Censuswide - on behalf of Lowell credit management company - has conducted new research on 1,000 respondents in the UK, which found that 17 per cent of the customers spoken to would consider delaying retirement for five years - with 12 per cent delaying for at least 10 years.

Of the customers over 45 years of age who were surveyed, 31 per cent said they were delaying their retirement due to debt worries and 9 per cent of customers of the same age said that they would never be able to retire.

More than one in five of those surveyed were genuinely concerned that their pension was not enough to live on – and the statistics also revealed that 8 per cent worry that they will accumulate debt because their state pension and/or workplace pension will not be enough. A further 6 per cent worried that they will not be able to support their family and another 6 per cent are concerned that they will not know - until retirement age - how much pension they will be paid.

Several misconceptions were revealed by the research:

• 13 per cent of those surveyed believe you must apply for a workplace pension - but if you meet the requirements for the new State Pension, you will be automatically enrolled.

• 12 per cent of the people surveyed believe you can access your State Pension early - but the earliest you can get your State Pension is once you reach State Pension age.
• 13 per cent believe you must apply for a workplace pension - but the regulations have changed to mean that all employers must provide a workplace pension scheme, or 'automatic enrolment' if you meet certain conditions

• 11 per cent believe that you can only retire once you get to 65 years of age.

John Pears - UK CEO of Lowell - commented:

“Lowell’s research confirms that our customers do have concerns around managing their debt and retirement. But, it’s also highlighted that there are many common misconceptions and worries surrounding retirement across the general public - indicating that our customers are not alone and that retirement fund fears are an important issue for many.”

The UK workforce is undergoing radical transformation, as the ‘great resignation’ signals a thirst for change.

A survey by BT has revealed that - given the opportunity - 69 per cent of the workforce would choose to reskill.

The sectors topping the list for people wanting to making the switch to, are technology - cited by 60 per cent; health at 17 per cent and finance 10 per cent.

Of the UK’s adult workforce, 22 per cent revealed that they were not happy in their current job and 42 per cent feel trapped - unable to find a way to change their present career path, feeling that the barriers to gaining the required skills to make a change are too great.

The research has shown that 31 per cent of the workforce wishing to change believe they are too old to learn new skills; 28 per cent state that the uncertainty of being accepted by a new industry is their biggest worry and 24 per cent said they cannot afford to take the time off to study.

In addition to this, 8 per cent of employees are fearful that their current job would be at risk if their employer knew of their interest in different work - and that number increases to 19 per cent amongst 18–24-year-olds, who say that their greatest barrier to retraining is lack of knowledge on how to change their situation.

As a result of this, BT has announced that they are launching a pilot cyber security reskilling programme in collaboration with CAPSLOCK - an award-winning cyber security training organisation.  This will enable current BT employees to retrain, equipping them with the skills needed to pursue a career in Security - whilst still being paid their normal wage.

Having graduated, BT’s new cyber employees will become Protectors. They will contribute to the protection of BT, their UK customers, government and critical national infrastructure.

Kevin Brown - Managing Director, BT Security - said:

“There simply aren’t enough people with the necessary skills to fill the amount of cyber security jobs available. The ‘cyber skills gap’ is a hot topic in the security industry, and this pilot reskilling programme with CAPSLOCK is a key part of how we’re working to develop the next generation of cyber security professionals. The scheme is all about opening doors for those who might not have seen an obvious way into a security career, and we’re welcoming people who have different skillsets, backgrounds and ages as we’re really looking for a diverse range of talent across our security team.”

Dr Andrea Cullen - Co-founder at CAPSLOCK - stated:

“Our mission in partnership with BT is to enable anybody with potential to enrol and change careers into cyber security. Importantly, we want to change perceptions that it is not just technical skills that are required to do well in this sector. The reality is that the field needs a broad array of skills and experts to fill a range of roles, many of which rely on transferable skills that many people already possess, and the holistic cyber skills which are developed throughout the CAPSLOCK course. With the right attitude and determination, anybody – no matter their past experience, education or age – has the potential to start a career in IT, technology, or cyber security.”

A recent poll of 200 HR managers - conducted by Wellbeing Partners - found that only 20 per cent of employers discourage employees from sending and replying to emails outside working hours and more than two thirds do not give any guidance on the safe use of technology and taking breaks away from screens.

More than three-quarters - 76 per cent of employers - do not offer any guidance to their staff about regularly taking annual leave.

Additionally, in the Wellbeing Partners survey 49 per cent of HR managers say their employees are struggling to find motivation and stay focused; 42 per cent agree that employees appear regularly tired or drained; 33 per cent say that employees seem to care less about work and 28 per cent feel that employees are finding tasks overwhelming or uninteresting. As well as this, 26 per cent state that employees appear resentful or cynical towards work and colleagues.

Lou Campbell - Programmes Director at Wellbeing Partners - said:

“It’s clear there is mounting pressure for HR, but there are some initial actions they can take to support employees while setting boundaries for their own wellbeing. Ensure that supportive conversations with employees follow a framework and schedule these conversations at a time when you have the energy and capacity to be supportive. Aim to finish work on time most days and give permission to switch off to avoid compassion fatigue. Knowing when to signpost employees onto wellbeing counsellors and EAPs is also a technique that HR professionals can learn, affording them more time and energy for their wider role, and ensuring that employees get appropriate professional support”.

The survey also reveals that when handling rising burnout and mental health concerns, HR is struggling to set boundaries for their own psychological safety.

Lou Campbell stated:

“While HR has a duty of care to support employees suffering with their mental health, they often neglect to look after themselves. For people in supporting roles, it’s useful to know what the appropriate boundaries are when discussing mental health issues with colleagues, to avoid becoming enmeshed or overly involved. Appropriate boundaries ensure that the conversation stays psychologically safe for the employee, and avoids compassion fatigue for HR.

Knowing the skills around setting boundaries and signposting to appropriate support is even more vital in a time when attracting and retaining staff is highly competitive; organisations must support HR to reduce the risk of key HR talent leaving their organisation as they deal with surging levels of employee burnout”.

Latest data from XpertHR - the UK’s leading online HR resource - has revealed that 77 per cent of HR professionals feel confident that over the next five years there will be good job prospects in the profession. This is the same figure as recorded by XpertHR in their 2017 research - suggesting that the positive outlook displayed by HR has not been diminished by the pandemic.

This year’s HR careers survey found that 39 per cent of UK HR professionals reported a positive impact on their career - resulting from the coronavirus pandemic - with interest in remote HR jobs never having been higher. Only 18 per cent of HR professionals saw a negative impact, whilst 32 per cent experienced no impact and under 11 per cent were not sure. Many of those seeing a negative impact on their career reported a significantly increased workload.

Craig McCoy - Senior Interim HR director and Chair of the London HR Connection -told HR magazine:

“The pandemic gave HR leaders an opportunity to respond proactively and shine in the context of almost unprecedented global disruption, and the aftermath of the pandemic as businesses pivot towards hybrid working means that HR skills and experience continue to be highly sought after. Certainly, it seems to be a great time to be working in the HR profession.”

Adam Oliver - Network HR Director - added that Covid has led to more employees from HR backgrounds being appointed to director-level positions.

He said:

"We’ve also seen an increased appetite in non-executive director appointments for executives hailing from a HR background to steer things like culture change at board level. This is certainly a post pandemic trend. This new world of working has accelerated business and cultural transformation which has baked-in a symbiotic relationship between HR and the business."

HR professionals also reported a change in the skills required to conduct their jobs - with 58 per cent saying the main skill needed is employee relations and 57 per cent citing business awareness. A comprehensive knowledge of employment law was fundamental for 46 per cent.

Michael Carty - XpertHR Benchmarking Editor of XpertHR - stated:

“For many HR professionals, the last two years have been among the most eventful and testing times in their careers. People management issues – such as implementing remote work models and creating safe office environments for returning employees – have topped the corporate agenda for many organisations during the pandemic, creating both challenges and opportunities for HR. It is heartening to see that the coronavirus pandemic has not dampened HR's overall positive outlook and enthusiasm for careers in the profession.”

According to new analysis by talent solutions consultancy Robert Half, only nine CEOs running FTSE 100 companies are women – despite a drive for diversity and initiatives to support the progression of women in the workplace.

A background in finance and banking was held by 42 per cent of the female CEOs - despite only 19 of the top 100 companies being in the financial sector and of these CEOs, 16 are Chartered Accountants or Chartered Management Accountants, making this the most common profession at the top. Robert Half says that this is a trend that may be linked to concerns over the financial downturn of recent years.

Of the nine female CEOs in the FTSE 100, four were from the financial sector - covering insurance, banking and asset management. They are Italian born Milena Mondini-de-Focatiis of the Admiral Group; Amanda Blanc of Aviva; Alison Rose-Slade of the NatWest Group and Anne Farlow of Pershing Square Holdings.

The research found that 68 per cent of the female CEO’s got to the head of the organisation via internal promotion.  This was a 24 per cent increase up from 2019 - which suggests that planning strategies are being enhanced. However, 47 per cent had been awarded a postgraduate qualification, with 23 per cent holding an MBA.

In previous years,18 per cent of CEOs had attended Oxford or Cambridge, but only four from the current list of FTSE 100 CEOs have been educated at these faculties.

Leyla Tindall - Managing Director for Robert Half Executive Search - said:

“Despite significant progress by companies to improve female representation over the last few years, there are quite simply not enough female bosses filling the top spot in the UK’s most successful companies. There is a myriad of reasons for this, but the most significant is the shortage of females in leadership positions - so shortlists for C-suite roles are often not as diverse as they could be. While the introduction of shared parental leave and better support for women returners is encouraging, the time spent away from the workplace to care for a family still sets women back, while their male counterparts continue to progress.”

A poll of 4,000 British professionals conducted by CoursesOnline – a workforce training company – found that approximately one-third of respondents did not believe that studying for professional qualifications is worth the effort.

On the other hand, 67 per cent of the professionals were confident that such studies were worth the effort; 49 per cent stated that they believed their level of qualification enabled them to get the role that they wanted; 18 per cent said that a lack of qualification was stopping them from getting the role they sought - and 33 per cent stated that their level of qualification was irrelevant to them being offered a job.

The industries that felt that the qualifications were most worthwhile were Social Work – 90 per cent of respondents believed in putting in time and effort to gain qualifications; Teaching and Education – 87 per cent felt qualifications were worthwhile and Law, with 85 per cent believing professional qualifications were worth the effort.

The sectors that considered that qualifications were least worthy were Energy and Utilities and Creative Arts and Design - where 63 per cent and 72 per cent respectively believed professional qualifications were not worth the effort - and in Recruitment and HR, 60 per cent of respondents felt the same.

When asked how they preferred to learn, 36 per cent of respondents cited learning on the job and 29 per cent stated taking dedicated courses. Only 11 per cent stated professional industry qualifications and just 10 per cent said through industry publications and social media.

Sarah-Jane McQueen - General Manager of CoursesOnline - explained that the findings demonstrated that… “the learning material provided to see learners through the qualification process can’t afford to be generic – those studying need real-world examples as to how what they learn is applicable to their day-to-day work”.

The Chancellor- Rishi Sunak - recognised in his spring statement that the UK lags in adult technical skills compared to other countries - and said that the government would consider whether they were “doing enough to incentivise businesses to invest in the right kinds of training”.

Naomi Phillips - Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Policy and Research at the Learning and Work Institute - welcomed the focus on skills spending. She warned that the last decade had seen a drop in business investment in skills and added:

“More support is needed for people who have fallen out of the workforce who can return but need to retrain or reskill.”

Despite women-led businesses showing a global growth, funding is a major challenge.

Research by Workplace Specialists Instant Offices has revealed that 35 per cent of women business founders are still facing gender bias whilst attempting to raise business capital - raising an average of 5 per cent less funding than men in a similar position.  Studies such as this show that men are significantly more likely to become entrepreneurs than women, despite an encouraging growth from four years ago when the number was only 17 per cent.

Statistics show that female business owners are most likely to run a one-woman business, with 37.7 per cent working alone; 27.1 per cent employing two to three staff and 23.4 per cent having teams of four or more.

Businesses owned by women were found to have a bigger turnover rate – not due to failure of the business but for personal reasons, probably to start a family or for childcare problems.  This most prevalent among women aged 25 to 34 years of age.

UK businesses with the highest percentage of female versus male entrepreneurs include Hair & Beauty with 76 per cent female versus 24 per cent male; Consumables with 64 per cent female against 36 per cent male and Wellness with 63 per cent female versus 37 per cent male.

By comparison, women are most under-represented as business owners in Electronics & Appliances, with only 3 per cent female versus 97 per cent male; Construction services with 5 per cent female against 95 per cent male and Outdoor & Garden services, having 5 per cent female versus 95 per cent male.

With funding for women continuing to be a significant challenge, it was found that women are 81 per cent less likely to be confident that they can access start-up funds; estimate that they need 40 per cent less funding to start their business and commence with an average of 53 per cent less capital.  It was also found that 46 per cent of entrepreneurs do not seek scale loans as they expect issues with the process and 30 per cent expect to be refused – leaving only 10 per cent of female-led UK businesses successfully scaling.

Lucinda Pullinger - Global Head of HR at The Instant Group - said:

“The modern workplace has seen a major shift towards greater flexibility, with remote and agile working becoming the way of the future, especially post-pandemic. An increasing number of companies are also looking to initiatives that include men to help move the dial, such as shared parental leave. This allows more women to balance their work and family responsibilities more effectively. As workplaces start reopening in the wake of a disruptive lockdown period, the business world is faced with many exciting opportunities to change and grow for the better. There are many more ways to pave the path to greater gender parity among entrepreneurs, inspiring women in business to thrive.”

Some UK employers have opted for mandatory Covid vaccinations - ignoring the reluctance of Gen Z employees to accept the jab.

In a survey - by people management platform Employment Hero - of more than 500 employers and 500 employees in the UK in March 2021, it was found that 84 per cent of respondents wanted the vaccine.

However, 29 per cent of Gen Z respondents - those aged between 18 and 24 years - said that they are feeling unsure about accepting the jab; a further 15 per cent said that they do not want it and only 56 per cent stated that they would accept it, if offered.

Employment Hero research has revealed the new data on how employers are feeling as vaccinations increase and lockdown restrictions begin to ease.

Unexpectedly, it was found that 37 per cent of UK employers were suggesting that they would be making it mandatory to have been vaccinated - and it was also found that 24 per cent of UK workers stated that they were feeling forced by their employers to accept the jab. Remarkably different results were found, however, depending on the employee’s location - employees in Greater London were 42 per cent more likely to feel pressured by their employer than those working in Scotland, who were 74 per cent less likely to feel any pressure. 

With reference to vaccine passports, nearly 80 per cent of UK employee respondents are of the opinion that they are a good idea, but 21 per cent are against.  Employers, though, are divided in their thoughts about passports with 36 per cent stating that they would adopt them and 30 per cent disagreeing.

Many employers – 29 per cent – state that they are considering the idea of long-term remote working.  An additional 26 per cent said they would allow more flexibility to employees regarding location and hours of work but 23 per cent of employers said they would return their teams to the office as normal over the next six months.

Ben Thompson - CEO and co-founder of Employment Hero - said:

“This year has presented unique challenges for many employers and employees and as we look to the next six months, there are positives for businesses worldwide, but new challenges will arise. It is important employers listen to their employees and offer ‘Total Employment Care’ where possible. Don’t make assumptions about employee resistance to the vaccine or returning to the office. Share verified information with your employees and be open to their feedback or risk star talent jumping ship. A full return to the office might not happen in 2021, or ever, and employers should be prepared for this. One of the few silver linings of the pandemic was the realisation that workers can still thrive productively while working outside the office parameters. Businesses should not forget this. Invest in the tools that keep both productivity and communication up, and don’t overlook an incredibly talented workforce just because of their personal health choices or remote working preferences.”

A solicitor - Ms Aysha Khatun - has won her claim for unfair dismissal from personal injury firm, Winn Solicitors.

Ms Khatun refused to vary her contract - the only member of its 365 staff to do this - so that her employers, Winn Solicitors, could furlough her or reduce her wages to help it cope with the impact of Covid.  The consequence of this was dismissal from her job, in which she had been employed since April 2015.  Her dismissal was in March 2020.

Ms Khatun worked in a team handling contested Road Traffic Accidents and was well-regarded as a capable solicitor who earned good fees and achieved her targets with ease.  The head of the team was Mr Dewar, who - along with three other members of management - was called as a witness for Winn Solicitors.

In view of the continuing problems caused by the pandemic, Winn Solicitors established a steering committee to monitor developments and to propose solutions.  Staff were kept up to date, with the first update informing them that the company were reviewing capabilities for an increased number of staff to work remotely from home. Mr Dewar proposed 20 persons from his team to do this.

The Director and Chief Operating Officer (another tribunal witness) and Mr Winn called a meeting of all managers - its purpose being to discuss emergency measures to deal with the coronavirus.  The first measure was to aim to furlough 50 per cent of staff from 30 March 2020 - the reason being that there had been a reduction in new work and a further deterioration was envisaged.

The remainder of the staff - including Ms Khatun - had to agree a variation to their contracts.  With five days’ notice, they could have their hours reduced or be placed on furlough. They were informed that anyone not agreeing would have their contract terminated.

In addition, solicitors being retained were told they were being assigned a ‘furloughed buddy’s caseload’ to settle other cases where possible, but otherwise to do the minimum to keep them running.

Ms Khatun was a staff member who was not furloughed but she refused to agree to this variation and wrote:

“I feel that I am continuing to deliver the job that I am contracted to - if not more - as I now have double the work as I have to cover a ‘buddy’.  These are uncertain times and I do not feel comfortable allowing Winn’s to effectively reduce my pay. In the event that I am furloughed, or any other unexpected situation arises, I will of course consider a variation at that point.”

HR were then instructed to dismiss Ms Khatun the following day - without giving any chance to appeal.

Judge Morris remarked that the company had ‘sound, good business reasons’ for needing its staff to agree to the variation, but it was important that the staff have an opportunity to be involved in the process in a meaningful way, which Winn’s had failed to do.

He stated that Winn’s “had available to it more than the 48 hours or so that it allowed, within which time a reasonable employer would have been expected to have engaged meaningfully with the claimant in an attempt to address her concerns and reasonably explore all alternatives to dismissal.”

He added:

“I did not detect even a hint of any reasonable process being followed. Indeed, when I asked (the head of department} whether his evidence was just that there would be no process before dismissal, he answered, ‘Yes – if they didn’t agree the sanction would be applied’. His evidence was also that the business ‘simply could not spend time negotiating with 300+ individual staff’.”

Judge Morris went on to say:

“While this might go some way to establishing the ‘some other substantial reason’ for dismissal, I am not satisfied that it sufficiently establishes the reasonableness of the decision.

In the event, it appears that it would only have been necessary, not necessarily to negotiate, but to engage in a meaningful discussion with the claimant and not the other 300+ staff who accepted the variation.”

The judge discarded the suggestion that an appeal would have been pointless as by the time it was heard, management’s anger at Ms Khatun may have cooled and she might have been more open to agreeing to the variation. 

As new off-payroll working rules come into force this month, experts are urging people professionals to work out how to assess contractors ‘sooner rather than later’. 

The reform to off-payroll working rules - also known as IR35 - is likely to have a major impact on the way businesses hire contractors.

Because of the coronavirus pandemic the new off-payroll working rules were pushed back by a year, finally coming into force in the private sector at the beginning of this month.  The onus for who is caught by the tax rule has been changed, from the contractor to the organisation employing them.  To avoid making this decision, many companies stated they would no longer be using contractors.

The new rules have been put into place to ensure that contractors are paying the same level of Income Tax and National Insurance Contributions that they would if they were hired directly by the client - and medium and large-sized private sector clients are now responsible for determining the employment status of the worker or contractor.

Seb Maley - CEO of Qdos - commented on the reform, stating:

“The introduction of IR35 reform is a historic moment. It marks the culmination of years of the government chipping away at contractors, who have shown tremendous resilience and a determination to continue working this way.”

Matt Fryer - Head of Legal Services at Brookson Legal - also stated that businesses must take a ‘new approach’. He said:

“As IR35 becomes the norm, businesses need to take a completely new approach to contingent workforce management. Processes need to be embedded throughout the company to ensure continuity, including undertaking a fair and accurate employment status test, managing the process of any challenges to status determinations, contract migration and recruitment. It is also vital to maintain visibility of the temporary workforce and control of risk throughout the supply chain. With the economy gearing up for recovery from the pandemic, not having an appropriate IR35 solution in place is a real risk in terms of attracting and retaining a highly talented flexible workforce.”

Charles Cotton - Research and Policy Adviser at the CIPD - said organisations had to work out the practicalities of assessment, including whether HR would be at the helm.

He said:

“If it’s another department, then it makes sense to check what help it will expect from HR. This will help to determine your respective roles and responsibilities, as well as setting expectations.  For example, while another team might be responsible for making the assessments, it might still want HR’s help when it comes to communicating with contractors, or it might want HR to set up an appeals process in case some contractors are not happy with how their contracts have been determined.”

Simon Parsons - Director of UK Compliance Strategies at SD Worx - urged businesses to understand what the reform means to their business specifically and to plan around it.

He stated:

“Having a clear understanding of the requirements, evaluating what this means for the business, assessing current and future processes, and planning for the future will place HR teams in a strong position to adapt to the coming change. As the saying goes, it’s better late than never.”

Research suggests that female directors of top finance firms are paid £500k less than their male counterparts.

This research - after analysing workforce data from the FTSE 350 financial services companies - highlights recent signs of progress but emphasises that there is still a way to go to obviate gender inequality.

Reasons to celebrate are that as of February, according to the 30% Club, there are no FTSE 350 companies in the UK with an all-male board.  However, as this also happened previously in May 2020 only to return to all male boards the following month, it is essential that this time around they are gone for good by maintaining and continuing to increase female representation at board level.

The Hampton-Alexander Review has reported finding that the number of women on FTSE 350 boards has increased by 50 per cent in just five years. By 11 January this year, there were 1,026 women on FTSE 350 boards. This is an increase of 344 since the previous review in 2016. 

The FTSE 100 achieved 36.2 per cent of female representation, whilst the FTSE 250 achieved 33.2 per cent, equating to the FTSE 350 now having women in 34.3 per cent of board positions.

It may seem that getting rid of all-male boards and having 34.3 per cent of board positions held by women is putting gender equality within grasp - but according to analysis by Fox & Partners, from September 2020 women held just 7,552 of 50,639 senior management jobs at financial services firms. This equates to 15 per cent of such roles. 

Gender diversity was lowest at CEO level of financial services businesses - with women holding just 8 per cent of CEO positions and just 8 per cent of chair roles.  In addition, the average pay for female directors at FTSE 350 financial services firms was found to be approximately £247,100 - almost £500,000 less compared to the £722,300 paid to their male counterparts.  

Catriona Watt - Partner at Fox & Partners - stated that women were still under-represented in the boardroom and added:

“There is no quick fix, but firms need to ensure they have as part of their planning a strategy that seeks to break down barriers that have typically prevented women from progressing to the top.”

Mary O’Connor - Senior Partner at KPMG UK - remarked that women still faced ‘structural and cultural barriers’ to senior roles and figures like ‘34 per cent of board members are women’ can downplay these barriers.

She went on to say:

“Achieving the review’s 33 per cent target at boardroom level marks great progress, but it’s vital we have a strong pipeline of female talent rising through the ranks.”

Arun Batra - Partner at EY; CEO of the National Equality Standard and adviser to the Parker review - previously told People Management: 

“Being open and honest on this issue is a crucial step to diversifying the boardroom.  For years we’ve known that diversity of thought and perspective is imperative to growth, which is even more the case during the challenges of Covid-19 where there are new uncertainties and no precedent to follow. We’re in uncharted territory and the long-term recovery from the current global health crisis will require companies to leverage the strengths of all their people.

Embracing the value and importance of boardroom diversity will be critical in the long term and those that fail to do so risk being left behind.” 

He urged employers to help inspire future generations of talent by creating a culture wherein all people feel they can succeed - adding:

“Such a culture can help nurture a productive workforce, which ultimately is an important input to achieving business growth.”

Research by PennyFreedom.co.uk - one of the UK’s leading cash flow management platforms - has discovered that UK small businesses are presently seeking the payment of £61bn worth of unpaid invoices. It also revealed that two thirds of the six million small businesses have at least one late payment on their books with an average value of £15,370.

The money owed has increased by 20 per cent since this time last year and is enough to employ more than 2 million people out of work people - based on these people earning an average UK salary of £29,600.

Currently 5.1 per cent - or 1.74 million people - in the UK are out of work and experts predict a rise to 7.75 per cent unemployed when furlough schemes come to an end in mid-2021.

Up by 25 per cent on this time last year, the survey found that business owners and managers spend an average of two days a month chasing unpaid invoices and 26 per cent admitted to having three or more unpaid invoices on their books.

The survey also found that companies are being pressured to increase the length of their standard invoice terms - from an average of 33 days to 56 days - which is an increase of 69 per cent.  One in 10 businesses said that during the pandemic they had been asked for 60-day payment terms.  

During the study, business owners were asked for their comments about the upcoming lift of the lockdown - whether they felt prepared to return to normality - and 77 per cent stated that they were just as worried about the next twelve months, with 56 per cent saying that they felt unprepared or unsure of their position after lockdown.

When asked whether they thought the government had done enough for them during lockdown, 52 per cent of respondents said the support had been ‘okay’, with 34 per cent saying that the approach by government to helping businesses had not been good enough.

Colin Gunnel - PennyFreedom.co.uk co-founder - said:

“When we started PennyFreedom.co.uk our goal was to help businesses of all shapes and sizes improve their cash flow and financial stability and eradicate worry about late payments and that hasn’t changed. COVID may have changed the way we all do business, but late payments and outrageous payment terms must be a thing of the past. The damage it does to small businesses and sole traders can be immense, and we were shocked to see just how much is owed to SMEs right now. It’s no wonder so many SMEs in the UK are struggling to stay afloat, especially in industries more heavily affected by the pandemic.

We wanted to humanise these figures for people because, ultimately, they’re never just numbers on a spreadsheet. Prompt payment under agreed terms is imperative to keeping SMEs, the backbone of the UK economy, thriving and keep people in work. With unemployment set to rise again later this year the fact that so much money is owed is criminal.”

A survey was conducted by Virtual College - an online training provider - to identify the issues encountered by workers since they commenced working from home at the start of the lockdown on 23 March 2020. A year has passed since the UK went into that first lockdown and HR had no option but to take control - proving its adaptability.

Teams had to react quickly and put into place strategies to ensure that remote working did not deepen work-related stress or burnout.

Of those workers surveyed, 48.6 per cent said they felt less fit since working from home, whilst 39.35 per cent felt more tired.  Over 20 per cent of the respondents said that they regularly felt stressed in their new working environment - and over 30 per cent said that working from home is more stressful than working in the office.  In addition to stress, 20 per cent of those surveyed said that their mental health had worsened as a result of working from home.

Some respondents - 30 per cent - quoted anxiety and over 37 per cent stated that they had experienced moments of loneliness, with 35 per cent saying that they missed the interaction with others in the office.  Insecurity and depression were cited by 20 per cent of home workers and in terms of physical health, 20 per cent stated that they did not have a comfortable workplace at home.

Siobhan Martin - Global HR Business Ppartner at Aegon Asset Management - said that HR has learnt first-hand how important human interaction is and that employees will need to interact with colleagues in person once the lockdown is lifted. 

She told HR magazine:

"It’s important to acknowledge that we are social creatures and it is easy to forget the feelings of security and calmness that come from just being around other people. HR must build this into the new world of work after the pandemic." 

The survey also found that many workers were not getting outside or taking exercise regularly and when it comes to physical ailments over a third of respondents said they have experienced backache as a result of working from home.

Many respondents - 38.74 per cent - said they exercise just 1 or 2 days per week; 13.5 per cent get no exercise; over 10 per cent do not get outdoors at all while working from home and the majority - 39.64 per cent try to ensure that they get some fresh air just 1 or 2 days per week.

Hannah Brindle - Managing Director of Virtual College - said:

“We are very excited to launch our ‘Walk for Wellbeing’ campaign and we truly hope we can inspire many businesses and their teams to get active, get outdoors and get walking. Getting fresh air and exercise - particularly in the daylight, can really help with both mental and physical wellbeing, and building this into your working day with support from your employer is incredibly important. The insights from our survey were concerning and reinforce the need for all of us to take our mental and physical wellbeing seriously - particularly if we want to remain motivated and productive at work and at home and keep healthy and safe. In Virtual College, we have introduced a ‘daylight hour’ - where we encourage our teams to take an hour out during the day and get some fresh air and exercise. Our ‘Walk for Wellbeing’ campaign is taking this one step further - encouraging our people to collaborate and participate in bigger walking challenges which we hope will counteract some of the mental and physical symptoms associated with living and working remotely.” 

A poll, which surveyed more than 300 employers and was conducted by People Management and CIPD, has found that one in four employers expect to make permanent redundancies as a result of Covid-19. This poll was undertaken to understand how HR teams have been responding to the coronavirus outbreak.

It was found that 52 per cent of employers planned to temporarily lay off staff through the government’s job retention scheme and of those, 17 per cent stated that they anticipated having to furlough up to 10 per cent of their workforce – and another 10 per cent of those surveyed forecast that they would have to temporarily lay off up to 24 per cent of the workforce. 

Despite the government’s interventions, 15 per cent of those surveyed were expecting to make up to 10 per cent of their existing workforce redundant - 9 per cent of employers anticipated having to lose up to 49 per cent of their workers - and 1 per cent would lose more than 75 per cent.

Firms have been asked - by experts - to consider other options carefully and only make permanent redundancies when all else fails, warning that the staff can still bring tribunal claims if the situations are not handled correctly.

Apart from furloughing and making staff redundant, 35 per cent of respondents cited asking staff to take annual leave; 26 per cent cited temporarily deploying employees to other parts of the business; 25 per cent reducing working hours and 24 per cent freezing or deferring pay rises.

Ben Willmott - head of public policy at the CIPD - said:

“Making redundancies should be a last resort once all other options for reducing workforce costs have been taken. Organisations that are most successful in protecting jobs and supporting their employees will also be those that are most resilient and best able to recover once this crisis is past.”

Paul Holcroft - Associate Director at Croner - said it was not surprising that some businesses felt they had no choice but to make staff redundant, but warned about the usual rules surrounding redundancy continuing to apply.  

He stated:

“Employees can still seek to bring tribunal claims if their employers do not handle these situations properly – a process that is likely to drag on for an extended period because of the outbreak.” 

Jude Read - Managing Director of Jude Read Consultancy - told People Management that the furlough scheme had been a “godsend” for her clients.

She added:

“We’re not just talking about five or six employees being furloughed – we’re talking about 20 to 50 workers being furloughed at one time. Can you imagine if this was redundancy and having to handle a collective consultation as well?” 

However, money from the job retention scheme is not expected to start arriving until the end of April at the earliest, and both Jude Read and Sarah Dowzell - Chief Operating Officer and co-founder of Natural HR - said many employers did not have the cash to bridge this gap.

Sarah Dowzell added a warning:

“How you behave and treat your employees – both those being made redundant and those unaffected – during this time of crisis can have a huge impact on the perception of your company once you’re out the other side. Handling it without the due care and attention such a situation deserves will not only make an already stressful time for your employees that much more difficult, but it could also adversely affect how your business is viewed externally and your ability to attract future talent”.

Due to the COVID-19 situation, The Pensions Regulator has decided that it can adopt a more flexible approach in a number of areas to what is normally expected of reporting and when enforcement action would be appropriate under the current circumstances.

This will apply until 30 June 2020, but The Pensions Regulator will continue to review whether or not more specific flexibility is required in the weeks following this date and, in fact, whether the date should be extended. They are to take “a reasonable, pragmatic and proportionate approach” to their regulatory work during this time.

Someone involved in running an occupational pension scheme may need to report certain information to The Pensions Regulator - including when the trustees are in breach of certain obligations imposed on them. However, the new guidance states that “if a breach will be rectified in less than three months and does not negatively impact savers”, then there is no need to report it but records should be kept of decisions made and any actions taken.

In making any decisions about whether or not to take regulatory action in respect of any breaches of administrative and compliance requirements, The Pensions Regulator has said that will be decided on a case-by-case basis. A flexible approach will be adopted in respect of granting longer periods to comply - and COVID-19 will be taken into account.

Annual benefit statements; chair’s statements; employer-related investment and master trusts are among a number of areas of reporting and enforcement for which the easing of the regulations would not be appropriate.  

Nicola Parish - The Pensions Regulator Executive Director of frontline regulation - said:

“The pressures caused by Covid-19 have been felt throughout the pensions industry. That’s why we have taken steps to do what we can to reduce the regulatory burden on trustees, employers and providers at this unprecedented time. We will take a reasonable, pragmatic and proportionate approach to our regulatory work during Covid-19. However, there are a number of areas, particularly those regulations designed to directly protect savers’ interests, where we are not easing our requirements. Trustees, employers and providers should read The Pension Regulator’s Covid-19 guidance so they are clear on what is expected of them at this time.”

A new report surveying 301 HR professionals and conducted by the CIPD and People Management, found that 67 per cent of respondents said that supporting people’s mental health during the pandemic was their key challenge.  

For 70 per cent of employers, making sure that staff working remotely is staying well both physically and mentally was their biggest challenge. Despite the uncertainty many employers now find themselves in, deciding on the best way to respond to the crisis as a business accounted for only 49 per cent.

Other challenges employers have found whilst dealing with the Covid-19 outbreak are 47 per cent of staff were not able to work from home; 36 per cent stated lack of government information and 34 per cent were unable to work because schools are closed.

Where staff are working at home, 65 per cent found the biggest challenge was where staff had to balance work and the commitment of looking after children; 64 per cent reported keeping the staff motivated and 57 per cent found it challenging ensuring that staff are communicating effectively with each other.

The CIPD is encouraging employers to have continual communication with their staff and to take early action in offering support - such as counselling - and stating that management should be trained and confident to support the employees’ continued well-being for both those in the workplace and those working from home.

Rachel Suff - well-being adviser at the CIPD - said:

“On one hand, these finding are welcome as it shows that the vast majority of employers do care about their staff and recognise they have a responsibility to look out for them. On the other, it does bring home the heavy toll that this crisis is putting people under, and some employers and line mangers may well be feeling out of their depth in how to best support them. There are simple steps employers can take at this time to support their staff’s mental well-being, such as reminding managers about the importance of communicating regularly with their teams, asking how they’re doing, and signposting to advice on good self-care like healthy diet, sleep and relaxation habits.”

On being asked whether more staff would be allowed to work from home - or to work unconventional hours - if the working arrangements proved successful - 41 per cent agreed they would; 9 per cent stated they would not and 12 per cent stated that they did not know.

Until recently, most people in the UK had never heard of furlough, but the impact of coronavirus on the economy means that over the next few months, millions of workers will rely on this scheme.

Furloughed workers are common in the United States. The term furlough means the temporary leave of staff due to the special needs of an employer, caused by the economic conditions of a specific employer - or the economy as a whole.

Furlough leave is a new idea - introduced as an alternative solution for employers who might otherwise have had to put into practice redundancies; unpaid leave or other measures for their staff.

Rishi Sunak - the Chancellor of the Exchequer - recently announced that if employers are unable to cover staff costs due to the coronavirus, they may have the option of applying for support to enable them to continue paying 80 per cent of their employee’s wages, up to a maximum of £2,500. The guidance at present states that all businesses will be eligible to claim a reimbursement for at least three months - backdated from 1st March 2020 - and this period may be extended if necessary.

The employees named as furloughed workers will remain in employment and consequently will continue to be on the company payroll; accrue holidays and accrue continuous service. Employers may, if they wish, add to the 80 per cent wage paid under the government scheme, to enable the furloughed staff to receive their full wage but this is not compulsory.

Coronavirus restrictions mean that the work of many firms - such as pubs, restaurants, cafes, travel firms and estate agents has come to a standstill and a recent YouGov poll suggested that one in 20 workers have already lost their jobs because of the pandemic.

Any UK organisation with employees can apply, but in practice it is thought that it will mainly be private sector businesses and charities that claim.

Amongst the firms that will furlough a significant proportion of staff are British Airways and EasyJet with Greggs, McDonald's, Arcadia and Nissan also among firms furloughing all or part of their workforce

Millions of businesses globally have moved to remote working to enable them to continue operating, to protect their employees and help to slow the spread of Coronavirus.

Computers, smartphones and other technology will be heavily relied on by remote workers for completing tasks; collaborating on work and communicating with the rest of the team. The electronic devices are very powerful during these times but increased use can cause significant damage to employee’s eyes. For a lot of employees, this way of working will be completely new and they will not know that their electronic devices can pose a risk to their health. 

Employers have the same health and safety responsibilities for home workers as for any other workers and - as such - should consider how they will keep in touch with their employees; what the employees work activity will be and for how long; whether it can be done safely and if any measures are needed to protect them.

Where possible, employers should allow employees to take home equipment – keyboards, mouse, riser, etc. For other larger items, ergonomic chairs or height- adjustable desks, workers could be encouraged to try other ways of creating a comfortable working environment with for example, supporting cushions.

When employees are working at home on a long-term basis, the risks associated with using display screen equipment [2] must be controlled, which would include undertaking home workstation assessments. However, for those working at home temporarily employers do not need to do this, but they should provide practical advice - such as suggesting that the employee breaks up long spells of computer work with rest breaks of at least 5 minutes every hour; avoids eye fatigue by changing focus and regularly changes position, getting up to do stretching exercises.

Other simple steps to reduce fatigue on the visual system include working at an arm’s length from the screen; adjusting the height and level of the screen so that it is 5-6 inches below the straight line of vision and positioning the screen away from overhead lighting or windows to avoid glare.

Every business is being encouraged to do what they can to support their employees.  As a business owner, manager or HR professional, it is important to communicate all these steps and practices effectively so that remote workers are constantly healthy and productive.

The risks are greater for lone workers with no direct supervision or anyone to help them if things go wrong. Keeping in touch with lone workers - including those working from home - will help to ensure that they are healthy and safe.

Employers are being urged to step up their mental health support for employees during the Covid-19 crisis lockdown.

Research from People Management shows that managers lack confidence in this area and are finding that staff anxiety about Covid-19 is HR’s biggest challenge.

The CIPD and Simplyhealth has released figures showing that the majority of managers were falling short on this even before the crisis began and they are stating that immediate action is required if employees are to avoid being at risk from poor mental health both during and after the coronavirus pandemic.

Between October and mid-November, a poll of 1,018 HR professionals across the UK was conducted. It found that 25 per cent of HR professionals were of the opinion that managers were able to recognise the early warning signs of mental ill- health, but only 31 per cent thought that managers were confident enough to deal with these problems in a sensitive manner. This figure of 31 per cent is not specifically related to the coronavirus, as that figure has remained at this level for the past four years.

The CIPD, Simplyhealth Health and Well-being Survey at Work 2020 report stated that concern over job security and income loss, added to fear of infection and feelings of isolation is likely to increase the anxiety, pressure and stress that is affecting many people.

Rachel Suff, Advisor - ER & Diversity (Europe) for CIPD, stated:

“With so many people working at home, it can be even harder for managers to pick up on cues that their colleagues might be struggling. It’s really important that managers are regularly checking in with their team and making use of video calls, so interactions can be as personal as possible.”

She added:

“Employers also need to remember that their duty of care for people’s health and safety carries on no matter where staff are based. These findings show that whilst more managers are being trained to help colleagues with their mental health, it doesn’t always seem to be translating into better support for staff.”

Respondents to the survey were also asked about their biggest challenges in relation to staff working remotely and 70 per cent cited ensuring employees’ physical and mental wellbeing.

Richard Gillies - Chief Operating Officer at Simplyhealth - remarked:

“Organisations who have already adopted a proactive approach to supporting their employees’ wellbeing will be well positioned during the coronavirus crisis. By making good use of initiatives like employee assistance programmes that offer counselling and 24/7 remote access to a GP, employees will benefit from additional support for their health at such a difficult time.”

When businesses were asked about their methods for checking how staff were feeling about new working arrangements - and the coronavirus situation generally - 66 per cent reported that they relied on line manager feedback; 56 per cent direct employee feedback and only 9 per cent had utilised staff surveys.

Stephen Bevan - head of HR research development at the Institute of Employment Studies - said that the move to remote working made it harder for HR and managers to pick up on the fact that their colleagues might be struggling.

He stated:

“The fact that people are so distant means that even the most empathetic manager can't really spot signs of staff’s behaviour, disposition or even physical signs of people being in trouble of some kind.”

He added that employers could support employees, trust them to do their jobs and offer the flexibility for staff to work around other responsibilities such as childcare – saying:

“In the current circumstances, I think there are some lessons in getting people to psychologically segment their day where logistically possible, to communicate that to people and be trusted by their employer and to offer the flexibility for staff to work around other responsibilities such as childcare.  There’s nothing worse than people thinking they have to be sending emails at 6pm just to show that they’re active online, otherwise people will think they’ve skived off early.” 

More than 2,370 employees across the UK were questioned - as part of a new study by the Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice at Nottingham Business School, in partnership with the CIPD and YouGov - about issues they experience in the workplace and whether they feel able to raise them.

The respondents were asked which issues they experience, with the data showing that the most common issue experienced by 4 per cent of employees, is work pressure. Organisational change was cited by 29 per cent and 22 per cent who had raised an issue at work felt that they received no advice or support.

The study found that - for 62 per cent of the respondents - the most common method for them to have a voice is by one-to-one meetings with a line manager. Team meetings accounted for 49 per cent of employees expressing their concerns and only 17 per cent approached a trade union.

Professor Helen Shipton - lead researcher; Director of the Centre for People, Work and Organisational Practice and author of the report -‘Talking about employee voice: employees’ experiences’ - said:

“Nearly three in ten employees report low psychological safety at work. Employers therefore need to create safe environments for people to speak out, which can positively impact well-being and organisational effectiveness. Line managers are shown to have a critical role in this by enabling employees to voice their issues and ideas in one-to-one meetings. This shows a need for all line managers to be trained to understand the value of employee voice, encourage individuals to voice issues that are important to them, and to suggest improvements to the way things are done in the organisation, or share innovative ideas.”

Just half of the respondents were found to be satisfied - or very satisfied - with the amount of involvement they have in making decisions at work. Employees working in small and private organisations were more satisfied compared with those working in large and public sector organisations, but only a quarter stated that they feel free to express themselves - with another quarter stating that they chose to remain silent even though they had something they wanted to say.

Terms and conditions of employment - such as pay, holidays and flexible working - were cited by 38 per cent of employees as areas in which they had little or no control.

Daniel King - Professor of Organisational Studies at Nottingham Business School and co-author of the report - said:

“Our findings suggest that organisations offer limited scope for sharing matters that their employees consider to be important. However, there is a positive link between voice and job satisfaction - which means employers should create ways for all staff to have a voice, which can in turn boost their attitude and motivation at work. These findings are important in the context of creating good work and quality jobs, because they point towards factors that can empower or disempower people in shaping their working lives.”

A recent judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal has found that Emma Pease - whilst on maternity leave - was unfavourably treated, but not discriminated against by the South West Yorkshire Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Mrs Pease was employed by the Trust as a health trainer and during her maternity leave the Trust carried out a redundancy exercise. A meeting took place - which Mrs Pease attended - and at that meeting she was informed that she was at risk of being made redundant the following day. Two days later, she was sent an email, attaching a deployment document and guidance notes, stressing that the document should be completed and returned to HR as soon as possible. However, because the email was sent to her work email address, she did not receive it.

Shortly afterwards, Mrs Pease found out that she had missed the email. She obtained a copy, completed the document and returned it immediately.

Mrs Pease was eventually made redundant and she subsequently brought a claim for unfair dismissal and a claim for maternity discrimination. Her claim stated that she had been sent an important email to her work email account, which - as she was on maternity leave - she did not use. As a result of this, she missed being considered for redeployment by a period of nine days.

The Employment Tribunal agreed that she had been disadvantaged - meaning that she missed three job opportunities - which they attributed to the ignorance of the email requiring her to inform HR of her details. It was concluded that the Trust had discriminated against Mrs Pease because she was on maternity leave and she was awarded £5,000 compensation.

The Trust appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, who upheld the previous ruling that this amounted to unfavourable treatment by her employer.

It overruled, however, the initial Employment Tribunal’s verdict that it also amounted to discrimination as, although the way in which Mrs Pease was treated would not have happened if she had not been on maternity leave, the Employment Tribunal had not considered whether her maternity leave was the reason why she was unfairly treated. The Employment Tribunal should have gone into the reason why the disadvantage occurred and enquired as to whether the person who sent the email in the first place had any discriminatory motive in mind. The Employment Appeal Judge added that the evidence given at the Tribunal hearing suggested that the mistake with the email was down to an administrative error and nothing more. He then sent the case back to the Employment Tribunal to consider why the email was sent to the work email account.

New analysis by the BBC suggests that the gender pay gap is getting worse - and critics say that making businesses report their inequality is not enough.

According to the results, four in ten private companies that have published their latest gender pay gap figures have reported wider gaps than last year. It was found that male employees - in every sector of business - were paid more.  

Of the companies that have reported up to now, 74 per cent have a pay gap that favours men and only 14 per cent favour women. However, the utilities company Npower blamed their pay gap increase from 13% to 18% on the fact that more female than male employees are choosing to go for a salary sacrifice scheme.

Npower company spokesperson said:

“Npower implemented a cost reduction programme in 2017 which, along with the trend of more women than men taking advantage of salary sacrifice employee benefits designed to promote flexible working, had an impact on the pay gap.”

Car mechanics chain, Kwik Fit - in 2017 - had a negative gender pay gap of minus 15.2 per cent, showing that their female employees were paid more, but its 2018 figures show a 14 per cent median gender pay gap in favour of men. They attribute this to a number of senior female employees leaving the company.  

A spokesperson for Kwik Fit said:

“We are keen to both promote from within the company as well as recruit more women to help redress this balance.”

Financial Services is one of the worst performing sectors, with several banks -including Lloyds Banking Group and RBS - reporting median gender pay gaps in excess of 30 per cent. According to the research, the construction industry is also showing a high median gender pay gap of around 26 per cent.

Martha McKinley - Solicitor at law firm Stephensons - remarked on the fact that the growth in the gaps at some companies signalled how challenging it is to deal with pay imbalances.

She said:

“The introduction of this type of reporting makes the issue more transparent and forces employers to sit up, take notice and hopefully take action. It will be interesting to see how the land lies after the April 4th reporting deadline.”

Rebecca Hilsenrath - Chief Executive to the Equality and Human Rights Commission - said:

“Transparency is brilliant and the first year of gender pay gap reporting has had an immense impact in raising awareness of workplace equality, but the truth is that transparency is not enough. Just reporting figures is not going to eliminate anyone’s pay gap.

Now that employers have met their legal duty to report their pay gaps, they should have worked out what has caused them and what they need to do to narrow them.  We believe that it should be mandatory for employers to publish, alongside their pay gap data, action plans with specific targets and deadlines.”

Sam Smethers - Chief Executive of the Fawcett Society - agreed and told the Telegraph:

“Initial findings look worrying with 40 per cent of those who have already reported showing pay gaps widening not narrowing.  Women will be wondering what is going on. We need to require employers to publish action plans that we can hold them accountable to.”

Ten million workers in the UK will now see more of their wages automatically diverted to a pension, starting from 6 April 2019 when the workplace pension scheme will rise again - to a total of 8%.

The Government is giving a tax relief to those contributing to their pension. For basic rate payers, a £100 contribution to the pension will cost £80 - due to the 20% tax relief - and higher tax brackets will receive a larger percentage of relief.

However, it will mean less take-home pay for people who are automatically enrolled into a workplace pension - a person earning £30,000 per annum will pay an extra £32 a month into their pension. This has caused experts to worry that these employees will see the short term income loss as a reason to opt out of the auto-enrolment.

Employees are being urged to remain enrolled in the scheme to reap the long term benefits, as an annual pension contribution of 8% of salary, from the age of 30, could mean £125,000 in their pension pot at retirement.

Analysts say that by choosing to opt-out of this automatic pension saving, workers would actually lose out on the money their employer puts into their pension pot.

Tom Selby - Senior Analyst at investment company AJ Bell - stated:

"Anyone who chooses to opt-out is basically taking a voluntary pay cut. If you turn down the matched contribution from an employer you won't get it back elsewhere."

Advice for workers who are worried about what happens when they move employers is that most modern pension schemes are portable - meaning it can be moved through employers, roles and industries. Moving employers does not mean the pot will be lost.

Michelle Gribbin - Chief Investment Officer at Profile Pensions - advises:

“The workplace pension scheme is to the benefit of UK employees and designed to help everyone prepare for their financial future. Together, the employer contribution, tax relief and investment growth offer the ability to significantly increase the value of your money for a time in your life when you will really need it.

Straightforward pension advice is a vital step in the personal finance education process. When people really understand what these contributions mean, where they come from and how opting-out impacts their financial future, they become empowered to make their own informed decisions and potentially be over £125,000 better off in retirement.”

According to analysis by national accountancy group UHY Hacker Young - after a Freedom of Information request - it was found that HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) has made 84 separate investigations into under-payment of the apprenticeship levy in 2018/19.

The HMRC collected £6.2m through these investigations last year - an increase from £5.2m in 2017/18 - but they state that collectively businesses have underpaid £13.6m in 2017/2018.

As part of the apprenticeship levy, businesses running a payroll over £3m must pay 0.5 per cent of their total wage bill (minus £15,000 allowance) into a fund to be used for government approved training schemes. As these schemes do not always match their requirements, some businesses perceive the apprenticeship levy to be an extra employment tax. Research showed that more than £3bn of funding has not yet been taken up - data from HMRC indicated that only £480m had been used by 30th November 2018.

At the beginning of the year, a survey by the City and Guilds found that of the 745 levy-paying companies polled, 92 per cent reported they would like greater flexibility in how they spent the funds - 45 per cent said they would like to be able to allocate the funds to non-apprenticeship training courses.

UHY Hacker Young stated that a number of employers found the levy complicated - which meant that they accidentally underpaid, leaving them open to possible fines.

HMRC has the power to fix penalties for inaccuracy of up to 30 per cent of the amount owed for unintended non-payment. Deliberate avoidance of the levy can attract a fine of up to 100 per cent of the outstanding amount.

Clive Gawthorpe - Partner at UHY Hacker Young - stated that the increase in investigations suggested that HMRC had initially been focusing on larger businesses but is now also including smaller businesses.

He added:

“We have seen additional problems arise among large businesses where several different parts of the same business group may be liable to pay the levy. The high number of investigations HMRC is launching into underpayment is a symptom of the wider problems that are hampering the scheme’s effectiveness. These urgently need addressing.” 

The Institute of Directors have brought to notice the new levy reforms which will come into effect next month. These will present greater flexibility in the use of funds.

In his spring statement the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, announced that the amount SME’s will be expected to contribute towards training apprentices will drop from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, which he claimed would bring businesses a saving of £695m. He also brought forward the increase in the amount of levy funding that businesses will be allowed to share with their supply chain - an increase from 10 per cent to 25 per cent.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a new rule affecting overtime eligibility.

The salary threshold for employees eligible to collect time-and-a-half pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week, would increase but would still be fewer than the one the Obama administration attempted to enact in 2016 – which was struck down by a federal district judge in Texas before it was to have taken effect.

Under the new proposal exempt employees would have to earn at least $679 a week or $35,308 a year to be classified as exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. That is higher than the current level in which employees must earn at least $455 a week or $23,660 a year, the threshold that has been in place since 2004.

Executive, administrative or professional employees would become exempt from overtime requirements from $23,660 to $35,308, a big difference from the $913 per week - or $47,476 per year - set by the previous administration.

In addition to the salary test, exempt employees must also pass the duties test - in other words, they must perform work that is executive, administrative, or professional.

Employers would be able to satisfy up to 10 per cent of the salary minimum through nondiscretionary incentives and/or commissions that are paid annually, more frequently, or even in a catch-up payment at the end of the year.

The threshold for exemption as a ‘highly compensated employee’ would rise to $147,414 in total annual compensation - higher than the Obama administration’s threshold of $134,004.  

If the proposal comes into force, the employers of workers who are no longer exempt - based on their level of compensation - will have to decide whether to pay overtime or increase the salaries to over the threshold.

Kara Shea - an attorney with Butler Snow LLP in Nashville, Tennessee and coeditor of Tennessee Employment Law Letter - said:

“Increasing pay will not be enough if the employee is not performing exempt job duties. Employers should first make sure the employees are correctly classified to begin with, based on job duties, before they decide whether to preserve the exemption by raising pay.”

Attorney Alexander Passantino of Seyfarth Shaw, commented:

“Paying overtime on $125,000 per year is a huge economic burden, but it still may be less expensive than going to the new level.”

The new rule will be up for public comment for 60 days and could be revised or challenged in court again - but as it calls for less drastic change than the previous proposal, it is thought more likely to succeed.

A new survey from SD Worx - provider of global payroll and HR services - has looked into the extent of the digitisation of the workplace. The result showed that UK employees cannot do enough basic HR admin tasks on mobile devices. On average, only 12 per cent of HR admin tasks are possible on mobile devices only - and 49 per cent are still completed offline.

Of the tasks that can currently be undertaken electronically, 14 per cent request leave electronically only, whilst 30 per cent still submit non-digitally. A further 13 per cent complete the job through both fixed and mobile devices and 43 per cent by fixed devices only. This was found to be the most popular administrative task to be completed digitally.

Only 13 per cent of UK employees submit expenses on a mobile only and 40 per cent still submit expenses non-electronically.

Employees not working digitally spend too long on HR admin tasks, preventing them from completing more valuable work - and ultimately having a negative impact on employee engagement.

Employees were shown to want to do more HR admin digitally, with the UK scoring highest for those wanting digital HR tasks. The survey also showed that what people have the option to undertake digitally is different according to their work location. Out of the countries surveyed, Germany was found to score lower across all categories, with the UK and the Netherlands coming out on top across the activities that employees can currently do digitally.

Of those surveyed in the UK, 59 per cent can submit expenses online, compared to only 33 per cent in Germany where employees appear to be the least concerned out of the six countries surveyed. Where requesting and arranging business travel is concerned, 55 per cent of UK employees are able to do it digitally – but only 36 per cent in Belgium.

In general, the UK had the highest number of respondents wanting the ability to do more tasks digitally at work, suggesting that the more access they have to carry out work electronically, the more they want to see these options increase in the workplace.

Brenda Morris, Managing Director of SD Worx UKI stated:

“Nearly all areas of our lives have been changed by technology. While it’s been the case in our personal lives for some time now, in some instances it’s been slow to take hold in the workplace. As seen in this report, employees want to be able to carry out basic HR admin on mobile but they are not always given the opportunity to do so. In order to keep employees engaged and productive, it is vital for employers to listen to these concerns and adapt to this new way of working.”

In the case of Paganas v. Total Management Solution, LLC (TMS) and others, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently stated that Mr Paganas - the plaintiff - could still be entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  This vacated a decision by the District Court who were instructed, on remand, to consider whether Mr Paganas qualifies for the administrative exemption under 29 C.F.R. § 541.200.

Mr Paganas had filed a complaint alleging that TMS violated the overtime wage provisions of the FSLA and the NYLL.

The plaintiff was employed by TMS as a building manager at St. John's University in New York from July 2007 to May 2014.  His annual salary was $80,000 and his duties included ensuring the cleanliness of buildings; supervising 6 to 15 cleaners; directing cleaners in their work; reallocating workers when short-staffed and setting up rooms for meetings or events.

He attended a daily management meeting with his supervisor Richard Rossi, who was a director of site maintenance for TMS from December 2007 to March 2011.  At these meetings Mr Paganas was given orders – by Mr Rossi – after which he (the plaintiff) selected the cleaners to carry out the orders and supervised them.  Mr Paganas also had a separate agreement in which he was paid for overseeing athletic facilities during basketball games.

Although a collective bargaining agreement banned him from performing cleaning duties, Mr Paganas testified that he had performed nonsupervisory cleaning duties for 90 percent of the time. The District Court held that this testimony was not credited and found it to be untrue - determining that Mr Paganas’s primary duty was management.

In the discussion of whether the plaintiff’s primary duty could be classified as management under the executive exemption, the District Court cited language from 29 C.F.R. § 541.200(a)(2) - which addresses the administrative exemption. The executive and administrative exemptions should be treated separately as they require the employer to prove different facts regarding an employee’s work.

The Appeals Court stated that the District Court did not address the administrative exemption in its decision, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Professionals have pointed out that this case should serve as a reminder that employers should make periodic analysis of exempt employees' actual job duties, as despite an employee being called a manager and having authority to supervise, it does not always mean that the employee is exempt from overtime obligations.

A survey conducted by the National Employee Mental Wellbeing has shown that 84% of employees have experienced physical, psychological, or behavioural symptoms of poor mental health where work was a contributing factor. 

Ciara Morrison, Head of HR and Talent at Instant Offices, has also been researching into the importance of addressing Mental Health in the workplace and how businesses can assist in promoting a healthy work-life balance, as around 91% of managers agree that their actions affect their staff’s wellbeing.

The National Employee Mental Wellbeing survey found that only 22% of managers have admitted to receiving some form of training on mental health at work, whilst 49% say that they would find it useful to receive even basic training in common mental health conditions.

Whilst 60% of board members and senior managers believe their organisation supports people with mental health issues - only 11% discussed a mental health problem with their line manager.   

Although 76% of line managers believe that employee wellbeing is ultimately their responsibility, in the case of a staff member with depression, only 68% of female managers and 58% of male managers were found to feel confident enough to respond to the issue.  

The same survey showed that 35% of employees did not approach anyone for support on the most recent occasion they experienced poor mental health and where they were concerned about a colleague’s mental health, 86% would think twice before offering to help. 

Sadly, it was found that 9% of employees who experienced symptoms of poor mental health experienced disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal.

A new research from the Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions states that workplace mental health and wellbeing is at a tipping point and the report is designed as a call to action for employers - whatever their current performance regarding mental health and wellbeing strategies.

According to Deloitte, mental ill-health is one of the leading causes of absence from work in the UK with one in every six employees suffering from mental health issues – stress, anxiety and reduced focus also taking a toll on relationships and physical health.

Their findings show that:

• progress towards greater awareness and recognition of mental health is occurring at a slower rate in the workplace compared to in public spaces more generally;
• costs associated with poor mental health and well-being result from absence costs, from presence and turnover costs - as well as from staff that are not fully enthusiastic and engaged due to low mental wellbeing;
•  greater public awareness, increasing political attention and an increased emphasis on employer responsibilities are driving an increased interest in workplace mental health and wellbeing.

Amongst the suggestions Deloitte make to employers are to get workplace mental health on their agenda and to encourage employees to support colleagues.  At present, it was found that employers failed to see mental health and wellbeing as a priority.   

H-1B visa is in more demand this year than last – in fact, demand is nearly double what it was in 2016. It is not an immigrant visa, although it does allow for foreigners to work legally in the US for at least two years. 

Republican Senators Orrin Hatch and Jeff Flake introduced legislation that aims to increase the annual quota of H-1B visas to around 100,000.  It also lifts the cap on the 20,000 visas going to recent graduates of U.S. schools - if the employer agrees to sponsor the applicant for a green card. The bill would also provide a special visa to work for spouses of H-1B holders.

However, it is one of the most controversial immigration topics. The visa program has been widely criticized by US technology workers who have been replaced by foreign workers - or feel their salaries have affected.

According to a survey by Chicago-based Envoy Global (an immigration services firm) on 401 HR professionals and hiring managers, it was found that demand for foreign workers remains high despite stricter federal immigration policies. 

Fifty-nine percent of respondents said they would be hiring more foreign employees at their U.S. offices - up from 50% in 2017 and 34% in 2016.

Richard Burke, CEO of Envoy, stated:

"The survey respondents tell us they need higher skilled immigrants and think Washington should increase the cap for the H-1B."  

He added:

"The U.S. issues 85,000 new H-1B visas annually, including 20,000 that go to foreign nationals graduating from Masters or Ph.D. programs in the U.S. A similar number of H-1B visas get renewed each year.  We asked if human resources executives would prefer a merit-based immigration system and 77% of them said yes.”

The competition is especially fierce for those who possess high-level skills in technology and Richard Burke said:

"There is a continuing imbalance between supply and demand for talent. The jobless rate is very low by historic standards, and even lower if focused on college-educated workers. But companies are hiring. Employers are bullish about the economy. And driven by the lack of U.S. universities graduating people with STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) degrees, they look overseas."

Because the demand is so high, employers are offering attractive perks to prospective employees including immigration-related perks.  Some 92 percent are offering dependent support - primarily in green card application processing, cultural assimilation and language instruction.

Relocation expenses are being offered by 41% and 39% offer housing costs, with 71% saying they will pay for temporary housing and 32% for mortgage-related benefits.

Seventy-two percent of the 30% offering travel expenses also offer free airfare for the foreign nationals to visit their home countries and 59% also include immediate family members.

Transportation costs/rental cars/company cars and cars for an employee’s spouse are also some of the perks on offer, as are local orientation services and home and school searches.

The ultimate perk for talent from abroad is the chance to attain permanent residency in the United States. Employers are offering green card sponsorship sooner and more often.

Richard Burke said:

"We believe green card sponsorships are going up because of the uncertainty around the H-1B program and other temporary work visas."

Ann Cun - founder and managing attorney of Accel Visa Attorneys, an immigration law firm in San Leandro, California stated:

"I have seen that trend increase in the past five to 10 years. We have an increasingly mobile and global workforce. And if you move individuals around the world, you have to offer incentives in order to entice them to take on life-altering decisions that don't just impact the worker but their entire family."

She added:

"Companies willing to take the additional steps to adopt a formal, proactive program to help promote employees in a way that builds their professional dossier so that they can qualify for a shorter, more expedited priority classification will boost the value the worker feels within the company, strengthen loyalty and increase retention."

As UK employers with more than 250 staff were required by the Government to report their gender pay gap by 4th April 2018, it exposed the huge inequality in pay in the airline industry.

Over 10,000 companies submitted their data by the Government deadline, including all applicable airlines.  The data is shown as both mean and median figures - median being calculated by ranking all employees from the lowest to the highest paid and simply taking the wage of the person in the middle. By measuring in this way, the average is not distorted by just a few who are excessively higher or lower than most.

What the final data revealed was that the median pay gap across all industries ran at 9.7% - however the airline industry sat well below this figure with the Irish carrier Ryanair producing the worst figures with a massive 72% median pay gap.

The second worst figure was for Jet2.com, with a median gap of 49.7% and the best - although still below the average for all industries - is British Airways with a median of 10%.

When questioned about the reason for such inequality, many of the carriers cited the imbalance in the gender ratio of more highly paid flight crew roles as a major factor.

A spokesperson for Ryanair said:

 “Like all airlines, our gender pay in the UK is materially affected by the relatively low numbers of female pilots in the aviation industry.”

And British Airways stated:

“The airline recognises that there is a gender imbalance within its pilot community and is working to address this in part through greater visibility of its female pilots to inspire the next generation.”

Whilst the exact number is difficult to count, the International Society of Women Airline Pilots maintain that females account for only between three and six percent of pilots employed by airlines worldwide. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) believes that 4.36% of all airline pilots in the US are women, while the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) states it is 4.77%.

As part of the study, the Government also required companies to report on bonus pay. In the aviation industry, almost all of the airlines disclosed that women were either on a par or ahead of men regarding who received a payout. However, the actual value of the bonuses given to women was almost always below that given to men.

According to new data analysis commissioned by The Open University (OU), more than £1.28 billion paid by employers into the apprenticeship levy is still unused and held in National Apprenticeship Service accounts. 

Just 8% (£108 million) of apprenticeship levy funds, out of the original £1.39bn paid in by businesses, had been spent in the 10 months since the scheme’s launch.

Since April 2017, eligible organisations i.e. those with an annual wage bill of more than £3m, have had to pay an apprenticeship levy to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA). Companies can then recoup the funds from a digital ESFA administered by the National Apprenticeship Service under a PAYE scheme. However, any funding that remains in their National Apprenticeship Service accounts will expire after 24 months. The OU’s report states that employers must, therefore, act quickly to make the most of the fund, as if organisations in England continue to use the funding at the same rate, they risk losing as much as £139 million a month from April 2019.  

Concerns have been expressed that organisations could be writing the levy off as a tax and not choosing not to spend it. In the report released by the OU, it was found that 40% of business leaders reported treating the levy as a tax, and 17% stated they had no expectation of recouping their funds. These figures were confirmed by the Department for Education and Skills. 

However, Anne Milton - Apprenticeships and Skills Minister stated:

“I’ve met lots of businesses up and down the country that have already kick-started amazing apprenticeship programmes and are using their levy funds to help change lives and get the skills they need.”

She added:

“It has taken some businesses longer to get going on their apprenticeship programmes using the levy, while many that I have met are forging ahead growing the numbers of apprentices within their businesses, getting a skilled and loyal workforce.” 

Chief policy officer at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - Simon Ashworth - stated that levy-payers were aware that there was a two-year funding window and added:

 “We don’t recognise the gloomy picture that this report paints and remain convinced that the levy will be a success. Our training provider members tell us that the levy-payers they are supporting are well aware of the two-year window in which to utilise their funding, and are strategically planning the roll-out of their apprenticeship programmes accordingly.”

“Many employers are still waiting for the apprenticeship programme they specifically want to be available to spend their levy on. We have also made it clear to the government that the absence of proper end point assessment for many standards has the making of a car crash unless action is taken quickly.”

David Willett - Corporate Director at The Open University - said:

“With such a huge amount being paid into the apprenticeship levy, it’s essential that employers in England get return on investment by embracing apprenticeships.”

“While it’s encouraging that the majority of business leaders agree with the levy in principle, it’s clear that adjustments are needed to make the levy work harder for employers. The lack of flexibility needs to be urgently addressed to ensure that organisations get value for money, and we think that modular apprenticeships, which allow organisations to develop tailor-made programmes that fit their specific needs, could be an attractive solution for both employers and the UK government.”

The full OU analysis can be read here.

According to a recent survey released by WorldatWork - a non-profit total rewards association - 44% of employers who have applied a ban on asking job candidates about their salary history stated that doing so was very or extremely simple. Only 8% reported it to be very difficult and 1% said extremely difficult. The survey consisted of 838 compensation and benefits professionals.

It was found that 37% of employers have employed a policy prohibiting interviewers from enquiring about a candidate’s salary history in all US locations - whether or not a law exists - and 35% do not ban questions about salary history.  The companies applying the ban were found to be, in general, larger organizations.  Of employers who have not implemented the ban, 40% are "somewhat likely" or "extremely likely" to do so in the next 12 months.

Sue Holloway, WorldatWork Director of Executive Compensation Strategy, said:

"As more cities and states pass laws prohibiting employers from asking job candidates about salary history, more employers are adopting nationwide U.S. policies. I'd expect this trend to continue, especially as pressure builds for employers to justify their pay practices and ensure gender pay equity."

She added:

"The idea of having to craft a total rewards offer without salary-history information can be daunting to some managers and employers, but when hiring managers and recruiters are educated and given reliable compensation data on market rates and pay ranges, the need for a candidate's salary history diminishes."

Salary history data may still be used when internal candidates are being considered for new roles, as the survey found that 84% of employers do not prohibit consideration of an internal candidate’s current pay for setting pay in a new role. Furthermore, 80% of employers rely on salary history in determining an offer that is acceptable to the candidate.

Kate Bischoff, founder of tHRive Law & Consulting based in Minneapolis, said:

"This one is tricky, because in many organizations the person putting together the offer is the person who also knows the salary. The temptation would be to increase salary based upon what someone is currently making but maybe not to where the market would put the salary—to save the organization some cash while knowing that the individual will say yes to the new job." 

But she added that the use of the current salary is not what the salary history ban laws are designed for – adding:

"They are designed to limit the use of current and previous salaries at the offer stage. So, while I get the inclination, I would still recommend employers use market rates to base salaries." 

The WorldatWork report - “Quick Survey on Salary History Bans U.S.” - summarizes the results of the survey,  gathering information to understand approaches organizations are taking to comply with new laws and the changing landscape of U.S. salary history bans. 

According to research carried out by Vitreous World on behalf of Jobsite (a leading job board for skilled professionals) on 500 UK professionals, 82% stated that a pension scheme is more important to them than a bonus or private healthcare. 

It was found that more than two thirds - before accepting a job - take into account the pension policy, on which they place more importance than other benefits.  A performance related bonus was viewed as important by 65% of those interviewed; 51% stated that medical care is an important benefit and 55% highlighted mental health and stress support as important.

By comparison, the least important benefits quoted were the season ticket loan; time off to volunteer for good causes and a day off for birthday celebrations.  

Kate Smith, Head of Pensions at pension provider Aegon, told People Management:

“Eighty-two percent is an extremely high statistic, which is great news. It shows that auto-enrolment is working and people are hearing the pension-saving message.”  

The research also showed that there was a significant difference between what employees valued in their benefits packages and what they actually received. For example, only 23% of employees received private medical cover as part of their rewards package, the same number as those stating they had access to mental health support services.  This is despite the 51% placing great importance on private medical cover.

Jamie Smith-Thompson, Managing Director at pensions advice company, Portafina said cost was an issue which forced HR to make choices over which benefits to provide. She stated:

“The pension budget is the largest so employers have to provide it by law. But with benefits like PMI, employers either don’t provide it at all or provide it only for those in senior roles.”

Jeff Fox, Principal at Aon Employee Benefits said:

“There has always been a balancing act between what the employer deems to be important versus what the employee wants. Will we ever see a complete alignment? Arguably not until we see an employer fully place the employee at the front and centre of the benefits strategy.”  He added:

“Most employees recognise that they may not want to work for the rest of their lives - they ‘work to live’ not ‘live to work’.  A pension will never be a cool benefit, but we should give employees credit for seeing its importance.”

Nick Gold, CEO of Jobsite commented:

“Many employers often believe that offering higher salaries is the way to improve the quantity and quality of applicants they receive through the door for a vacancy. Nowadays professionals are not just looking for more money in their pockets right now – especially where many feel they are subject to pressures of increasing working hours. Some are thinking more long term, and how their employers can help them reach their retirement goals sooner.”

“The answer might lie instead in diversifying their attraction strategy by highlighting other elements of their company benefits packages, in particular their pension schemes. Despite the media attention pension funds are currently receiving as big businesses struggle financially, workers are still placing trust in their employers to help them grow their retirement investment funds. Employers would be well advised to address this demand and advertise new vacancies accordingly. In doing this, potential employees looking to safeguard and maximise their finances in later life apply for jobs that offer them truly valued benefits.”

By 2025, millennials have been projected to make up 75 percent of all U.S. employees - an increase from about 1 in 3 workers today.

The number of young people completing a college education and looking for quality jobs continues to grow and as companies everywhere get bigger, they are establishing a fully integrated base of millennials in their workforce.

Despite the fact that younger workers are often stereotyped as being too reliant on technology and hopping from one job to another, many employers value their new and fresh perspectives and attitudes.   Lisa Chui, vice president of finance and HR at Ubiquity Retirement and Savings (a San Francisco based retirement benefits company) states, “They speak up and if they have ideas, they want to share them.”

 “They walk in the door with a greater awareness and a greater sense of balance and new ideas” says Steve Wolfe, executive vice president of operations and administration at the Chicago-based staffing and employment agency Addison Group. “That contributes to bringing about better solutions. They can come in and contribute right out of the gate if they have the right environment.”

However, many HR professionals are finding that they may need to update their recruitment strategies to successfully connect with younger workers who expect faster and more-informal communications as well as frequent feedback.

“What recruiters fail to grasp is that this is a generation where the accelerated speed of communications is extraordinary,” says Warren Wright, president of consulting firm Coaching Millennials of Washington, D.C. 

But their work does not end when they employ a millennial – they must update their strategies for retaining younger workers by showing them a clear career path forward for promotion.  Lisa Chui says, “The trend is for HR to be a resource, not just a rule enforcer.”

A LinkedIn survey of more than 13,000 members of that generation found that 93% are interested in hearing about new job opportunities and 66% are open to speaking to a recruiter.  Thirty per cent state that they can see themselves working at their current company for less than a year.  However, by comparison, the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that older US workers tend to stay in their jobs for over four and a half years.

The same LinkedIn survey shows that there is often a divide between recruiters’ messaging to millennials and what these young people want to know about new job opportunities.  It found that when millennials hear about a new job opportunity, they are less likely than members of other generations to know anything about the company; to find out more about the organization, they are more likely than members of other generations to follow it on social media and the most important information they want to know about the company is its culture and values.   

The top obstacles to accepting a job for millennial workers are not knowing what the organization is like, applying and not hearing back and not understanding the role.

Hannah Ubl, a generation expert at BridgeWorks, a generational consulting company in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area states, “Millennials are looking for authenticity. They want to understand what the company is about and who works there”.  She also pointed out that, “You lose millennials when you don’t respond right away.”

She went on to say that recruiters should reach out to thank an applicant for applying and then offer a timeline for when he or she will hear from HR again. “Texting might feel like it’s bridging into personal space, but millennials don’t see it as an issue”, she says. “It’s old-school to wait for a phone call.”   She added, “If applicants sign a waiver, you can text them”.

It falls on companies to adjust their recruiting procedures to accommodate the influx of the millennial generation and where successful, this will minimize staff turnover rate.

Is it OK to request W2’s from job applicants to verify their income before extending a job offer?

According to employment attorneys, the practice of employers asking job applicants for copies of their W2 forms to verify employment and compensation comes with substantial legal risks.

Technically, requesting a W2 from a job applicant is not prohibited, but it can raise issues that HR experts suggest should be considered before taking this step.   The tax forms disclose information that could be related to the applicant’s health – for example, sick pay could suggest that the applicant has a health problem; previous salary, if used to determine future salary could form the basis for a claim of discrimination; periods of unemployment would be revealed which, in certain states, is a protected trait when it comes to hiring staff.

W2 forms also include a section that details dependent care benefits an employee has received, which can give a hint as to parental status.  According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, questions about marital status and the number and ages of children are often asked, which can be construed as evidence of intent to discriminate against married women or women with children – violating the Civil Rights law of 1964.  To circumvent this, companies may try to obtain the information by requesting the tax form, W2 which - on the face of it - would not be illegal but could be a cover for illegal activity. 

In addition, requesting W2’s could have a negative effect on the applicant, who may consider this action to be inappropriate and intrusive and not wish to continue with the job application.

Although a federal bill - sponsored by Republican Eleanor Holmes Norton - aimed at preventing employers from asking job applicants to provide a salary history has stalled, many employers still avoid asking questions about an applicant’s salary history.

An increasing number of states and cities are also passing their own versions - New York City and New Orleans have already instigated salary history laws which prohibit city agencies and public and private companies from requesting pay history. 

Massachusetts has passed a law that bans employers from asking for salary history until the offer of employment has been made.  This will become enforceable in July 2018 and in Rhode Island, it is unlawful for an employer to require an applicant to provide a federal or state income tax return or related tax documents as a condition of being considered for employment (RI Gen Laws Sec. 28-6.9-1).

TotalJobs has stated that in 2011, a government report declared that ‘over the next decade, the changing age profile of the workforce will be the most significant development in the UK labour market, as a third of workers will be over 50 by 2020’. 

The report explained that employers will be expected to respond to this demographic shift, by making work more attractive and feasible for older workers – enabling them to work up to and beyond pension age. However, older workers are not yet seeing this level of progress and half of employees aged 45 years and over believe that workplaces ‘naturally cater towards younger employees.’

According to research by Lee Hecht Harrison/Penna, employees believe that ageism is the most frequent form of discrimination in the workplace.  They found that a fifth of UK employees feel discriminated against in promotion decisions and of these the most common cause of inequality is age (39%), followed by gender (26%) and employment status (22%).

HR professionals were also surveyed but they were most likely to be of the opinion that gender was the most widespread form of inequality – but that 94% of all promotions processes were fair.  However, 29% of the employees surveyed felt that the promotion processes at their company was unfair.

In a recent TotalJobs survey, when older workers were asked about their main fears in the workplace, health issues topped the list with 30% of the employees surveyed citing it as their main concern. This was followed by 27% concerned about being out of touch with technology and 24% worried about not being able to learn new things quickly. Despite these concerns, two thirds of those surveyed stated that their desire to adapt to changes in working practices had either been sustained or increased with age.

A spokesperson for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) stated that the wealth of experience that older workers bring to the workplace must start to be embraced - sooner rather than later - and added, “HR needs to start encouraging employers to see older workers as an opportunity rather than a challenge.  These skills and lengthy experience can benefit the wider workforce and the business as a whole.”

The report suggested ways for employers, employees and HR to manage workplaces with a diverse age range, using tools such as a space created to encourage knowledge sharing; an area designed to support and maintain cognitive health and alertness and standing desks and ergonomic furniture.  Another recommendation was a ‘meal consultant’ to encourage healthier eating.

Lynda Gratton and Andrew Scott, professors at London Business School and authors of The 100 Year-Life, warn that many companies could resist having a diverse workforce in the future stating that for organisations – and especially HR departments – it “.....sounds like a nightmare as companies like conformity and simple predictable systems that are easy to run and implement.  So don’t be surprised if large numbers of institutions resist these changes.”

The UK Pensions Regulator has - as part of its strategy to provide simpler guidance for occupational pension schemes - published new investment guidance for Defined Benefit (DB) trustees.  It follows the general principles outlined in its Defined Contribution (DC) investment guidance with some special issues designed for Defined Benefit schemes.

The Regulator said in a statement accompanying the report that it expects trustees to have ‘suitably documented investment arrangements that are appropriate for their scheme’s circumstances, including their level of complexity’. 

The guidance covers Investment governance, setting investment strategy, implementing the investment strategy and monitoring investments.  Effective governance is needed to provide a good investment strategy.  This will involve delegation and monitoring; forming part of an integrated risk management process; having stable scheme objectives and long-term plans; having total risk consistent with risk appetite; involving risk-taking that is understood and balanced, and allowing for the scheme’s future cash flow and liquidity requirements.

The law requires that trustees are familiar with the basic legal principles of pension scheme investment and the guidance includes factors and approaches to consider when investing scheme assets to fund defined benefits. It emphasises the importance of “focused, timely monitoring” and how trustees may benefit from putting together an investment monitoring dashboard. It is suggested that this could provide an “at-a-glance financial position” of a scheme’s current state in terms of meeting objectives, potential risks and issues.

Fred Berry, TPR head of investment consultancy said: "Good investment governance is essential to all pension schemes, indeed to any institutional investor, and we expect them all to adhere to those common principles.

The investment strategy is one of the most important drivers of a scheme’s ability to meet the objective of paying the promised benefits as they fall due, and we expect trustees to set this in the context of their integrated risk management approach.

It’s important to set clear investment objectives for your scheme and to identify how and when they should be achieved. Our guidance states that trustees should focus on areas that have the most impact for meeting their scheme’s objectives, and identify the necessary skills for the board of trustees of their scheme. It also provides some practical guidance on how to get the best from their advisers."

In March, a controversial bill called the Preserving Employee Wellness Program Act (H.R.1313) was introduced to the House by Republican Virginia Foxx, who stated, “Employee wellness programs have long enjoyed bipartisan support because they result in lower health care costs and a healthier workforce.” 

She added that the legislation, “....will ensure employers have the legal certainty they need to offer this innovative benefit, which provides working families with greater control over their health care dollars.”   

According to the House Education and the Workforce Committee, which last week passed the new legislation by 22 to 17, an increasing number - about 61% - of companies offer workplace wellness programs.  Nearly 90% of large organizations offer them, with participation growing when Obamacare allowed employers to offer 30% of the value of their benefits in incentives, although surveys have shown that few do offer that big a benefit.

Experts say that these programs were originally introduced to assist employees to get and stay healthy and to improve their safety.  It was also the aim of companies to increase productivity and to keep down health insurance costs, but there are those who raise privacy concerns.  

Opponents of the bill believe that employees should not feel under pressure to participate in health screening that collects blood samples to check for high levels of cholesterol, or other factors that when discovered, enable treatment to be given to help prevent diseases such as diabetes and heart disease.  They claim that compelling employees to undertake genetic counselling would leave them open to discrimination by employers, who are being empowered by the bill to penalize those employees not joining workplace wellness programs that collect this type of information. Additionally, they are also against employers providing incentives - for example, discounts on health care premiums - for screenings that ask about family medical history.

However, the sponsors of the bill say that it would clarify conflicting rules for incentives paid to employees who participate in voluntary health screenings – some of which could include genetic testing.  The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) reports that a fact checking website states:

 “H.R.1313 does not allow employers to force all their workers to submit to genetic testing.”     In short, “The bill allows offering benefits for ‘voluntary’ workplace programs that may include ‘health risk assessments’ but does not enable mandatory genetic testing of employees.”

Currently health and genetic information is protected under federal nondiscrimination and genetic privacy laws. This means employers are not allowed to use workers' genetic information in employment decisions and they are not allowed to request or purchase their employees' genetic information unless it is a part of a wellness program that is voluntary.

SHRM’s Vice President of Government Affairs, Mike Aitken told NBC News, “Employers do not have access to this genetic information.  Information can only be collected and shared with a third-party provider such as a health care professional.”

But critics say the new bill could provide employers with a way around.

Asda, which is owned by the US giant Walmart, claims that 95% of its staff will be better off under a new deal, due to be introduced in October. 

Staff will be offered a higher wage - £8.50 per hour - for a new contract, but signing up to the new contract will be voluntary.  It has been designed to replace the zero-hours contract presently in force and given the seal of approval by the GMB union who state,  “These new flexible contracts will help to ensure job security; ensure those accepting them are on the same terms and – best of all – ensure that people will earn more money as a result.  The new contract involves quite a few changes, but as it’s voluntary, this allows colleagues to choose whatever suits their circumstances best.”

The ‘flexible’ agreement means that Asda’s staff can work around the store on different days and hours to suit their circumstances, but they must be available to work on Bank Holidays, if required.  However, if they wish to take this time off, it will come out of their 28 days annual leave. 

In addition, all breaks will be unpaid and the night shift deal presently in place will alter.  Instead of receiving an extra £2.04 per hour for work between the hours of 10pm and 6am, the unsociable hours will be cut down to 12 midnight to 5am – but the extra wage earned will rise to £2.54 an hour.

Asda stated that it was “maintaining its commitment not to use zero-hours contracts and staff will be guaranteed minimum hours.”   They added, “Whilst the new contract will require colleagues to be flexible, fair and reasonable notice will be given for any changes to rotas and consideration will be given to those with care requirements outside of work.”

Despite the GMB approving the use of the new contract, concerns have been expressed that employers are using them to take the edge off the increase in the national living wage, due to come in force in April.  Last year, People Management reported that some organisations had cut overtime rates; reduced premiums for weekend or evening work or cut perks offered to employees in response to the new national living wage. 

Research by the British Chambers of Commerce showed that ‘sharp increases’ in the national living wage would cause many employers to put into practice cost reduction measures such as cutting staff hours or increasing the cost of goods and services. 

But Andrew Weir, employer services manager at HR and payroll firm Moorepay, expressed the opinion that Asda’s measures were sensible.  He called on other employers to follow suit, provided that legal minimums such as provision of adequate rest breaks, etc. are upheld.

Sarah Peacock, partner in the employment team at law firm Blake Morgan, told People Management “There was a lot of publicity when the national living wage was introduced about employers that were changing terms and conditions to minimise the detrimental impact on their business, leaving some employees no better off.  It may be that employers like Asda are now taking a long term view to make sure they can offer well above the NLW while achieving benefits for the business.”

Starting earlier this month, any person reaching state pension age will be part of the new state pension.

The new state pension is designed to be easier for pension holders and will allow people to easily plan their private or workplace pension savings.  Additionally, the new pension will help get rid of social inequalities allowing women, lower earners and the self-employed to benefit just like others.

Due to the changes, millions of women will receive an average of £11 more per week by 2030.  Research has predicted that over 75% of women and over 70% of men will gain in the first 15 years of the new pension – extremely optimistic numbers.

Human resource experts are referring to the change as one of the biggest overhauls the state pension system has seen in generations, and one of the best.  This new process has been designed to make saving more appealing since it will be simpler and far more straightforward than ever before.

Under the new system, if a person has 35 years of National Insurance contributions, they pensioner could receive around £155.65 a week.  Human resource professionals say that these changes, coupled with open enrollment, will encourage more people to save creating a more financially stable retired generation.

One caveat is that some people, like those members of defined benefit schemes who have contracted out of state second pensions, will not get the full pension.

Human resource experts are urging anyone and everyone to request a detailed state pension statement to determine what these changes mean to them.

A petition drafted by a B&Q manager has already earned over 120,000 signatures and has put human resource managers on high alert. The petition accuses the company of cutting employee benefits as a way to offset the costs of the national living wage (NLW).

B&Q is a DIY store that has recently earned itself a lot of negative attention. According to the change.org petition, a B&Q employee claims that the retailer suggested removing time-and-a-half pay for working Sundays and double time for working bank holidays. Additionally, the company suggested a restructuring of allowances for employees working in certain parts of the UK and the removal of a summer and winter bonus. The petition also states that B&Q made it mandatory for employees to accept the new conditions, or job loss could be a reality.

While the suggestion is that B&Q is making these changes using the NLW as an excuse, a B&Q spokesman denied this:

“Our aim is to reward all of our people fairly so that employees who are doing the same job receive the same pay,” the spokesman said. “This isn’t the case at the moment, as some have been benefiting from allowances for a long time when others have not, and that can’t continue.”

Some HR experts explain that sudden reactions to the national living wage will not benefit any company as they can actually have long-term, negative consequences.

Willis Towers Watson research reveals that approximately one in five members of defined benefit schemes who have had access to free financial advice, have transferred out of their scheme in order to access retirement options.

The research analysed 15,700 DB scheme members who had been offered some sort of independent financial advice. This was offered at the expense of the scheme’s sponsoring employer since April of last year. Most of the members covered by the survey were offered the free advice as part of a one-off exercise run by their scheme. All pension holders were 55+ but hadn’t started drawing from their pension. The data was supplied to multiple leading financial advisory firms.

The data showed that of those who were offered access to an advisor, 50% of scheme holders took up the offer. Of that 50%, over one third chose to transfer out of their DB scheme.

Head of liability management at Willis Towers Watson said that members of DB schemes don’t always realise that pension freedom doesn’t automatically extend to them. Even less people realise that in order to take advantage of it they have to take financial advice.

When the data was broken down even further, it was revealed that members with bigger DB pensions were even more likely to transfer out. Those who had transfer values that exceeded £250,000 were actually the most likely to transfer out.

In one of the latest attempts to address the issues causing the gender pay disparity, the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee released The Gender Pay Gap report. The report states that currently, there is a “lack of effective government policy” in many of the different areas that contribute to the gap. Additionally, the report says that the flagship policy of shared parental leave has made very little difference since its implementation.

This was not the only policy or regulation the report attacked. The report also said that the forthcoming regulation, which will hold larger companies accountable for reporting their pay gap, hasn’t gone far enough to make any kind of difference either.

While there were many criticisms in this report there were also recommendations. The report suggests that three months of parental leave be automatically granted to the second parent on top of current parental leave benefits. It is also recommended that paternity leave increase to 90% of salary with the three months non-transferable paternity leave paid at 90% for the first four weeks.

The House of Commons also suggested that the government look into the benefits of offering all forms of parental leave on a part-time basis.

The report also addressed a topic that is on the top of many human resource professionals lists – flexible working. One of the keys to addressing the gender pay gap, according to the report, is flexible working hours.

Some HR experts feels as though the report criticized the government too much but did praise the report for establishing strategies for lower-paid sectors with an abundance of female employees.

On March 22, 2016 the United States Supreme Court made an extremely important decision involving a very large United States based food industry corporation. In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo the Court held that when certifying a class or collective action, differences between members of the class do not prohibit the formation of a class in a situation where statistical techniques, which assume the class members are all identical, will be used to determine the company’s liability and damages awarded.

Employees at Tyson claimed they didn’t receive any kind of overtime compensation for time they spent enrobing and shedding protective gear before entering and after exiting the slaughterhouse. Depending on the employee’s position, each job required different gear according to what was happening on that given day. Some employees were compensated, but others weren’t. Tyson didn’t keep any kind of specific time records for the act of enrobing or shedding the protective gear.

Class members said the protective gear was integral and indispensable to the work and thus should be something that was paid for. Therefore the employees filed a lawsuit claiming they were owed overtime pay.

Tyson, a multi-million dollar company, said that since the employees were wearing different kinds of gear that required difference amounts of time to put on and take off, the employees’ claims weren’t sufficiently similar to constitute a class. Tyson Foods also argued that there has to be a way to identify uninjured class members and ensure they don’t contribute to the amount of damages awarded and do not receive damages.

In Iowa, the District Court agreed with the class of employees whose question was whether time spent putting on and taking off protective gear was compensable and could be resolved by a class action lawsuit.

Unfortunately, Tyson Foods did not keep any kind of adequate time records and statistical data was used to estimate the time putting on and the time taking off the protective gear. The 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court confirmed this decision stating:

“Whether a representative sample may be used to establish classwide liability will depend on the purpose for which the sample is being introduced and on the underlying cause of action. In FLSA actions, inferring the hours an employee has worked from a study such as [the one used in this case] has been permitted by the Court so long as the study is otherwise admissible…The fairness and utility of statistical methods in contexts other than those presented here will depend on facts and circumstances particular to those cases.”           

Tyson claimed that the use of statistical data led to incorrect financial judgments in the class action lawsuit and is unfair.

When it came to whether or not there would be some kind of mechanism to root out employees who didn’t technically suffer any kind of injury, the Court said since the damages haven’t been awarded and since it hasn’t been determined how the damages will be disbursed, this isn’t a fair question for this case at this point in time.                  

Tyson Foods will have to wait for the case to return to District Court for any further questions to be addressed.

Each year around April, all of the payments due for statutory employment rights and benefits typically rise. This year, however, only some of them are increasing and these increases are dwarfed in comparison to recent years.

For the tax year commencing on April 6 of this year, statutory maternity, paternity, adoption and shared parental pay will stay as they are at almost £140/week. Statutory sick pay will also remain as is.

These rates are remaining unchanged because of the low inflation rate.

This year, there will be a rise in statutory redundancy pay as well an increase in the amounts that can be awarded in tribunal claims, like those for unfair dismissals. This change will apply to dismissals that have termination dates of April 6 or later. The new rate includes a maximum amount of a week’s pay for calculating statutory redundancy pay and the basic award for unfair dismissal up from £475 to £479. Additionally, the maximum basic award for unfair dismissal increased to £14,370 from £14,250. The maximum compensatory award, which can be made after a successful unfair dismissal tribunal claim classified as “ordinary” was increased by £627 and the maximum potential award for unfair dismissal when the basic and compensatory awards are combined, increased by £747.

Human resource experts explain that since these increases aren’t as significant as predicted, it won’t make a huge difference to employers. In any case, even the increase in the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal will really only apply to the most highly paid employees.

Arguably though, the most important change made is the new statutory redundancy payment figure. While the increase in cost is minimal, a case involving individual redundancy could potentially result in large additional costs for employers undertaking large-scale redundancy exercises.

Prior to Budget discussions, Chancellor George Osborne announced increases to the national minimum wage as well. Beginning in October 2016, the minimum wage for 21-24 year-olds and 18-20 year-olds will increase by 25 pence per hour. Apprentice hourly rates will increase by 10 pence.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is looking to determine whether or not the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has been abusing its power to relocate employees to different workplaces.

TSA Administrator Peter Neffenger recently received a letter from committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md) who questioned whether agency workers were wrongly given involuntary assignments and/or retaliated against.

A memo sent out by TSA’s Office of Human Capital that halted the agency’s pending requests to involuntarily relocate employees spurred the committee’s inquiry.

The memo was sent out on February 29 and read:

Until further notice and effective immediately, Directed Involuntary Reassignments must be routed through the Office of Human Capital (OHC) for review and approval. …All Directed Reassignments current in process will be halted, reviewed, and possibly returned to the program office for further action, if the nature of action is unclear or isn’t clearly supported as outlined in policy.      

Prior to the memo however, TSA employees who were not part of the Senior Executive Service were required to accept involuntary reassignment to “any location with minimal notice to support the agency’s staffing needs.”

The committee’s letter asks for a few things. The letter requests TSA provide copies of all policy documents related to involuntary reassignments that have been in effect since 2012. Additionally, the letter also requests that the agency provide disciplinary records on employees dated within six months of the reassignment.

TSA has until the end of March to respond to the agency’s questions. The American Federation of Government Employees who represents the majority of TSA employees, has declined to comment.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) revealed that the first week of new pension freedoms has been quite a busy one, with high but manageable, levels of inquiries flowing into providers.

This early feedback confirms what many HR experts guessed; there is a lot of focus from savers on how to release cash from their pensions.  With this said, providers’ experiences in the first few days of these freedoms have underlined things customers should consider when they want to cash out their pension.

The first thing to consider according to providers, are the implications.  While many people think they’ve made up their minds about their money and what to do with it, customers should still consult Pension Wise, as well as their provider to understand what could happen. 

Additionally, customers should understand that if they turn their entire pension pot into cash a hefty tax bill could be incurred.  This would, ultimately, reduce the amount of money available to them.  People using UFPLS to release several lump sums should really expect to see emergency tax imposed on these payments.  They will then need to reclaim from HMRC.  The way the tax system is designed, tax payment happens upfront and if there is an over-payment it is corrected later.

Finally, customers with a valuable guarantee in their pension are actually required by the Government to take financial advice prior to cashing in if their safeguarded benefits are worth at least £30,000. 

Many human resource experts feel that this is definitely a new era for pensions and that this is kind of an exploration period for customers.  At the same time, customers shouldn’t feel pressure to make any sudden decisions.  Companies are taking their time in explaining options to individual savers, even those who think they’ve made up their minds already.

Women might not be the only gender to reap the benefits of maternity leave anymore.  New shared parental leave and pay rights apply to the parents of babies due, or children matched for adoption, on or after April 5th.

The government has long been encouraging employers to enhance shared parental pay.  However, its view is that companies are not legally obligated to do this on the basis that the appropriate person for a male employee to compare himself with is not a woman receiving enhanced maternity pay, but a woman on shared parental leave.  If a man and a woman were to take parental leave, get treated the same way and paid the same wages, there would be zero claims for any kind of direct discrimination.

Unfortunately, the rules might not be completely without grey area.  Men can take shared parental leave from the birth of their baby.  This potentially leaves room for men to compare themselves with a new mother who is receiving an enhanced maternity pay.  In turn, this could lead to claims of discrimination because men would not be receiving any kind of enhanced pay during this shared parental leave period.

HR experts feel that even if direct discrimination claims don’t fully succeed, the indirect claims would still be an issue.  In one recent case, an indirect discrimination claim did not succeed because the employment tribunal agreed that while the male was treated differently, the female’s enhanced maternity pay was “objectively justified”.

One way, according to human resource experts, to avoid these kinds of claims, is to match the company’s maternity pay provisions for the male.  If this would not be feasible, an alternative could be to offer some form of enhancement during the shared leave.

Many human resource experts are already sounding off on Labour’s most recent plans to overhaul zero hours contracts.

In what some are calling an aggressive promise, Labour is looking to reform the much-criticised contracts.  By changing the law, Labour leaders say that the growing issue of zero hour contracts will come to a slowdown.  While the proposal seems bold, there will of course be exceptions to the rule.  For example, agency nurses who request the contracts so that they can work at more than one hospital would be an exemption.

Unfortunately for Labour, Conservatives and business leaders are highly against the idea.  Some Conservatives are calling the move, “unnecessary” and “potentially damaging”.  They are calling this an example of politics trumping good policy.

The CBI’s director, General John Cridland, has also been pretty vocal about his dislike for the idea.

“The UK’s flexible job market has given us an employment rate that is the envy of other countries,” Cridland said. “Proposals to limit flexible contracts to 12 weeks are wide of the mark.”

The Conservative party is claiming that only one in 50 jobs is actually a zero hours job and that three quarters of new jobs created since this particular government came into office are, indeed, full time.

In the event that he wins this upcoming election, Ed Miliband has already promised to introduce legislation that would force employers to give staff a permanent position if they have already completed 12 weeks’ continuous zero-hours work.

Many employment law and human resource experts are calling Starbucks’ most recent campaign that urged employees to “Race Together”, “absurd” and “irresponsible”.

On March 15th Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, said he wanted to help improve race relations by having baristas write the words “Race Together” on their famous white and green coffee cups.

The campaign was trying to promote conversations about issues such as race relations.  Schultz called the campaign “well-intentioned” right before he abruptly ended it on March 22nd, approximately one week after the launch.  The initiative was ended with a letter written to the employees by Schultz.  In the letter Schultz expressed the empathy he had for the employees and the way they felt about “Race Together”. 

The days leading up to the decision were filled with criticisms about the program.  Many HR experts said the campaign would breed workplace complaints about discrimination, harassment and hostile work environments.  Some critics questioned why the campaign was even created.  It circulated that Starbucks may only have run the campaign to capitalize on sensitive subjects. 

Some HR experts pointed out that a campaign like “Race Together” could make it difficult for the company to discipline employees if the former has expressed certain opinions about race.

A recent survey found that three in five workers and people aged 65 and under who have pension savings and are looking for work, have no idea how much they have saved for their upcoming retirement.  Human resource experts are highly concerned that this lack of knowledge might prevent savers from making the most of the pensions freedom and choice agenda after April 6th.

The survey was conducted by YouGov on behalf of B&CE, provider of The People’s Pension, a large private sector multi-employer scheme in the UK.

Contrary to the aforementioned data, almost 90% of people know how much money is in their bank account, while almost 75% of respondents know how much they have in other savings accounts.  Overall, however, women were far less likely to know how much they saved in their pension than men.

Numerous HR experts feel that the data isn’t overly surprising.  Many people reported that they find it difficult to keep track of their savings, especially when they have more than one pension pot in different schemes. 

Due to all of the concern, HR officials like the Pensions Minister, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Work and Pensions Select Committee are calling for a pensions dashboard.  They are requesting a one-stop-shop for savers that would alleviate any confusion and allow pensions to be managed with ease.  The survey found that public opinion was divided when it came to who should be responsible for producing the pensions dashboard.  While there is division surrounding the technicalities of the request, most people agree that the dashboard should be one of the government’s priorities.

Most employers understand that when an employee is disabled, they have an obligation to comply with the ADA.  Most employers, however, are unaware that this might still hold true if an employee’s relative is disabled. 

Elizabeth Manon was a receptionist at the Globe Institute of Technology.  Manon had an infant daughter who suffered from an asthma-like condition called Reactive Airway Disease. 

Due to Manon’s daughter’s health issues, she often came in late, left early or missed whole days of work to attend to her daughter.  Over the course of her 6-month tenure at the Globe Institute, Manon left early 54 times, came in later 27 times and was absent for a total of 17 days.

She did her best to give notice when she could, especially on days where she wasn’t going into work at all and Manon’s manager was fully aware of Manon’s situation.  Although Manon came to work late or left early many times, Garcia only reprimanded Manon once for being late.  However, Manon was eventually fired after she returned to work from unexpectedly being out for several days to care for her daughter.

Manon and her manager participated in a termination meeting where she was told that he needed a person who “does not have kids who can be at the front desk at all times.”  Her manager went on to ask “How can you guarantee me that two weeks from now your daughter is not going to be sick again…So, what is it, your job or your daughter?”

It was at this point that Manon sued for associational ADA bias, claiming that she had been fired because she had to care for her disabled daughter.  The company tried to get the case thrown out because her absenteeism was, allegedly, the real reason behind her termination.  Unfortunately for the Globe Institute, a judge ruled the case should go to trial because a jury could reasonably believe the manager’s comments were a “smoking gun”, and because Manon’s constant communication could lead a jury to conclude that the manager knew the situation when he fired Manon.

HR experts say that the Globe Institute is now facing a very costly lawsuit or settlement and employers should always remember to incorporate tact and sensitivity into conversations about disabled relatives and disability in general.  

In 2006, Mark Bellerose started work at a school as a custodian. The following year Bellerose received his only annual performance appraisal. He was rated “Very Good” and “Outstanding”, receiving a total of 52 points out of 55.
Over the course of his employment, Bellerose made multiple oral complaints to various different people about the conditions at the school and the supervisor’s failure to address them. For example, one time Bellerose reported that his supervisor made no attempt to shut off the water supply to the school when the power was out for days. He also reported instances of mold growing on classroom walls, ice dams on the roof and even the school’s failure to inspect the smoke alarm system.
At one point, Bellerose received a warning about his failure to follow the correct “chain of command”. However, according to Bellerose, he was never notified of a chain of command. After the verbal warning, he received a written warning where he was reprimanded for failing to “complete the task of snow removal” during a holiday break. It should be noted that there was never a need to shovel snow because it didn’t snow during that week.
Bellerose received a “final warning” for using profanity in front of a citizen and two children. He was able to obtain statements from two other school employees who denied ever hearing him say anything inappropriate.
After learning that his Asperger’s could potentially qualify him for a disability, Bellerose provided info about his condition to the principal. A few months later, the principal informed Bellerose that his contract would not be renewed because his “Asperger’s got in the way of [his] ability to interact with [his] boss, and we are tired of it.”
The school argued that Bellerose didn’t have Asperger’s during the relevant time period and that he wouldn’t qualify under the ADA for disability. Unfortunately for the school, Asperger’s is defined as a lifetime condition that substantially limits life activities including social interaction. The court concluded that the school district’s evidence that it did not renew his contract for reasons outside of his disability just created a credibility determination for a jury to sort out at trial.
The court concluded that Bellerose’s submission of documents merely explaining what Asperger’s is wasn’t an explicit request for a reasonable accommodation. It was also noted that Bellerose didn’t allege that his provision of the information was related in any way to his warning letters or his write-ups for behavior.
In order for Bellerose’s wrongful termination claim to proceed to trial, Bellerose would have to establish that the school terminated him in bad faith. The court allowed his wrongful discharge claim to proceed because the school district failed to challenge the public policy element of his claim.
HR experts urge employers to understand that an employee with Asperger’s may be able to point to “sufficient facts to prove that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.” This can pose a dilemma for an employer since it could become their responsibility to accommodate them.

A Labour MP has made a serious claim against the British Army, stating that female service personnel are “too terrified” to make formal complaints over harassment and bullying. Madeleine Moon, who sits on the Common Defence Select Committee, cited the culture of fear that exists within the British Army as what is leading women to be fearful of the impact a complaint may have on their career.
“You get the general statement about ‘we abhor all discrimination and we are opposed to and will strike it down’, but actually there is not a clear message coming all the way down,” Moon said.
HR experts claim that female personnel face an overwhelming amount of discrimination at every level of the Army, which includes things like sexual intimidation. It is also suggested that this type of bullying is more prevalent in the Army than in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
In 2012, service complains about bullying, harassment and discrimination accounted for 43 percent of all Army allegations. This was up by 1/3 from the year before.
Moon also said she feels like there is a total sense of denial within the Army about discrimination against women. To fix this, she suggested enlisting better role models and more help lines for personnel to access in an anonymous fashion.
Under a new watchdog, military personnel will be able to make complaints against peers to an independent official from the service complaints commission.

The Co-operative Bank recently announced losses of £2.5 billion for 2013. It also announced that it would not be paying out bonuses to former executives adding up to £5 million.
Last year a £1.5 billion hole was discovered in the bank’s finances causing it to nearly collapse. Due to this, the employer is being forced to cancel outstanding deferred bonuses for executives that left the bank. This news was released at the same time as the bank’s apology was issued to its customers after revealing it did not expect to make a profit this year or next.
The Co-op Bank recently came under fire after news of payoffs and reward packages for the whole leadership team was released.
Pay details for the bank’s chief executive were also published that revealed he would collect a remuneration package totalling £2.9 million. He could also receive a three-year incentive scheme based on future business performance.
Many who oppose these types of payouts are calling the row over remuneration levels “rewards for failure”.
The bank separated from its parent company at the end of last year and was acquired by a group of US hedge funds.