger wage. I’ve already agreed with my partner that when we start a family, if the maternity leave rights are available for men (which they probably will be by the time we have children) then whoever is the lower earner will take the leave. Until there’s more equality in pay, I don’t think rights for men or women will have the effect of completely resolving the issue over employers’ assumptions. But this is a vicious cycle because the fact that women take career breaks to have a family contributes in itself to the equal pay issue!
What’s your opinion on this subject?
What’s so important about health and safety?
July 15, 2008
I reckon that health and safety is likely to be one of the most neglected areas of people management in many businesses. For a start, it’s not exactly an exciting subject, with the image of dull health and safety specialists (like Keith Lard from That Peter Kay Thing!) and that reputation for nagging that people responsible for health and safety often attract. On top of that there are reams and reams of legislation to worry about and a wide variety of workplace considerations, so it’s not an easy job to take on. In a previous company I worked for, health and safety was a really important issue due to the nature of the work, yet the monthly health and safety committee was poorly attended and hardly anything ever actually came of it. It’s quite easy to see why, in a straightforward office environment, health and safety often takes a back seat to other, more sexy areas of people management like ‘engagement’ and ‘employer brand’. In industries that are more heavily regulated and have higher risks, then the subject is of course taken more seriously, but for office workers, many people just don’t see the issue.
New figures out however reveal that health and safety is indeed a big issue facing organisations today, with around six million people having sued their employer in the last year after experiencing work-related injuries or illnesses. Most of the problems related to back injuries or work related stress, which is something that millions of people experience every day, and it is important for employers to recognise this as a serious business risk. Clearly, apart from the costs associated with employee absences, there is also a real danger of the costs of legal action being taken against the employer.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has loads of information on workplace health and safety, including managing stress. Given the findings of this research, it seems that health and safety is a subject that no employer can afford to ignore.
Employees in Beijing to spend less time at the office to reduce pollution
July 14, 2008
Recently I was talking about developing an environmental policy, and one of the areas in which organisations can reduce their carbon footprint is to reduce the time their employees spend commuting or sitting in traffic jams that cause a lot of pollution. A good example of how this works is due to start in Beijing, the venue of the forthcoming 2008 Olympic Games, this weekend.
Beijing is well known for being one of the most polluted cities in the world, and this has caused some concern recently for athletes that will be competing in the games, who are worried about the air quality and the effect it may have on their breathing. To try to reduce this problem, companies in the city are being asked to reduce the working hours of their employees, stagger start and finish times or ask employees to work at home for some of the time. The measures are only temporary, for the two months up to an during the games, but I think it would be great if these measures could be implemented on a longer term basis. That would send a very clear message to the business world about the effect organisations can have on the environment by introducing more flexibility into their employees’ working hours.
Big impact of immigration law
July 11, 2008
Remember back in February when the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 came into force? This legislation put more responsibility onto employers to ensure they employ only legal workers, with penalties of up to £10,000 for companies found to be flouting the law and employing workers that do not have permission to work in the UK.
This legislation has already had an incredible impact, with 352 businesses having been caught employing illegal workers since February, leading to more than £3million in fines. In 2007 less than 15 companies were caught for this!
To make sure they are not falling foul of this legislation, employers need to ensure they make the necessary pre-employment checks when taking on any new staff. This means seeing original proof of eligibility to work in the UK, such as a passport, or birth certificate combined with a document indicating a UK National Insurance Number. There are specific lists of relevant documentation that can be provided, for more information see the Border and Immigration Agency (BIA) guidelines ‘prevention of illegal working’. It is important to remember that this documentation needs to be provided prior to the start of employment rather than when the employee has already started.
Should employers provide air con?
July 10, 2008
I’ve just been asked about providing air conditioning for employees in the office. You might think this sounds ludicrous given the current weather conditions, but in fact this employee deals with all the IT systems for the company and therefore spends a lot of time in a hot server room.
As employers, are we obliged to provide air conditioning in the workplace? Well not in the office environment really. The HSE guidelines state that a minimum office temperature should be 16 degrees Celsius, but there is no maximum temperature given. However the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 gives employers the responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace for all employees, and there is a huge amount of legislation relating to health and safety that employers need to be aware of. In the case of the server room, there might be an argument for providing air conditioning, as there may be a danger of heat stress, which is where the body is no longer able to regulate its own temperature because of excessive heat. It would depend on how long the employee is expected to stay in the room as to whether this posed a serious risk.
Employers may be put off air conditioning in the office because of the cost and also the hassle of installing it. It is certainly true that installing air conditioning can be expensive, however could it be that the cost is offset in the summer months by the increased comfort and satisfaction of employees, and potentially the higher productivity as a result? Remember my article from a while back about how employees could provide ice cream in the hot summer months to help reduce hot weather-absenteeism? I think that a cool and comfortable environment is probably going to have a bit more of an effect that the provision of cold drinks and snacks!
If employers are faced with comments or requests from hot and disgruntled employees but cost is a major issue, there are always temporary or portable air conditioning solutions for particularly sticky days, or, as in my situation, for a small server room which is really the only place in the building that requires air conditioning. These options could also help to reduce any negative feeling from any employees who have environmental concerns relating to the installation of energy-sapping air conditioning systems.
This is another one of those topics that seems so trivial for HR professionals when they’re also dealing with things like redundancies, discipline and other employment law headaches, but it’s just another example of the effect a working environment can have on the satisfaction of employees and their feelings towards their employer.
New business initiative to encourage more to join the teaching profession
July 9, 2008
A new scheme called Transition to Teaching is set to make positive links between the business community and the teaching profession. This scheme will hopefully increase the number of new teachers in a time when the profession is struggling to recruit in some subjects, as well as raise the profile of businesses in order to increase the numbers of skilled candidates available in the future. A number of large organisations have already pledged support to the scheme including BT and IBM.
This is a fantastic scheme. Having had quite a lot of academic experience as a pupil/student, I’ve always thought that the best teachers are the ones that have had some ‘life’ experience i.e. those that haven’t gone from their own education straight back into educating others. The teaching profession is now seeing many new applications from ‘career changers’, i.e. those who have worked in an industry for many years and feel the need for a new direction. With this scheme, those people will find this route easier with the support of their employers, and more career changers will be able to follow their dreams of changing their career later on. Companies involved will be able to enhance their reputation as employers of choice within their own workforce and within the labour market of the future.
Staff are a good company advertisement
July 7, 2008
John Lewis is currently in the middle of a large advertising campaign, and the next stage of the campaign is going to feature employees of the department store. Staff have written some of the content of the campaign and will star in the adverts for newspapers, radio and on TV.
In the difficult financial situations many companies are currently experiencing, one of the main responses is to increase budgets on marketing and advertising. Even the big brand John Lewis has experienced a drop in sales of 8.3 per cent as shoppers feel the pinch from all sides in the current climate. I think the idea of using staff in advertising campaigns is a really good one, as it not only sends a positive message out about the company, but helps to reinforce the brand and therefore the company values to the staff involved in making the adverts. The advertising for the store will also double up to some extent as a good advertisement to potential job seekers who may be attracted to the company after seeing some of its staff on TV or in the paper.
Providing refreshments for your employees
July 4, 2008
I don’t know about you, but food and drink are two of the most important things in my life. Especially food! When I’m at work I’m unable to function or concentrate properly if I’m hungry, and I’m always snacking as I carry out my daily tasks. I was having a debate with a colleague the other day about whether employers have an obligation to provide refreshment facilities in the workplace, and the conclusion was that whilst there is no obligation (except perhaps clean drinking water?), providing food and/or drinks, or at least the opportunity to purchase them makes employees’ lives easier and consequently happier. For example, if the office is on a business park that isn’t near any shops, it is more convenient for staff to be able to purchase refreshments on site.
The most attractive option for employees would be the provision of a canteen on site. This would be even more attractive if it were paid for or partially subsidised, but even the opportunity to buy meals on site is something that would appeal to many. However, one problem with this option is that the provision could eventually become an implied term of the contract of employment, as I found in an example on the CIPD communities discussions. In this example, the firm that provided the catering withdrew their services, and the employer was advised that if they didn’t provide a replacement facility that this could amount to a unilateral variation of all employees’ contracts. So it could turn out to be an option that comes with a lot of hassle and expense.
Another option is to have vending machines in the building, and there are quite a few benefits of this option. Firstly, food and drink can be provided in a much smaller space than a canteen facility, and this is also a much cheaper option, as well as much less hassle as the companies that provide the machines manage the stock and deliveries. Of course, the food provided won’t be canteen style, but for companies that can’t afford this provision or don’t have the space, it’s a good alternative. A benefit of the canteen is that staff tend to spend more time getting to know each other over lunch if they all eat in the same place, but lots of places have a staff room where vending machines could be made available which might have the same effect. Vending machines have a reputation for only providing unhealthy snacks, but the providers will be getting wise to the healthy eating agenda and you can now see much healthier options in vending machines in lots of places.
Another point to consider is the growth in the fair trade industry, and how this links to the company’s social responsibility agenda. Many employees are now attracted to workplaces where the employer has an ethical and responsible approach to many things such as environmental matters, community development, and fair trade purchasing. It is possible to purchase fair trade tea, coffee, sugar etc for employees to make drinks themselves, or there are vending machine companies that also provide fair trade only machines. It might seem quite insignificant, but providing fair trade refreshments can make a positive statement about the ethical approach of the employer, and of course contributes positively to global trade in these products.
Providing refreshments for employees at work might seem like a small matter in the grand scheme of things, but I always feel that these little things at work make a big difference to the employee experience and their feelings towards their employer. It’s something that perhaps needs a bit more consideration than you would initially think.
First year of smoking ban a success, but it’s still hard to manage in the workplace!
July 3, 2008
So, 1st July saw the first anniversary of the smoking ban in public places, and there have recently been several news items on the success of the legislation, with around 400,000 people having quit smoking in the last 12 months, as well as other benefits such as the fact that you can come home from a night out and not be heaving over the smell on your hair and clothes the next day!
However, there are still some workplace issues relating to smokers that will probably never go away as long as cigarettes exist. These mainly relate to smoking breaks. Of course the vast majority of workplaces haven’t allowed smoking in the office for many years, so the problem of how much time smokers are allowed for breaks, and the fact that non-smokers don’t tend to have breaks as they don’t have a reason, has been a tricky issue for a long time. In my organisation this is handled fairly strictly. Every employee has a 15 minute break in the morning and one in the afternoon, as well as their lunch hour. Staff are not allowed to go for cigarette breaks except in their break times. For some people this can be too restrictive and loses the relaxed and trusting approach to working that many employees value, and I must admit I found it quite strange when I first started and everyone suddenly disappeared at 11 o clock on the dot! However it does mean that all staff, both smokers and non-smokers, are entitled to the same amount of break time, and if they miss it for whatever reason, then it’s hard luck and they’ll have to wait for the next break for a cigarette.
Another issue relating to smoking at work is that, according to a recent study, lots of employers have actually experienced productivity losses as a result of the smoking ban. The survey of 1,100 managers by Employment Law Advisory Services (ELAS) found that because staff were taking longer and more frequent smoking breaks, productivity was down in 71% of respondents’ workplaces. When I first read this I thought it just sounded ludicrous, I really couldn’t understand why the ban on smoking indoors would make any difference to the amount of breaks workers would take and how long. The only thing that should really be changing is the location of the smoking break area in some organisations, and to be honest not one workplace I have ever worked at has had an indoor smoking area anyway. However after thinking about it more, I can understand how smoking breaks might now take longer, as many companies have banned smoking anywhere on the premises, and this often includes the car park, so in some places (particularly places such as hospitals, where you’d think there wouldn’t be that many smokers anyway!) staff have to walk quite a long way to start their smoking break, hence increasing the time it takes. In these instances it would be more practical to have a smoking area or shelter close to the building so that smokers are actually able to assert their right to smoke if they wish to, but don’t take more than their allocated break time to do so. On the other hand, this can also cause problems, for example where I work the designated smoking area is quite near to the windows of other people’s offices and sometimes the smoke can drift into the office, especially when people light up as they’re on the way to the area instead of when they get there!
Of course there are always difficulties with this subject because there are different levels of tolerance of smoking with in organisations, and staff who are extremely anti-smoking will find it difficult to accept when provisions have been made for smokers to have cigarettes (and breaks) throughout the day. Ensuring the rules are fair for everyone is sometimes a ‘HR nightmare’ (this is a commonly used phrase where I work!) and sometimes you just have to accept that not everyone will be pleased with the outcome.
I’m sure these issues, and others, are really common in most organisations. If this is something you have to deal with, leave a comment explaining your experience.