According to a study of over 1,000 UK office workers - conducted by flexible office specialists Workthere - those aged 25-34 years old are the most likely to expect more flexibility in their typical working week, post the pandemic.

Amongst the 25-34 year olds, 87 per cent now expect to be able to request flexible working in the future - as opposed to only 60 per cent of those aged over 55 years.

The wish for shorter hours and more flexibility is particularly obvious amongst younger staff, with 79 per cent stating that they already work less than 38 hours per week - the national average.  

However, it was found that 45-54 years old workers were twice as likely to work more than 38 hours, with 40 per cent stating that they are overworked - compared with only 20 per cent of the younger employees.

Nearly 86 per cent of workers in the younger age bracket said that their ideal working week would be less than 38 hours a week, as opposed to 78 per cent of 45-54 year old workers.

Workthere predicts that the growing pursuit of flexibility could remain for generations to come as a more relaxed approach to work appears amongst younger employees.

The BBC has revealed - through research - that at least a million UK employees are not expected to work at their office after the crisis. Of the UK’s biggest employers, 86 per cent have committed to flexible working for staff.

Cal Lee - Global Head of Workthere - remarked:

“With so many people working from home over the last year, it’s clear that this is altering the approach and attitude towards what we previously perceived to be a standard working week.

With the younger generations now used to having flexibility in their week, be it when or where they work, it appears this desire for more freedom is a trend that is set to develop further as the UK continues to recover from the pandemic.

This in turn may see more and more businesses re-evaluate their previous practices and make changes to accommodate this.”

Global talent assessment platform provider - Thomas International - recently conducted research with over 500 HR and Talent leaders across a variety of sectors.  The result of this suggests that recruitment processes in the UK are broken, with more than half of all new hires not working out as planned.

The managers researched were asked how they hire; the common challenges they face; what works in their hiring process and what does not - as 57 per cent of new hires made in the last 12 months are not working out in some way and 25 per cent are not working at all.

The result of the research disclosed a trust gap in recruitment, which is growing. Of the 500 senior managers and recruiters researched, 46 per cent found that there was a poor job fit between the role being offered and the applicant and 44 per cent found a poor job fit between the applicant and culture.  These are the two top reasons found for the hires not being successful.

After the disorder caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the average cost in the UK of hiring a new employee was found to have escalated to £3,000 - as businesses are battling to return to normal.

Additionally, the research has shown up an assortment of issues are at the base of the failed hires and undermining trust in the recruiting procedure.  These were found to be complicated and drawn-out processes, as cited by 31 per cent of respondents; an inability to test culture or role fit by 31 per cent and over dependence on gut instinct by 29 per cent of respondents.  Nearly a third of managers researched quoted a lack of transparency, while 41 per cent state that finding the right candidate in a remote hiring environment has been their biggest recruitment challenge.  However, it has been suggested that recruitment was broken since before the pandemic.

Sabby Gill - CEO of Thomas International - stated:

“Recruitment is broken. Businesses that don’t take action to fix it will face significant challenges as they look to accelerate hiring over the next couple of years, establish workforces that are fit for the future, and rebuild and reshape teams to take advantage of new economic opportunities.”

The report on the research states that 30 per cent are in agreement and think that it is vital that recruitment procedures are improved - with 55 per cent stating it is important to evolve hiring systems and to launch a different approach to recruitment.  If executed well, this will close the trust gap that is undermining hiring.

It cannot be ignored that remote working due to the virus is having an impact on recruitment - 44 per cent of businesses said that it is their biggest driver of reshaping existing hiring practices. 

Sabby Gill added:

“Recruitment is on the rise in 2021 after a slow year, so getting things right is vital. Hiring managers need to look beyond the CV to an individual’s true potential. If you find the right person – through aptitude and behavioural testing – then you don’t need to worry about which university degree they have. With the right training, apprenticeship schemes and more, British businesses can not only solve the skills gaps they’re facing now, but also plan ahead for the jobs in the future that don’t even exist yet.”

The British Chambers of Commerce have published new survey data showing that only 5 per cent of businesses have implemented requirements for proof of vaccination.

More than 1,000 UK businesses were surveyed, showing that firms with more than 50 staff were more likely than smaller firms to be considering vaccine certification but 69 per cent presently having no plans to do so, 6 per cent stating that they were likely to do so in the future and 11 per cent saying they needed more information.

The data also showed that 76 per cent of firms expect social distancing and 54 per cent wearing face masks - plus hand sanitising - as the Covid-19 measures that firms are most likely to expect to continue to have in place over the next 12 months.

The figures come just a few days after the Prime Minister confirmed government plans to drop advice to work from home from 21 June - providing that the current easing of coronavirus restrictions continues to go to plan. The British Chambers of Commerce have called on the government to provide clear and decisive guidance to businesses regarding the use of vaccine certification.

Hannah Essex - Co-Executive Director of the BCC - said:

 “Businesses have worked hard to keep their customers and employees safe throughout the pandemic and will continue to do so. This research shows that Government must quickly clarify what measures will be required for businesses to maintain safety standards after we reach the final stage of the roadmap on June 21st.  In particular they must resolve the ongoing debate around the use of vaccine certification, providing clear and decisive guidance to business.

There has been a great deal of mixed signals on the issue of businesses being required to demand proof of vaccination from customers, suppliers or employees. Our figures show that as it stands, the vast majority of firms have no plans in place for such a scenario. So, if government is indeed planning to make this a requirement, then it must act rapidly to inform businesses so that they can adjust and prepare.

Right now, many businesses are working on the assumption that they will be continuing with a variety of Covid-secure measures over the next 12 months including social distancing, mask wearing and various other interventions. Many of these measures come at a cost to business and can restrict firms’ ability to trade at full capacity. Government must clearly set out when, and in what way, it will be safe to change these practises so that businesses can fully play their part in the economic recovery from the pandemic.”

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said employers needed to be very careful if demanding proof of vaccination from employees, as this was sensitive personal health data.

She said:

“Employers need to comply with data protection rules.”

She added:

“The UK government hasn’t made the vaccine compulsory so far, so neither can employers. Nor should they be restricting people coming to work based on whether they have had the vaccine.”

Alan Price - CEO of BrightHR - agreed that employers should focus on other methods of controlling the spread of the virus - encouraging staff to take the vaccine by outlining the benefits of doing so. 

He said:

“Employers may find it challenging to implement the requirement for employees to have been vaccinated in order to work or continue working for them.”

Official data from the Office for National Statistics has shown that many over-50s have worked less hours since the pandemic.  And, in addition, they are more likely to be made redundant - negatively affecting their employment prospects.

Of the 1.3 million people who were furloughed, more than 25 per cent were over 50 years of age, with 30 per cent of the workers on furlough of the opinion that there is a 50 per cent - or higher - chance that they will lose their job when furlough ends.

Between the months of December 2020 and February 2021, the employment rate for those aged between 50 to 64 years dropped from 72 per cent to 71 per cent and for those aged 65 years and over, it fell from 11.5 per cent to 10 per cent.  Those over 50 years also saw the highest increase in redundancy over the same period - more than doubling from 4.3 to 9.7 per thousand.  

One in eight employees over 50 years of age were also found to have made alternative retirement plans - with 8 per cent now expecting to retire later than originally planned.

Nye Cominetti - Senior Economist at the think tank - said:

“The cost of unemployment for older workers is particularly high. They take the longest to return to work - with fewer than two in three returning within six months - and experience the biggest earnings fall when they finally return to work. In the face of the current crisis, unemployed older workers may have to either work for longer to make up for these negative employment effects or retire earlier than they planned to.”

The Resolution Foundation has also reported that - after consistent employment growth for older workers since the mid-1990s, employment among workers aged 50 to 69 years fell by 1.4 per cent since the start of the pandemic.

Angela Watson - Age Campaign Manager at Business in the Community - said:

“It is very concerning that the number of older workers is falling after a long-term rising trend, and redundancies among people over 50 are rising too.”

She added:

“On the eve of the pandemic, over-50s in the workplace were at an all-time high. But now the trend has reversed and, with large numbers of older workers on furlough, more over-50s face redundancy when that ends. But this talent doesn’t need to be wasted and creating an age-inclusive culture is the key to make sure that everyone can feel included at work. Many of the one in seven employees who are caring for an older, ill or disabled person are older workers, and businesses need to offer flexible working patterns. They also need to support the health needs of older employees, such as menopause, help people of all ages develop their careers, and make sure their recruitment policies are fair and not biased against older candidates. By taking these steps, businesses will create an inclusive culture and ensure that age doesn’t limit a person’s success.” 

Emily Andrews - Senior Evidence Manager at the Centre for Ageing Better - also warned that the pandemic could cause people to drop out of the labour market early, saying:

“Working life does not stop at 55.  As this recession unfolds, we need a strong message from the government and employers that older workers have just as much right to a job as younger ones.  It's also important to remember that when the furlough scheme ends, many employees may not have worked for 18 months or more - and whether they are facing job losses, a change of industry or a return to work, many will need flexible retraining opportunities.” 

A recent health care survey conducted for health care provider Koa Health has found that HR managers now spend an average of 31 per cent more of their time each month on mental health support for employees than before the pandemic. 

People’s declining mental health has increased by 400 per cent from the last week of February 2020 to the final week of May 2020, resulting in 72 per cent of UK companies increasing the level of mental health support to employees since the beginning of the pandemic. Additionally - over the next year - 66 per cent plan to increase the level of mental health support they provide.

Despite investment being increased and the importance of mental health and wellbeing being recognised, it is still not being fully rooted in business culture, with 43 per cent of companies in the UK stating that it is not a priority.  This rises to just over half of companies with a £100m turnover or higher. Next year, one in nine companies with 3,000 employees or more are planning to decrease their level of support for mental health.

Dr Oliver Harrison - CEO of Koa Health - believes the scale of mental health challenges faced by UK employees has positioned it as the second, silent pandemic of the time.

He told HR magazine:

“For many HR managers, supporting the mental wellbeing of a dispersed workforce throughout and the pandemic will have been the greatest challenge of their career. Without any notice, they had to scramble support, spending an average of 30 per cent more of their time providing mental health support to team members.”

Looking to the future, Dr Harrison said that organisations’ response to the effects of the pandemic recovery will profoundly affect both team members’ mental health and company productivity.

He added:

“That’s why it’s critical that companies act now to move beyond the scramble of 2020 to create a clear recovery plan that embeds mental health as a cultural priority across the business.”

Nicola Tope - HR director at photography provider iStock - said that it is very important that HR teams normalise discussing mental health.

She stated:

“Our HR team have encouraged leaders to be open about their own care so that employees are more comfortable or at least less self-conscious when they need to ask for support for themselves.  This is also bolstered by the robust mental health benefits we provide and a multi-layered approach to educating employees and managers about the importance of taking care, whether that’s through webinars, our communications channels or 1:1 coaching.”

Adding that open discussions around mental health and care implementation should be at the top of HR’s agenda as the pandemic continues, she added:

“Initiatives such as meeting-free days and flexible working policies will give employees the support they need to continue to work and collaborate effectively”.

Dr Oliver Harrison further added:

“The rest of 2021 will be critical for staff wellbeing, as UK organisations shift back to a new kind of normal, with hybrid working widely expected to take hold for a lot of sectors. Organisations’ response to the aftermath of the pandemic and this shift to a new normal will make or break individuals’ mental health, not to mention company productivity. With economic recovery predicted to be slow amid ongoing uncertainty, ensuring all workforces are as productive as possible will be a high priority for HR managers over the coming year.”

Standard Life Aberdeen have released their Class of 2021 report - which includes a survey of people who intend to retire this year.

Of those surveyed - with 60 being the average age of the Class of 2021 retiree - 37% say they have sped up their retirement date in the past 12 months, while 12% have delayed it.

The report found that although many of the respondents were looking forward to giving up work, many had no intention of doing so fully, with 56% not planning to give up work altogether. The report stated “Whether it be a financial or emotional driver, the growing trend of working in retirement is clear from our research.”

Just over a quarter (27%) planned to work part-time rather than leave employment altogether, 22% plan to reduce their hours, nearly one in five (19%) will spend time volunteering while 6% wanted to start their own business.

These figures are higher in comparison to those who retired in 2020 during the height of the pandemic, as just over a third (34%) of last year’s retirees decided to continue working to some degree.

Ben Hampton, Head of Retirement Advice at Standard Life Aberdeen stated:

“Longer life expectancy, volatile investment markets and ever-changing regulation are just some of the reasons why the notion of ‘retiring’ is currently in flux, not to mention the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on people’s immediate and longer-term financial priorities and plans.”

Of those surveyed, the average value of their pension pot is £366,000, however a third have less than £100,000 and 21% need to sell their property or downsize to fund retirement.

The retirees plan to spend an average £21,000 a year (which is about £10,000 below the average UK household income of £29,000). However, to cover this spend over the course of a 30 year retirement, a retiree would need around £390,000 in savings on top of their State Pension income - which for the year 2021/2022 is £179.60 per week, or around £9,000 a year.

In actual fact, it is more likely than not that the retirees of 2021 will need much more than £21,000 per annum when inflation is taken into account. Even so, based on this average spend, two thirds of the Class of 2021 still risk running out of money in retirement.

Women feel far less financially ready to retire than men – with 34% feeling very confident versus 43% of men but despite all of these concerns, 96% of 2021 retirees say they feel emotionally prepared to retire, while 93% also think they are financially ready.

About 200,000 women could be due around £13,500 each, after an investigation found state pension administration errors that date back decades.

A joint investigation by This is Money pensions columnist (and former Pension Minister) Steve Webb and journalist Tanya Jefferies, found there was a failure to pay automatic increases to the state pensions of wives, widows and the over-80s who hit state pension age before April 2016 and should have qualified for boosted payments due to their husband’s National Insurance record. Some of the affected women received pensions of as little as 86p a week, when they were in fact entitled to 60% of the basic state pension – about £80 a week.

A team of 155 civil servants is working to trace every woman affected and pay them any money owed. But the task could take six years and recent Budget documents revealed that it is likely to cost the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) around £3billion to rectify.

Those affected include the following:

• Married women whose husband turned 65 before 17 March 2008 and who have never claimed an uplift;
• Widows whose pension was not increased when their husband died (they can potentially receive a full basic State Pension, plus a percentage of their late husband’s additional State Pension);
• Widows whose pension is now correct, but who may have been underpaid while their husband was still alive, particularly if they reached 65 after 17 March 2008;
• Women over the age of 80 who are receiving a basic pension of less than £80.45, provided they satisfied a basic residence test when they turned 80;
• Widowers and heirs of married women, where the woman has died but was underpaid the State Pension during their life, especially when their husband turned 65 after 17 March 2008;
• Divorced women, particularly those who divorced after they retired, who need to establish whether are benefitting from the contributions of their ex-husband.

Labour Pension Commission Chairman Stephen Timms MP has asked the DWP to explain how payments will be prioritized - whether payments will be made in the order of age or unpaid amount for example and how the heirs of those who died will be contacted.

The Work After Lockdown research project studied why some home workers are more productive than others and how firms respond.

The result of remote working is causing some businesses to re-evaluate their assumption that they get the highest output when staff work longer hours or under close supervision.

Many major firms - professional services group PwC for instance - have been sufficiently impressed by remote working to make it a permanent option for their staff. For some employees working from home is an opportunity to focus and to be super productive, whilst also giving them the opportunity to take the dog for a walk or to remain in their pyjamas all day.

However, some workers find concentration difficult and spend eight hours doing nothing more than answering a couple of emails and daydreaming. David Solomon, CEO Goldman Sachs, has rejected remote working as an “aberration that we’re going to correct as soon as possible”.

The results of the survey - in which 1,085 respondents working from home in the UK were asked about their productivity - have recently been published.

The respondents were asked whether they felt that their productivity was the same, better or worse compared to pre-lockdown and 54 per cent thought they got a little more, or much more done per hour worked, than before lockdown. When this was combined with the result of those who reported productivity as being the same as before lockdown, it showed that 90 per cent of employees had maintained or improved their productivity - leaving only 10 per cent reporting that their productivity had gone down.

When questioned about their mental health, the respondents were scored using the World Health Organisation index, which showed that better mental health was associated with higher productivity.  The mental health scores for the most productive workers were twice those of the least productive but it was not clear whether poor mental health score contributes to the decline in productivity, or the high productivity boosts the mental health.

Over 90 per cent of the respondents reported that they could concentrate on one activity for a long time; 94 per cent were able to use the autonomy given them by their employer to re-order work tasks; 85 per cent did not get distracted from the task in hand and 83 per cent could return to their task after an interruption.  Those who could self-regulate in these ways were positively correlated with high productivity per hour worked.

Seventy-three per cent of the survey respondents reported that their ideal working pattern would allow them to vary their place of work to reflect the tasks they were performing.

Matthew Davis - Associate Professor at Leeds University Business School - said that highly social, extroverted people may have a more difficult time working from home without the “water-cooler chat”.   He added that those who rely on their social environment to enjoy their jobs, stave off monotony and keep up motivation may find themselves disadvantaged.    

He went on to say that - even though they may thrive working alone - introverts do not necessarily find home working better, as they can find video calls difficult due to discomfort with being the sole focus of a camera and having to speak in group chats. He says that a balance of introversion and extroversion qualities may be a best for productivity.   

In recent research conducted on 2,000 home working employees by full-service IT support company ILUX, it was found that one in ten believed that their expected working practices are not GDPR compliant. In addition, 13 per cent of those surveyed admitted that they are using their own home technology for work – and this could be the reason for the concern over GDPR compliance.

GDPR - or General Data Protection Regulation - was introduced in May 2018 and applies to all UK-based businesses or organisations and their processing of personal data. It was introduced to strengthen data protection for individuals across the EU.

All UK organisations that process personal data must comply with the regulations or risk significant penalties, which can amount to up to 4 per cent of the company’s annual turnover.

Based on the results of the poll, the report generated hints that the adoption of BYOD, (bring your own device) policy could be at the root of the problem, stating that home workers using personal technology for work could be the catalyst for the respondents’ concerns.

BYOD policy is a set of rules governing a corporate IT department’s level of support for employee-owned PCs, smart phones and tablets.

Additionally, support was also found to be an issue, with two-thirds of the poll respondents stating that they did not receive enough support regarding IT from business owners, with 10 per cent feeling that management was either too busy or too stressed to approach them.

James Tilbury - Managing Director at ILUX - stated:

“Asking employees to work from home and then not providing the right computer systems and security measures is a recipe for disaster. The last thing any business needs at this time is to lose valuable data, leave themselves open to cyber attacks or phishing and leave themselves vulnerable to the unknown. It may only seem like a small number, but it’s best not to be in that ten per cent.”

He added:

“Nine in ten is a positive figure, better than would be expected, but as a business owner I would be starting to ask myself - did I plan enough for home working? - and get some advice from an industry professional on how I might rectify any GDPR issues in my business now - better to be proactive than reactive in these situations.”

A survey conducted by O2, ICM and YouGov has predicted that employees will be reluctant to give up working remotely after lockdown. Almost half of the office workers believe that the Covid-19 pandemic will result in them permanently working more flexibly after restrictions on UK businesses are lifted.  

It was found that 33 per cent of respondents expect to work from home for at least three days per week, whilst 81 per cent think they will work remotely for at least one day per week.

The survey also found that technology could be a solution for spanning geographic inequality in the UK - as current lockdown restrictions have affirmed that many employees are able to work from anywhere.

At present, 62 per cent of employees live within 30 minutes of their workplace. However, the poll showed that if working from home was easier and more common, this figure would reduce to 36 per cent with 63 per cent of workers willing to live up to an hour away from their workplace. This should then mean that competition to attract and retain staff could be greater as businesses compete for a wider range of employees from across the country.

Dr Heejung Chung - Reader in Sociology and Social Policy Director at the University of Kent - said:

“It will be difficult to go back to normal ways of working after lockdown, as we’ve now proven that most of us can work from home – despite many companies previously telling employees that it wouldn’t be possible. The UK has a huge challenge with the geographic distribution of wealth, and this exaggerates the problem of overpopulation in cities. If people could work from wherever they want to, without any fear of career penalty, this would create a huge opportunity for everyone.”

Despite 56 per cent of employers stating that less than a tenth of their workforce worked remotely before the crisis, 67 per cent of companies said that 75 per cent of their employees are working remotely - with 87 per cent of those having the technology and resources in place to work productively.

Mark Crail - Content Director for XpertHR - commented that HR assistance had been critical in allowing people to juggle work and family responsibilities. 

He said:

"There is a real sense that people have thrown themselves into the challenge of home working and simply coped with the need to juggle work and childcare, to take part in online meetings despite internet connectivity issues, and to work round problems that arise. HR has played a huge part in making this possible, and has put lots of work into engaging with remote teams, equipping managers to work in new ways, supporting the mental health and wellbeing of those stuck at home, and keeping open the channels of communication."

A separate survey by Willis Towers Watson found that home workers had remained productive despite the challenges. Of the 996 employers surveyed, only 15 per cent said productivity had declined; 27 percent said there had been a small negative impact and another 15 per cent said home working had not impacted staff productivity. Almost all of the employers surveyed stated that they kept up a regular communication with their staff to keep them motivated and 86 per cent said they had measures in place to ensure workers felt supported.

According to a new survey sampling 1,000 adult employees and carried out by YouGov for the CIPD, 44 per cent of employees stated that they felt anxious about returning to their workplace because of the health risks posed by Covid-19 both to them and those close to them - whilst 37 per cent disagreed that they were anxious about returning.  

With regard to commuting to work – in general, 31 per cent were anxious about travelling, against 54 per cent who stated that they were not anxious about the commute.  London based employees had far more concerns about their travel than those in other parts of the UK, with 52 per cent saying they were anxious about commuting to work because of COVID-19.  In addition, their commutes are often longer.

The CIPD called for employers to ensure that all employee concerns are addressed when normal working is resumed – and for the government to recognise legitimate employee concerns in its guidance.  

Peter Cheese - Chief Executive of the CIPD, the professional body for HR and people development - said:

“The Government’s draft employer guidance on working safely during COVID-19 does not sufficiently recognise that many individuals will not feel safe enough to return to the workplace due to concerns for their own safety or others they are close to. Returning should be mutually agreed and employers should go out of their way to ensure individuals’ concerns are addressed. Employers must bring people back gradually, when required, and learn from each person’s experience, building employees’ trust in the business to treat them well. 

The CIPD also wants employers to understand and be prepared that this guidance will really test their legal duty of care to keep workers safe from physical harm and the need to continue to meet individuals’ employment rights. This phase for employers will be unique and more complicated to navigate than lockdown as there will be many judgements to make, all that will need to have people at the centre.” 

Louise Aston - Wellbeing Director at Business in the Community (BTC) - said:

“Although there is widespread unease about relaxation of lockdown - particularly with people who have underlying mental health conditions, including OCD and anxiety, BITC recommends that all employers prepare employees for a healthy return to work, providing confidence and assurance that it’s safe to return.”

Emma Mamo - Head of Workplace Wellbeing at mental health charity Mind - said:

“Employers are understandably keen for more guidance on how exactly to manage employees returning to work and we hope this will be forthcoming.”

Calls by CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development - asking for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak to extend the Job Retention Scheme appeared to have been answered. The Chancellor has now announced an extension - until the end of October - of the furlough scheme currently subsidising the wages of millions.

Presently, at least 6.3 million people are having 80 per cent of their salaries - up to a ceiling of £2,500 - paid by the taxpayer under the furlough system, resulting in a cost of some £8 billion.

Until the end of July, there will be no charge to the employers but from then onwards the Chancellor plans to ask companies to share the cost of the scheme. From the start of August, furloughed workers will be able to return to work part-time with employers being asked to pay a percentage towards the salaries of their furloughed staff. The Chancellor has promised that there will be no 'cliff edge' as he winds down the scheme.  

Mervyn King - former Bank of England Governor - commented to the BBC:

"Keep it at 80 per cent. I don't think it makes sense to regard this as the major cost of the COVID-19 crisis in economic terms."

Matt Hanock - Health Secretary stated:

"We have said that shouldn't be a cliff-edge in the furlough scheme, but at the same time, we do need to try to get the economy back to something more like normal."

Angela Rayner - Deputy Labour leader - wants the scheme to continue at the same level, saying:

"We can't afford not to do it correctly. I think it is really important the Chancellor continues with the good practice of making sure that the furlough scheme is in place and doesn't try and reduce it too soon, because that will cost us in the longer term."

Mike Cherry - National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses - said:

“The Job Retention Scheme is a lifeline which has been hugely beneficial in helping small employers keep their staff in work and it’s extension is welcome. Small employers have told us that part-time furloughing will help them recover from this crisis and it is welcome that new flexibility is announced.”

Adam Marshall - BCC Director General - said:

“The extension of the Job Retention Scheme will come as a huge help and a huge relief for businesses across the UK. The Chancellor is once again listening to what we’ve been saying, and the changes planned will help businesses bring their people back to work through the introduction of a part-time furlough scheme. We will engage with the Treasury and HMRC on the detail to ensure that this gives companies the flexibility they need to reopen safely. Over the coming months, the government should continue to listen to business and evolve the scheme in line with what’s happening on the ground. Further support may yet be needed for companies who are unable to operate for an extended period, or those who face reduced capacity or demand due to ongoing restrictions.”

The Law Society has warned that thousands of high street and sole practitioner firms that play a crucial role in providing advice to vulnerable people, may have to shut within six months as a result of the Covid-19 crisis.

New research by the Law Society suggests that cash flow pressures and lower fee income have put at risk more than half of all the legal practices in England and Wales.

In March and April, nearly 8,000 small firms were approached for a survey and 10 per cent of the practices - with a total of 774 respondents - replied. It was   found that one in five said they were already feeling the pressure from lack of cash flow and fee income.

Of the sole practitioners surveyed 63 per cent - and 71 per cent of firms with four partners or fewer - said that the pressures could put them out of business by the autumn. This would equate to over 5,000 firms ceasing to trade, leaving vulnerable people - struggling with stressful legal issues - without support.

Simon Davis - Law Society President - said:

“The shock to the legal services sector has been sudden and severe. There are widespread concerns over liquidity as firms face a dramatic plunge in income with work falling away.

Although a firm may be open for business, this does not mean it is business as usual. Residential property transactions have ground to a halt. Reduction in court hearings has massively impacted on the amount of work available - while social distancing and the lack of face-to-face meetings is causing difficulty delivering in other areas, such as the execution of wills.”

He added:

“The exclusion of many solicitors from support for the self-employed means that many are struggling. Someone who has earned £51,000 profit in the preceding year is not guaranteed to do so again and is unlikely to have built up the savings to survive for a protracted period without income.

Crucially, there must be also be a support package in place for those legal practitioners who are paid via dividends. Under the current schemes such people will only be able to receive a minimal amount of support, possibly no more than £575 per month. This could be solved by extending support to sole practitioners operating via a professional service company.”

Simon Davis concluded by saying:

“Whether in relation to problems with housing, employment or wills – or advising small businesses – small firms are often at the heart of their communities.  It is vital they survive the crisis to play a role in getting the economy back on its feet.”

Moneypenny - an outsourced communications provider - polled 2,000 UK workers over the age of 18 years and who are presently working from home, to show how they are managing with bringing their work life home during the pandemic.

Over 52 per cent of workers said they were happy to continue to work from home. However, 37 per cent stated that they are starting to feel the strain and 6 per cent admitted that they were already struggling - suggesting that some adjustments were needed in their home working schedule.

When it comes to routine, the findings were that a new schedule is being instigated when staff are working from home. 

Almost half of the home workers reported that they got up less than an hour before they started work; 17 per cent get up about 30 minutes before; 15 per cent 45 minutes before work and 42 per cent stated that they get up about one hour before they were due to start.

Confessing to only getting up about 15 minutes before commencing their working day were 6 per cent of home workers – with a further 5 per cent disclosing that they get up just 10 minutes before.

Finding the perfect place within the home can be difficult, as the home is filled with distractions, such as television. The survey found that 24 per cent of adults preferred to work from their living room and 15 per cent of people said that they prefer the comfort of a table in order to conduct their daily work - with more comfortable seating such as sofas and beds coming in as a close second.

The respondents to the survey also gave recommendations when it comes to home working. They suggested that workers should use a comfortable chair and have their own space to focus; they should devise a writing plan; ensure they have regular breaks for fresh air; listen to music and keep active.

When asked if companies had helped with setting up a home office, 53 per cent of respondents said that they did not receive any help from their employer, whilst 26 per cent stated that they were able to take home a screen and to stock up on any necessary office supplies.   Vouchers or cash to purchase all necessary items were given to 16 per cent of the home workers.

Joanna Swash - CEO at Moneypenny - commented:

“It’s clear that many companies are relying on their staff having a full home office to enable them to work from home and companies should be auditing the facilities their staff need and providing them. We also have research that shows that 1 in 10 UK businesses are still sending staff into the office to answer phone calls which is not necessary when there are so many tech solutions available that don’t cost a fortune and can help provide efficient communications.” 

Of those surveyed, 46 per cent stated that they made sure to stick to their normal lunch hours, with 28 per cent saying that they take shorter lunch breaks then they usually would when in the office and 11 per cent stating that they take longer breaks. Some - 15 per cent - stated that they do not take any lunch breaks at all.

However, the boundaries between work and free time appear to be blurring with 73 per cent of home workers saying that they are answering calls and emails after working hours.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has - in the case of Spanish Trade Union (CCOO) v Deutsche Bank SAE - handed down an important judgment about working time.

The CCOO wanted a system in place for recording how long its members worked each day - including the number of hours worked overtime - to enable the verification that these complied with their stipulated working conditions.

The group action against Deutsche Bank stated that, as a necessary measure, every worker is entitled to a minimum daily rest period of 11 consecutive hours per 24-hour period; that they should be guaranteed a minimum uninterrupted period of 24 hours plus the 11 hours’ daily rest and that there should be safeguarding against workers’ average working time for each 7-day period, including overtime.

Under Spanish law, employers are only required to keep a record of overtime hours worked by each worker at the end of each month. Evidence was given to the court that these records were not accurate - and that 53.7% of all overtime worked was not recorded.

The European Court of Justice ruled that employers must take steps to make sure their staff are not exceeding the 48-hour maximum working week and are taking adequate rest breaks.

The CCOO said that the ECJ judgment made it clear that the previous Spanish legal framework did not comply with European legislation.

Sybille Steiner - Employment Partner at Irwin Mitchell - said:

“This decision is binding in the UK and will affect those employers who do not accurately record the numbers of hours their staff work – whether these are paid or unpaid.

This decision arguably goes further than our laws require and employers should make sure that the systems they use to measure working time are ‘objective’ and ‘reliable’ and reflect all hours their staff work – not just those set out in their contracts of employment.”

In the UK, under the Working Time Regulations 1998, employers have to keep records to show that workers are not working in excess of 48 hours a week and the rules around night work are complied with. They do not, however, explicitly require employers to record data to show that daily and weekly rest periods are met.

Records have to be kept for at least two years and these rules are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive. Employers that breach them can be prosecuted and fined.

According to a poll of 2,002 Americans conducted by John Zogby Strategies - an American public opinion pollster - 51 per cent of Millennials and Generation Z reported that ‘fair representation of race, ethnicity and religion is paramount to creating the ideal workplace' .

Agreeing with that statement were 48 per cent of Generation X and 42 per cent of Baby Boomers - who also wanted employers to prioritize diversity over ability when it comes to hiring.

Only 15 per cent of Generation Z and 32 per cent of Millennials believe that 'merit and competition supersede all, even if that results in a workplace that creates minimal diversity' - compared to 37 percent of Generation X and 45 percent of Baby Boomers who said that merit is more important than diversity.

When questioned as to whether businesses should prioritize their impact on the environment - or focus on growing jobs and satisfying stockholders - 55 per cent of Generation Z; 42 per cent of Millennials; 41 per cent of Generation X and 40 per cent of Baby Boomers agreed with the statement 'major business decisions must first and foremost take into account their impact on the environment.'.

Jeremy Zogby - a Partner in Zogby Strategies - commented:

“There are really two opposing schools, I guess you could say that there's one that's on the side of progressive ideology, whereas the other one is more in line with the way business was always run. There is definitely a progressive slant in Millennials and Gen Z.”

Alexandra Anders - EMEA Talent Director, Cornerstone OnDemand - writes:

‘Diversity over ability - that’s what matters to Millennials and Gen Z, research recently revealed. For these generations, an employee from all backgrounds being fairly represented is the key for a great workplace and diversity is more important than hiring new employees based on their skills.

Yet, businesses are still failing to address problems of equality and transparency. Not to name names but we’ve all seen the ongoing issues at Google.

While there may be no quick-fix or overnight solution, there are ways that you can and should take action now.’

She added:

‘Recruitment is just the first step towards creating greater equality. When you’re looking to build a diverse workforce you also need to retain people. The recent revelations from companies submitting their pay gap reports shows how too often a company’s first and only response will be to launch a big diversity recruitment push. After that they see this as a job done – but that’s only the start. HR needs to reflect not only on hiring practices but also internal rewards and policies and the rest of the employee lifecycle’.

A report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) stated that 14% of UK workers fell into a high risk category where jobs could be entirely replaced by technology - and they have warned that the US and UK are among countries that need to do better on digital up-skilling.

According to new research, more than one in ten workers in the UK are at such high risk of seeing their roles automated that they require up to a year’s training to secure a safer occupation. An additional 2.6% required more than three years of training to find an entirely new role.

The OECD warns that there is a widespread global crisis when it comes to getting the skills in place to thrive in a digital economy.

Despite the fact that governments and organisations have pledged to tackle the problem, only a few countries have managed to - with Belgium, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden being the nations best placed for the future.

The OECD report - Thriving in a Digital World - states:

‘Digitalisation presents immense potential to boost productivity and improve well-being. It can give people more power over what they learn, where and when they work, and how they engage in society. However, it can also increase inequalities if some people or regions are left behind. By improving the skills of their populations, countries can ensure the new technologies translate into better outcomes for all. This requires a comprehensive and co-ordinated policy intervention, with skills-related policies as the cornerstone of this package.’

However, just focusing on digital and technical skills is not an appropriate plan of action, as workers in the future need training in cognitive and socio-emotional skills - providing the human x-factor not offered by their robot colleagues.

At the Paris launch of the report, Angel Gurría - OECD Secretary General - said:

“A well-rounded skillset is critical to unlocking the benefits of digitalisation. However, the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) reveals that 15% of adults lack basic digital skills, and 13% lack basic digital, numeracy and problem-solving skills. This is really scary, as citizens without basic skills are at risk of being left behind by the digital transformation. Moreover, on average in the OECD, 6.6% of young graduates have low literacy and numeracy skills. But this share goes up to almost 20% in some countries. This means that holding a tertiary degree does not always guarantee a high level of skills. New technologies are changing the way we carry out our jobs. In the digital age, workers must be mobile and able to retrain and upskill along the course of their lives. Our estimates suggest that 14% of jobs (on average) across the OECD face a high risk of being automated and many more jobs – 32% – are expected to undergo substantial changes in terms of the quantity and quality of their tasks. It is imperative that workers retrain and upskill to face these enormous challenges. However, workers in occupations at high risk of automation and the low-skilled are less likely to participate in on the job training than other workers.”

He added:

“In our rapidly digitalising world, skills make the difference between staying ahead of the wave and falling behind. Businesses have a key role to play in ensuring that employees upskill and reskill, adapting to the changing demands of the labour market. By improving our skills systems, we can ensure that today’s technological revolution will improve lives for all.” 

Amber Rudd - Work and Pensions Secretary - recently called for a new government focus on helping people better themselves in work, enabling them to move to higher paid, higher-skilled roles.

At the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, she said;

“Automation is driving the decline of banal and repetitive tasks. So the jobs of the future are increasingly likely to be those that need human sensibilities, with personal relationships, qualitative judgement and creativity coming to the fore. And there is a clear role for government to help people take advantage of these changes, and to help businesses create high-quality jobs.”

Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) – one of the largest energy providers – has been ordered to pay £230,000 to an employee for unfair dismissal.

In the case of Donald Nutt v SSE Ltd at Dundee Employment Tribunal, the Court criticised the extreme poor practice and genuine unfairness shown towards Mr Nutt by SSE Ltd. The judge stated that the HR process was "reminiscent of a show trial in the former Soviet Union".

Mr Nutt - who had been employed by SSE Ltd for 16 years before his dismissal in October 2014 - raised safety issues in 2012 regarding free health checks for night shift workers and also that the company's night shift structure was causing health problems. He brought a formal grievance, which was not upheld.

In March 2013, Mr Nutt received a poor appraisal report and was informed that he would be getting an informal warning. This was despite having previously received consistently excellent appraisals.

The company accused him of refusing to accept the findings, telling him:

“....you are free to raise any reasonable concerns you have with your manager, but once the outcome has been decided you should accept that outcome and move on in a positive and constructive manner. The topic should not be questioned again unless there is a change in the situation.”

In July 2013, Mr Nutt was signed off from work for two months, due to stress. On his return, he had a meeting with HR - who decided to bring disciplinary action against him for failing to accept that he was wrong over the night shift complaint - and not accepting that his grievance had been properly investigated.  He was dismissed.

The judge at the tribunal stated that the HR professional:

“.....was demanding that Mr Nutt not only accept throughout that he had been wrong, but also accept a number of factual circumstances that weren't true – principally, that his grievance had been properly investigated. It quite clearly had not. At many instances during the meeting, it appears that SSE not only wished Mr Nutt to acknowledge that he was wrong, but express gratitude to SSE for treating him as they had. This is somewhat reminiscent of a show trial in the former Soviet Union rather than modern employment relations practice."

The tribunal found that practically no investigation had been conducted into Mr Nutt’s alleged misconduct and that his crime was to have argued with the company. Judge McFatridge ordered SSE Ltd to rehire Mr Nutt and awarded him £140,000 compensation.

However, when SSE refused to re-instate Mr Nutt, the award was increased to £230,000. Mr Nutt's other claim of unfair treatment - on the basis of whistle blowing - was not upheld.    

A new report has shown that more employers are becoming aware of the vital role they play in ensuring that good quality work is not only good for their employee’s welfare, but is also the key to productivity.

A growing proportion of employers are providing counselling services as most organisations are increasing their focus on mental health - with 40 per cent having a standalone well-being strategy. Comparing figures with last year, 61 per cent of respondents agreed that employee well-being is now on the senior leaders’ agendas against 55% last year. However, 16.5 per cent are still not doing anything to improve their employees’ well-being.

Unmanageable workloads - say 62 per cent of HR professionals - and management style quoted by 43 per cent, are two top causes of stress in the workplace.

Poor financial well-being is cited as being a significant cause of employee stress by 25 per cent of respondents. Nearly 50 per cent state that they regularly communicate reward policies to staff so they understand the benefits on offer and the choices available - but fewer of them consult the employees to assess how well their benefit offering is meeting their financial needs.

In nearly two-thirds of businesses, line managers are expected to take prime responsibility for managing short-term absence, despite the fact that only 50 per cent of organisations train managers to manage stress. Only 37 per cent of businesses provide any training or guidance for line managers to spot the warning signs of presenteeism – but 79 per cent rely on their managers to send people home when they are unwell. The average level of absence is 5.9 days per employee per year - or 2.6 per cent of working time lost - and is the lowest ever recorded by the survey.

Mental ill health - along with stress, skeletal injuries and acute medical conditions - is increasingly prevalent as a cause of both short and long-term absence.

The survey finds that when line managers are advised of the importance of health and well-being, businesses are more likely to report that stress is well managed. Training line managers and providing them with tailored support are among the most effective methods. HR should, therefore, look for simple, low-cost ways to start building healthier workplaces.

Rachel Suff - Senior Policy Adviser at CIPD - who led the research, says:

“Not only are most managers ill equipped to support their teams through times of stress, but if they don’t go about their role in the right way, the impact on people’s well-being can be harmful. Employers can introduce a suite of exemplary well-being policies and make a serious investment in employee health, but if their activity is not rooted in how people are managed, it will not have real impact.”

She added:

“Our research shows that manager buy-in is crucial, so HR teams should focus communications with managers on what’s in it for them: when their team’s happy, healthy and engaged in their work, they’re more likely to meet their goals and contribute to the team’s success.”

Personal Group, a technology-enabled employee services business, has surveyed more than 1550 UK employees about their happiness, enthusiasm, pride and efficiency at work. The research is the second annual national survey of this kind from Personal Group.

The results showed that despite a gender pay gap of 17.9% across all employees, women are happier; more enthusiastic and prouder about the work they do than their male colleagues. Almost 45% of women said that they are happy at work either quite often or most of the time. This compared with only 34.5% of men.

Similarly, where enthusiasm was concerned, 42.8% of women felt enthusiastic about their work quite often or most of the time - versus 36.1% of men. Of the employees who rarely feel happy, enthusiastic and proud at work - men score 6.4% higher than women, across all categories. 

However, men are keener than women to get to work in the morning and one reason for this may be that men feel more satisfied that they are recognised for their contribution at work. When questioned, 39.8% of men - against 47.2% of women - valued recognition as a preferred benefit. Overall, money was voted the most important benefit by both 60.9% of men and 63.3% of women. Men are more in favour of longer-term benefits, such as life and health insurance and 33.8% said these would make them happier at work, compared to just 27% of women.

With regard to going to work each morning, men at a senior level are more reticent. Of the male company owners and directors surveyed, 44.4% are rarely keen to go to work, against 6.3% of their female counterparts. However, for frontline workers, the percentage of men and women reluctant to go to work is practically the same - 51.2% of women and 50.4% of men.

Deborah Frost - Chief Executive at Personal Group - said:

“I’m encouraged that Gender pay reporting continues to drive the conversation around pay discrepancies and we’re seeing progress at several large organisations including Greggs, H & M and Mitchell and Butlers. However, many organisations have seen their gap stall – or even increase and, although this may be due to positive initiatives such as increasing the intake of women at entry level, these short-term fluctuations in results are only forgivable so long as organisations are also implementing evidence-based initiatives to support a targeted plan and drive meaningful improvements.

Regardless, it’s clear that UK businesses still have a long way to go. Our research echoes this frustrating state of affairs – it’s no surprise that more money and more recognition are the most in-demand benefits amongst women when asked how employers could increase their workplace happiness.

Despite women being paid less, they are actually happier and more enthusiastic at work compared to men, with just 34.5 per cent of male employees saying they often feel happy at work. This is just as concerning and is something that British businesses must explore further and work to improve.

Closing the gender pay gap and the gender happiness gap requires businesses to ask themselves some difficult questions - and a willingness to act if they discover less than satisfactory responses. Making progress will undoubtedly require changes to culture and strategy, but if businesses can make sure they’re communicating openly with their employees around both pay and happiness, everyone will benefit.”

According to a 2018 WorldatWork survey - which reflected responses from 867 WorldatWork members - it is suggested that employers are beginning to move away from the practice of conducting formal performance reviews.

Fewer employers conducted reviews in 2017 compared to 2016 - 91 percent against 94 percent. In addition, fewer employers gave formal performance ratings - 80 percent in 2017 against 85 percent in 2016.

Alison Avalos, CCP, GRP – Director of Research and Certification for WorldatWork – said:

“This move away from some of the more traditional elements of performance management is consistent with the expectations we had going into the survey.  There’s been a lot of buzz about organizations moving to nontraditional programs, and while they aren’t abandoning traditional performance management systems entirely, there is evidence that they are looking at emerging practices and implementing individual components of cutting-edge programs. What we’re seeing this year is that continued shift toward potentially more effective ways of driving and assessing performance.”

On the same subject, survey results released from Korn Ferry say that formal performance reviews fail to achieve the intended result of helping employees become better at their jobs. More than 500 professionals were surveyed by Korn Ferry and of these more than 75 percent said they have annual performance reviews with their boss. However, nearly 42 percent said that their annual performance review had no effect or was ineffective at improving their professional performance.

Katie Lemaire - Senior Client Partner at Korn Ferry - stated:

“Organizations realize that managing business performance is a very dynamic process, so having a once-per-year meeting that hopes to both evaluate and improve performance is a tall ask. It is still critical that employees receive regular feedback and companies have the opportunity to re-evaluate their processes.”

The Korn Ferry survey also found that annual performance reviews take a large amount of time - with seven or more hours being cited by the largest percentage of respondents - as the period spent on their review.

One of the most forceful reasons for performance reviews is to establish rewards and pay for employees. However, Katie Lemaire said:

“It’s critical that managers regularly have conversations about performance throughout the year, which is far more effective in driving performance improvement than trying to have a conversation about what people could or should be doing differently at the same time that you are sharing compensation information with them.”

James Pennington - an attorney with Ogletree Deakins in Birmingham, Alabama, referred to the 2018 WorldatWork survey at the firm's recent 2018 National Workplace Strategies Seminar and suggested that managers who intend to continue conducting formal performance reviews should write goals at the start of the performance cycle, adjusting them if necessary.  They should also give leaders guidance on making feedback an ongoing conversation and using objective criteria as much as possible; request comments and examples to support ratings and allow an employee comments and an appeals process.

On 25 May 2018, the UK will implement the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and there will be significant changes of which employers will need to be aware.  GDPR replaces the Data Protection Act 1998 in the UK and marks the start of a radical new data protection - with significant penalties for non-compliance.

The new regulation brings into line data protection laws across the EU and it will apply not only to EU companies, but to any company processing the personal data of individuals in the EU. This can be in regard to offering goods or services - or to monitoring the behaviour of individuals.

Under the GDPR, employers will need to provide detailed information, such as how long data will be stored for; if data will be transferred to other countries; information on the right to make a subject access request and information on the right to have personal data deleted or rectified in certain instances.

Public authorities and private companies involved in regular monitoring - or large-scale processing of sensitive data - will need to appoint a data protection officer to give advice on GDPR obligations, monitor compliance and liaise with the data protection authority.

Head of content at XpertHR, Jo Stubbs stated:

“The clock is ticking to the introduction of the new GDPR. However, businesses that haven’t yet started their compliance journey shouldn’t panic. There is still time to start the process, and employers should focus on the most important elements first. The GDPR is an opportunity for organisations to embed a cultural change. By championing privacy ‘by design and default’, HR can seize the positive aspects of the new Regulation.”

It is suggested that as HR teams are used to handling data and data requests, they can help their business to identify and help solve any existing problems and anticipate any that may arise later.  As HR teams write policies to secure workplace compliance, they can use their knowledge to draft GDPR policies.

As it will be vital that it is documented that their business has complied with the GDPR obligations, HR can use their risk management experience to assist in this.  In addition, HR teams can provide training to employees to operate effectively in a GDPR-compliant situation, ensuring that their organisation understands their obligations. 

Employers that breach the GDPR can be subjected to major penalties which include fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, whichever is the greater. The level of the fine will depend on the sort of breach and if there are any mitigating factors to be taken into account.  

A new Office for National Statistics (ONS) report – ‘Contracts that do not guarantee a minimum number of hours: April 2018’ – plus data from the latest Labour Force Survey and an ONS business survey, estimated that 6% of UK employment contracts were carried out on a zero hours basis in November 2017.    This equates to 1.8 million contracts, which is an increase of 100,000 on the equivalent figures for November 2016. 

Zero hour contracts refer to those where no guaranteed hours are offered to the worker.

According to the report, over 54% of those on zero hour contracts were women and 66% work part-time.  Of younger workers, over 8% are still in full-time education and 36% are aged between 16 and 24. 

Head of policy at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, Sophie Wingfield, said:

“Many people on zero-hours contracts are in full-time education – the advantage of having that flexibility allows students to fit in hours around their studies. Flexible contracts also offer employers the ability to respond quickly to the fluctuating demands of the economy.”

She added:

“When managed well and by choice, such contracts are an important means of offering people increased choice and flexibility in their working lives. These contracts also offer a part-time option that people choose to fit around their other commitments and data has shown that more than half of employees on zero-hours find that it creates a positive work-life balance. For some workers it won’t be their only job, but a way to top up with additional income or get experience in a new or different field.” 

However, Catherine Sermon, Employment Director at Business in the Community, stated that many people were facing a choice between jobs that fail to lift them out of poverty or continuing in unemployment, which she considered was no choice at all.

Low pay experts have been approached to formally seek their views on the impact of higher minimum wage rates for those on zero-hours and non-guaranteed hours contracts.  The government has promised to review the recommendations made in the Taylor review in July 2017 but the experts say the real test will be whether it is implemented in the future. 

Diane Nicol, Partner at Pinsent Masons - and a Taylor review panel member - stated that the review “considered the thorny issue of how to protect those who are in more precarious engagements – such as zero-hours contracts and non-guaranteed hours contracts.”

She also asked the Low Pay Commission to consider how a higher national minimum wage might “apply to these more precarious workers”.

The Low Pay Commission is presently consulting on the minimum wage and will publish its findings with its annual wage report.  This will also take into account the impact of the wage proposal for zero hours contractors.  It will also consider practices employed by countries where zero hour contracts are banned, or where employers are fined for giving less than three hours notice of work shifts.

The question of whether notice of termination of employment takes effect when posted, when delivered, or when received personally - if the employment contract does not state it - was the subject of a hearing at the Supreme Court in April 2018.

In the case of Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Foundation Trust v Haywood, the decision - by a majority - was in favour of Mrs Haywood, a long time employee.

The facts stated in the case were that Mrs Haywood had told the Trust that she would be on annual leave from 19th April until 3rd May 2011.  On 20th April 2011, the Trust sent her three letters terminating her employment - by reason of redundancy - with 12 weeks' notice.  

One of the letters was sent by recorded delivery and was picked up from the Post Office on 26th April by a relative, who left it at her home to be opened upon her return on 27th April.  The second letter was sent by standard post and the third to her husband’s email address, which he did not read until the morning of 27th April. Mrs Haywood was out of the country during her holiday time.

Mrs Haywood’s contract of employment did not state when notice given under the contract would be deemed to be received.  The Court had to decide whether the notice of termination expired before Mrs Haywood’s 50th birthday on 20th July 2011, as she was entitled to an enhanced early retirement pension if she was still employed on her 50th birthday.  For the lower pension to be due, Mrs Haywood would have to been given notice by 26th April 2011.

The argument put forward by the Trust was that notice was given when the letter was delivered - as in when it would have arrived in the ordinary course of post - whilst Mrs Haywood argued that notice was not given until it came to her attention. In those circumstances, the notice would have started to run on 27th April and would have expired on 20th July - her 50th birthday - entitling her to the enhanced pension.

In finding for Mrs Haywood, the court stated that in the absence of an express contractual term dealing with the situation, notice of termination is only effective when it comes to the employee’s attention and they have had a reasonable opportunity to read it.  Therefore, Mrs Haywood was entitled to an enhanced pension.

The implication of this case serves as a reminder of the importance of contracts providing certainty where the issuing notice of termination of employment is concerned - particularly where the date of notice expiry is vital.

Aegon, with the Aegon UK consumer and customer panel, recently conducted a survey on 685 adults - 380 with workplace pensions - which found that 58% of millennial respondents think it is their employer’s responsibility to help them plan for retirement.  In addition, it was found that 23% of millennial respondents had no idea how much their employer is paying into their occupational pension and 41% with workplace pensions said they were not aware that they get tax relief on their workplace pension contributions.

The research also found that 51% of respondents aged between 18 and 34 with a workplace pension are not actively encouraged by their employer to check their occupational pension pot.

However, of the 72% of people with workplace pensions, millennials were the most likely to have picked their own investment fund – in fact, 30% selected their own investment fund rather than staying in their scheme’s default option.

Kate Smith, Head of Pensions, Aegon – stated:   

“Choosing their own investment funds is a promising sign that the younger generation is open to taking responsibility for their retirement planning and making active decisions. It also suggests young people are taking a greater interest in what their savings are invested in, and there’s evidence to suggest they are more likely to opt for socially responsible investment strategies. The onset of pension digitization also makes it easier to switch between funds, which is likely to appeal to a more tech-savvy generation. We hope this trend towards increased investment engagement continues for generations to come.”

The survey also found that millennials are looking to their employers for help with their retirement planning.

Kate Smith commented:

“..............We’d like to see more employers encouraging their younger employees to get into the habit of saving through their workplace pension.

While auto-enrolment gets people out of the starting blocks, it’s only a small part of the solution to saving for retirement. Employees should be encouraged to build on this to take an active role to grow their retirement savings.” 

At the end of April 2018 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that the 2018 annual contribution limit to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) for persons with family coverage under a qualifying High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) is restored to $6,900.  

This follows a confusing series of IRS actions whereby in May 2017 the IRS announced in Revenue Procedure 2017-37 that the 2018 family-coverage contribution limit for HSAs would be $6,900, but in March 2018 they announced the 2018 family limit was reduced by $50, from $6,900 to $6,850.

As the current tax year was already in progress, this change would have entailed HSA trustees to implement fixes to their systems. The IRS listened to appeals from the industry, and has now reinstated the original 2018 family limit of $6,900.

An HSA is a tax-exempt savings account employees can use to pay for qualified health expenses. To be eligible to contribute to an HSA an employee must be covered by a qualified high deductible health plan (HDHP); must not have any disqualifying health coverage; must not be enrolled in Medicare and not be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s tax return.

Chatrane Birbal - senior advisor of government relations at the Society for Human Resource Management – stated:

“SHRM applauds the new IRS guidance to allow employees with family coverage under a high-deductible health plan to proceed in contributing up to $6,900 to an HAS. The abrupt announcement earlier this year to lower the 2018 contribution level to $6,850 created confusion for employees and an administrative burden on employers that offer HSAs, especially since benefit offerings were solidified last year. Some employers had already begun making the necessary changes to comply with the IRS earlier guidance, which required employers to update payroll systems and revise employee benefit communications, among a number of other systematic updates."

Information will be available to employers from HSA administrators or trustees regarding any updates they will require for their payroll systems.  However, some HSA administrators had not introduced the changes as they were hopeful that the IRS would restore the original limit.

Ryan McCostlin - a team member at Bernard Health, a benefits brokerage and HR software company in Nashville, Tennessee – said:

"Generally, employees who over-contribute to an HSA and don't correct it will get hit with a 6 percent excise tax. Most people who maxed out their HSA contribution schedule early in the year probably didn't do anything after getting an e-mail from HR notifying them that the 2018 limit had been reduced back in March, and they would have been hit with an excise tax if not for this most recent change. The good news for them is that as a result of their inaction they're back in a good spot!"

The CIPD - professional body for HR and people development - maintain that the General Election 2017 is an opportunity for them to underline their views on what should be addressed by the next, and future, governments. They state that the HR profession can play a significant role in debating this issue as they are experts on people, work and change.  Championing good work will involve everyone making a commitment to encourage accountability, good principles and behaviour, as well as sustainable practice in the workplace.

Work plays a fundamental role in success and prosperity as individuals; in organisations and collectively as a society and as such, the wider HR profession is being encouraged to challenge their local candidates to encourage better work and working lives.

Workers' rights protections have been promised by the Tories with Theresa May assuring what she says would be the biggest expansion of workers' rights by any Conservative government, if the party retains power.  The manifesto releases 11 pledges of workplace reforms - promising to solidify laws currently guaranteed by the EU, after Brexit is finalised. It is also claimed that pensions will be protected and provision made for employee rights to training.

Proposals announced by the Labour Party are also hailed, but it is thought that more clarity is required on skills policy and plans to modernise employment rights. 

Ben Willmott, Head of Public Policy at the CIPD said:  “The strong focus on skills and lifelong learning is welcome, given the challenges the UK’s ageing workforce faces in terms of skills and investment in training, as well as the impact of technology on jobs and the labour market. Plans to boost investment in further education and improve the quality of skills advice and guidance are also positive”.  He added, “To further boost skills in the UK we would call on the next government to pilot revised Individual Learning Accounts to provide people with more opportunities to invest in their skills development. We would also urge them to reframe the Apprenticeship Levy as a more flexible Training Levy, so the funds can be used for a much wider range of training opportunities that include more people in the workforce.”

The CIPD have produced a manifesto setting out proposals which will improve corporate governance; the quality of people management; investment in and better use of skills and ultimately how a future of work can be created that will enable people to return the best value to themselves, their organisations and society as a whole. 

Katerina Rudiger, CIPD Chief Community Officer, commented:

“We’re encouraging and equipping the HR community to take social action both as good citizens and on behalf of the organisations they work for. Campaigning for better work and working lives during the run up to the Election is a great way for people to share their voice on issues that are important to them and the toolkit we’ve created makes it as easy as possible to do this”.

Following an Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, an applicant with Asperger’s syndrome was found to have been unfairly disadvantaged by an online multiple-choice psychometric test and in future, persons recruiting for employees will have to – where necessary – make adjustments to the format of recruitment assessments for the disabled.

The claim was brought by an aspiring lawyer, Ms Brookes - who has Asperger’s syndrome and who applied for a job as a trainee solicitor with the government Legal Service (GLS), having successfully completed her university law degree.

To test candidates’ ability to make effective decisions, the very competitive recruitment process - with several thousand applicants a year applying for just 35 places - starts with an online situational judgment test (SJT), which uses multiple-choice questions.  Because of her condition, Ms Brookes asked the GLS if she could submit her answers in a short narrative form, but she was informed that an alternative format was not available.  However, GLS did inform Ms Brookes that provision could be made for an extension of time to complete the SJT. She completed the SJT in its multiple-choice format, but she only scored 12 out of 22 and the pass mark to enable her progression to the next stage of the recruitment process was 14.

Ms Brookes represented herself successfully throughout the tribunal.  She brought claims against GLS for indirect disability discrimination; discrimination arising from a disability and failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

The employment tribunal accepted that the multiple-choice format put her at a particular disadvantage because of her condition.  Ms Brookes provided the ET with extensive medical evidence that her Asperger’s meant she "lacked social imagination and so had difficulties in imaginative and counter-factual reasoning in hypothetical scenarios".  This is an essential requirement for success in the multiple-choice SJT.

The employment tribunal accepted that GLS’s testing for core competencies in an efficient manner was a legitimate aim, but decided that it was not ‘a proportionate means of achieving that aim’, as there are other less discriminatory methods of testing.  GLS’s actions were also found to amount to ‘discrimination arising in consequence of Ms Brookes’ disability’. By refusing to allow Ms Brookes to provide answers in an alternative format to multiple-choice selection, the employment tribunal found GLS to have failed in its duty to make ‘reasonable adjustments’.

The employment tribunal recommended that GLS issue Ms Brookes with a formal written apology and review its recruitment procedures in relation to disabled job applicants.  Ms Brookes was also made a compensation award.

GLS appealed the decision, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the employment tribunal assessment that the adjustments suggested by Ms Brookes had been reasonable, and GLS’s unwillingness to implement them amounted to a failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments.

This case shows the dangers of rigid thinking by employers when it comes to recruitment, and the importance of considering reasonable adjustments for disabled applicants. A willingness to be flexible and to consider potential alternative methods for such assessments is essential to avoiding successful claims of disability discrimination

A proposed health law sparked concerns about further Medicaid reductions, as some providers say the proposed American Health Care Act would jeopardize their ability to provide care.

Local and statewide health care groups joined their national counterparts late in slamming the U.S. House of Representatives, which voted 217-213 to narrowly pass the American Health Care Act as a replacement for the Affordable Care Act.

The American Diabetes Association states that they are deeply concerned with the AHCA.  

The most alarming last minute changes to the bill will allow states to waive the requirement for essential health benefits and health status rating. Weakening these rules will give insurers the ability to charge people with pre-existing conditions - such as diabetes - higher prices.  It will also allow insurers to deny people with diabetes coverage for the care and services they need to treat the disease.

Although states that waive these protections would be required to set up a risk sharing program, which could include a high-risk pool, historically high-risk pools have resulted in higher premiums plus long waiting lists and inadequate coverage.

Charlie Baker, Governor of Massachusetts, stated that it would drastically reduce federal funding to MassHealth, a program that covers 1.9 million mostly low-income people. 

He added, “Massachusetts leads the nation in health care coverage and I am disappointed by today’s vote as this bill would significantly reduce critical funds for the Commonwealth’s health care system.  As the U.S. Senate takes up this bill, we will continue to advocate for the Commonwealth’s priorities so that all residents have access to the health coverage they need. Maintaining flexibility through the Medicaid program is critical to the Commonwealth’s ability to provide coverage for the needy and I urge Congress to reject this bill in its current form.”

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) anticipates that up to 24 million people would lose their coverage should the AHCA become law.   This would leave vulnerable Americans stripped of their health insurance.  According to the Washington Post, it is planning to release - during the week of May 22 - an assessment of how the health-care legislation that the House just passed, will impact federal spending but it is not known whether the analysis of the Republicans’ Affordable Health Care Act will include a forecast of how the bill would affect the number of Americans with health insurance.

Every business has valuable knowledge and confidential information - for example, knowledge of clients and contracts or technology - that it considers invaluable to its success.  If an employer wishes to protect the use of this information both during and after a period of employment, restrictive covenants may be included in an employee’s contract.  

The standard types of covenants are where restrictions are placed on a former employee being able to work in similar employment for a competitor. This is to prevent poaching of clients or customers of the former employer, or to prevent a former employee from dealing with former clients or customers, regardless of which party approached the other.  Where employee poaching is concerned, a non-poaching covenant can also be used, which prevents an employee poaching former colleagues. 

Restrictive covenants can be introduced as part of specified employment contracts before commencement of work but should not be used for all staff as this would only be frowned upon if it was later taken to court.

It will be largely applicable to the more senior staff - those in contact with the sensitive information that it is necessary to protect.  Having such clauses set out in the contract from the outset may help to deter employees from joining competitors and may warn off potential new employers. 

However, it can also be put into operation at a later date if an employee accepts promotion, or if their duties have changed.  In this case, negotiation may be required as some will not willingly agree to the restrictions being introduced and it could be crucial to be able to prove that the employee agreed to the clause. 

In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforced it must be considered to be reasonable and necessary to protect the business interests. Therefore, it is important that a restrictive covenant is carefully drafted and regularly checked to ensure that it is updated if necessary.

When invoking restrictive clauses, employers should consider what they want to achieve and the commercial repercussions of taking a particular stance in relation to publicity, client relationships, management time and cost, etc.   Legal action in this area can involve a substantial amount of time and money.

Recently released research has revealed that nearly a quarter (23%) of employees are concerned that at least part of their job could soon be automated, as employers flock towards the latest technology. 

Analysis suggests that up to 30% of UK jobs could potentially be at risk of automation by the 2030’s - lower than the US or Germany, but higher than Japan.    More than 10 million UK workers are at high risk of being replaced by robots within 15 years as the automation of routine tasks gathers pace in a new machine age. However, in many cases the nature of jobs will change rather than disappear.

Those with the highest risk are male workers and certain industries, such as transport, retail and manufacturing.  Education, health and social care are not likely to be as affected, as it is difficult to automate tasks undertaken in those areas.

Jon Andrews, the head of technology and investments at PwC, said: “There’s no doubt that AI and robotics will rebalance what jobs look like in the future, and that some are more susceptible than others.”

He went on to say, “What’s important is making sure that the potential gains from automation are shared more widely across society and no one gets left behind. Responsible employers need to ensure they encourage flexibility and adaptability in their people so we are all ready for the change. In the future, knowledge will be a commodity so we need to shift our thinking on how we skill and up skill future generations. Creative and critical thinking will be highly valued, as will emotional intelligence.”

The report predicted that automation would boost productivity and create fresh job opportunities, but it also stated that action was needed to prevent the widening of inequality that would result from robots increasingly being used for low-skill tasks, such as in the construction industry.

Robots that can lay six times as many bricks a day as humans have already replaced humans on a handful of sites in America.  The firm who developed the robots - called SAM (Semi-Automated Mason) plan to introduce them into the UK within the next two years.

Scott Peters, president of Construction Robotics, told The Times, “We are going to be going over to the UK in the coming months to meet with some companies and see if we can find a home for Sam there.”

According to Construction Robotics, SAM has the ability to pick up bricks, apply mortar and lay the bricks but humans will still need to set up the robot and supervise.

Australian company Fastbrick Robotics has also developed a proof of concept for a commercial bricklaying machine called Hadrian X which can, from the computer aided design of a house structure handle the automatic loading, cutting, routing and placement of all bricks to build a complete house in two days. Delivery of the first commercial prototype of Hadrian X is due later this year.

Some of Britain's biggest construction firms have warned that the automation of the industry is likely to result in mass layoffs and Alison Carnwath, chairwoman of Land Securities, stated at the Institute of Directors' annual convention, “Five years ago I'd have smiled wryly if somebody had said to me that robots would be able to put up buildings in the City of London. I tell you we're not that far off, and that has huge implications."

From time to time, employees sustain injuries - either occupational or non-occupational - which involve them having a prolonged absence from work.

Often, a number of these employees have major difficulty in recovering enough to be able to return to their former jobs within a suitable time-scale.  As a result, employers must consider how to terminate the relationship without infringing federal or state law.

Most employees want to get back to work as soon as possible after an injury. No one expects to be fired from work after returning from a painful recovery. State and federal laws protect workers from unjust and illegal firings based on breach of contract, various forms of discrimination, employer retaliation and disability.

In most states, any employee is liable to be terminated at the will of the employer, provided it is not for a reason prohibited by law, public policy or a contract right. An employer cannot terminate an employee because the employee has filed a workers’ compensation claim, or has a health condition that constitutes a disability; has taken a qualified leave of absence for a serious health condition, or has rights under a labor agreement or employee handbook.  Montana is the only state which requires an employer to have just cause to fire an employee, once the employee has completed a probationary period.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas recently ruled that a railroad employee with carpal tunnel syndrome who re-injured his hands at work could pursue his wrongful discharge claim even though he chose not to return to work when instructed.

Millennium Rail Inc. employed Danny Smith in February 2012 as a repairman/welder to fix rail cars.  According to Millennium Rail, Smith was an inefficient worker and during the twelve months from January 2013 the company wrote him up three times for being inefficient - and suspended him for three days.  The next month, he took approved leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to have carpal tunnel surgery and returned from this leave with the same pay, title and responsibilities as before. Soon after returning to work, he fell and re-injured his hands.  Smith's workers' compensation attorney sent Millennium Rail a letter seeking coverage for surgery related to the fall.  Smith's doctor sent Millennium Rail a note stating that until Smith had surgery, he would be unable to use the tools essential to performing his duties. At this time, Smith and another employee - Lee Davis - applied for a switchman position with the company. Millennium Rail selected Davis for the position and Smith was left in a job that he was not able to do.

Smith submitted FMLA paperwork to take leave to have the surgery but did not confirm that the paperwork was approved.  Millennium Rail had Smith assessed by another physician, who was of the opinion that she could not detect any sign of pain or weakness in his hands and that Smith could work without any restrictions. No third assessment was undertaken.

On April 1, 2014, Smith attempted to take FMLA leave. He moved to Oklahoma to stay with his brother as he could not afford housing while not working - and his FMLA paperwork was never processed, although it was apparently discussed internally at Millennium Rail. The company's compliance and claims specialist wrote that Millennium Rail's doctor believed Smith could return to work and that the company either needed to bring him back to work or terminate him.

On April 10, Smith was sent a letter instructing him to return to work on April 16 or he would have voluntarily resigned. Smith did not receive the letter until April 15 and as he realized that he could not return to work he did not respond to the request, so therefore was deemed to have resigned.  He filed claims against Millennium Rail under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the FMLA and under Kansas law for workers' compensation retaliation and violations of OSHA and also sued his supervisor under the FMLA. Millennium Rail sought summary judgment against Smith's claims and to bar Smith from receiving damages.

The court granted summary judgment against Smith's ADA claim for failure to accommodate him by promoting him to the switchman position, finding that Millennium Rail legitimately believed Davis to be more qualified. They also dismissed Smith's OSHA retaliation claim, finding that he had not submitted an OSHA claim before his termination.

However, the court denied summary judgment as to the remaining claims. They found that Smith could establish that he was constructively discharged by Millennium Rail as Millennium Rail's requirement that he return or quit was not clearly supported by medical evidence and supported a potential claim of constructive discharge.

As some of the larger businesses begin to publish pay ratios, many executives will fail to receive a pay increase this year.   A new analysis by PwC shows that the pay of senior executives is actually falling for the first time in recent history.

In one fifth of the cases reported, CEO’s decided to voluntarily waive their salary increase.  However, it would appear that most companies have introduced best practice remuneration as a result of shareholder activism, rather than the decision being made by the CEO of the company. 

Tom Gosling, head of PwC Reward Practice says, “There’s no doubt the new voting rules introduced last year have given shareholders more power and helped to bring stability to executive pay.”

The report goes on to state that 98% of companies have introduced ‘clawback’ which is a measure to reduce or recover bonuses and long term incentive plans in certain circumstances.

The Investment Association Executive Remuneration Working Group and the BIS Committee have both recommended significant changes to pay design, but FTSE 100 companies are showing no signs of making a fundamental change. Whilst 63% of the forty FTSE 100 companies evaluated are proposing new remuneration policies, there is very limited structural change in pay arrangements with conventional long-term incentive plans remaining the usual. 

Tom Gosling states, “Pay is getting harder to earn, with almost all companies introducing the ability to claw back bonuses and many lengthening the time executives have to hold on the shares they get from long term incentives.  Remuneration committees are really raising the bar for executive pay.”

There is also increased attention to fairness in pay policies, as shown by four of the forty companies covered by PwC’s report, disclosing a ‘CEO to average employee’ ratio.

This month, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee said businesses needed to improve corporate governance and tackle excessive executive pay to restore public trust.  It highlighted the damage done at Sports Direct and BHS and the extreme executive salaries paid in recent years despite no wage increase for many workers.  It continued by suggesting that employees should sit on remuneration committees.

Tom Gosling - of PwC - added, “Although we don’t think pay ratios are the answer, it’s good to see companies taking steps to address the fairness question.  This is an area where business will need to do more to rebuild trust with the public and we’re likely to see proposals from the government to encourage this in due course.”

This month a new requirement comes into force that necessitates the gender pay gap being published within the next year – and every subsequent year.    It applies to both private and voluntary employers with 250 or more employees and any employer failing to comply by April 2018 will be contacted by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Gender pay is the difference in average pay between the men and women in a company and is different from equal pay - which means men and women must be paid the same for equal or similar work.

Sam Smethers of the Fawcett Society, which lobbies for gender equality, says that this new rule is “...the most significant legal change since the Equal Pay Act”.

The rules will be enforced by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the companies affected must publish details on their own websites and through the government gender pay gap reporting website.  They are obliged to provide data about their pay gap; the proportion of male and female employees in different bands; the gender bonus gap and a breakdown of how many men and women get a bonus.

A new study by TotalJobs points towards the fact that a significant number of employers are unprepared for the new requirements.  The survey of 145 employers found that 82% were not reviewing their gender equality and equal pay policies as a result of the new legislation, whilst 58% did not have complete salary information across roles and gender.  A third of employers were not reassessing remuneration as a protection against gender discrimination.

MP Justine Greening stated, “I am proud that the UK is championing gender equality and now those employers that are leading the way will clearly stand out with these requirements.”  She added that the government would prefer to work in partnership with employers on conformity rather than imposing sanctions.  “......we’ll keep an open mind about whether we need to go further in terms of regulations and sanctions, but the important thing is to win over hearts and minds.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission stated on their website that where they had evidence that companies were not publishing the data, they will take steps to make sure that they do, by improving companies’ awareness and understanding of the new requirement.

Research by the Commission has found that there are still substantial pay gaps throughout Britain.  This year, they intend to publish a report that will help employers to look at possible causes of their pay gap and suggest action they can take to improve it.  In addition, they will make recommendations to the government to help close the gender pay gap across Britain.

The Women’s Equality Party have said that the current proposals do not go far enough and that businesses should be leading the way in tackling the complexity of the gender pay gap.

The CIPD is reporting the number of employees who are looking for a new job reached a two-and-a-half year high. Additionally, job satisfaction has reached the lowest level since 2013.

The CIPD/Halogen Employee Outlook surveyed over 2,000 people, finding that approximately one quarter of employees are seeking a new job. This number is 20% higher than last year.   When the survey inquired about job satisfaction, the data revealed a substantial decrease from last autumn. Last year, the net score was +48 and this year the net score is +40. There wasn’t much discrimination by industry, either. Job satisfaction seemingly fell in all areas of the economy, though the private sector fared the worst.

One of the research advisers for resourcing and talent planning at the CIPD said that while the current state of economic uncertainty is clearly fueling this issue, many employees complained about lack of career progression opportunities and the lack of developmental training. These are two areas that human resource experts have been urging organisations to focus on, for the sake of their staff.

Also very telling about the survey was the fact that there was an increase in employees who believe they are over-qualified for their position. Women and part-time workers seemed to express this feeling the most. Additionally, one fifth of surveyed employees felt their organisation’s approach to performance management was “somewhere unfair” or “very unfair”.

On the flip side of all of these complaints, however, the research found that overall, employees were happy with their line managers. This is a big win for employers.

Human resource experts are still adamant that employers really need to focus on development and position progression to keep their talent satisfied. The survey proved that workplace stresses are not what are causing this increase in employees looking for new jobs. One HR expert believes that it could potentially be linked to a lack of appreciation in the workplace. Doing little things like providing a developmental plan and training courses for employees who are motivated to learn, can go a very long way.

The Director General of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Carolyn Fairbairn, is shaking things up after calling for a “radical rethink” of the government’s flagship apprenticeship levy. She is warning officials that the fundamental flaws of the new levy will drive the “wrong outcomes” and encourage “rogue employer behaviour”.

Fairbairn spoke to a group of business leaders recently to further expand on her statements. She said employers would be encouraged to “rebadge their existing programmes” and even go as far as abandoning “much training that’s already working” in order to meet costs and required specs outlined by the new levy guidelines.

The new levy will become effective next April at an initial rate of 0.5 percent of the employer’s total payroll. The percentage will apply to firms with salary costs higher than £3 million. In 2018, however, all other organisations looking to run an apprenticeship programme will have to use the government’s Digital Apprenticeship Service.

The government did release an initial set of guidelines with a simple framework of how the levy will work, but promised more clarity come summer. Fairbairn emphatically believes firms still lack crucial information about the levy and are handicapped by the unfair and unrealistic lead-in time to prepare.

Fairbairn said:

"Firms across the UK are emphatic that tackling skills shortages is the only way to succeed and create prosperity. They want to create quality apprenticeships and they’re ready to work with the Government to do this. But as it stands, that’s not what the levy is doing.

Today, firms are having to treat the levy as a tax, because the headline cost is all they’re certain of. Businesses of all sectors and sizes are still in the dark – cutting corners isn’t in anyone’s interest."

Fairbairn is urging the government to rethink the new levy before an employer-wide chaos occurs.

A labor union and its apprenticeship program are finally paying up after a ruling was made in a decades long case.

Local 25 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its associated apprenticeship school settled race discrimination claims made by the EEOC to the tune of $1.65 million with “substantial remedial relief.”   The first suit was actually filed in 1971.

The decades-old lawsuit addresses allegations that Local 25 in conjunction with Local 25 Joint Apprenticeship Committee, discriminated against black and Hispanic journeypersons during their hiring and assignment processes. Local 25 is the trade union for sheet metal journeypersons in northern New Jersey.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 1971 by the US Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, but the EEOC took over as prosecuting council in 1974. Originally, according to human resource experts, the case was filed against Local 25’s predecessors. In 1981, Local 10 merged with other unions into Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Works’ International Association and the Local 28 JAC of Northern New Jersey. Local 25 demerged from Local 28 in 1991.

The settlement only covers violations that occurred from April 1991 through December 2002. When an analysis was conducted of hours and wages it became increasingly clear that African- American and Hispanic workers received fewer hours than their white co-workers for a majority of the 10-year period. HR experts say that prior court actions in the lawsuit were able to resolve violations that happened before April 1991 and that although there has been a settlement, the case will surely continue.

In addition to the $1.65 million in damages that will be paid out to victims of discrimination, Local 25 actually agreed to an injunction against discrimination on the basis of race and national origin with regard to different human resource processes including termination and hiring.

The Minnesota Whistleblower Act (MWA), was set in place in order to help protect employees who engage in a wide range of “whistleblowing” like reporting illegal activity, refusing to engage in illegal activity or aiding with government investigations.

The MWA helps employees by prohibiting an employer from retaliating against an employee through discharging, disciplining or penalizing for an act that appears to be whistleblowing. In a recent case, the Minnesota Supreme Court extended the MWA’s 4-year statute of limitations by an additional four years.

In November 2006 Yvette Ford began work for Minneapolis Public Schools, (MPS), in the English Language Learners department. According to Ford, during her time with MPS she made multiple reports about unethical and illegal activities occurring in this department.

About two years into her employment, Ford was informed that her full-time position would no longer be available at the end of the fiscal year. Ford said that the day before her last working day she made additional reports to the MPS about financial misconduct, disability discrimination and retaliation.

On June 29, 2010 Ford brought suit against MPS claiming her termination was in retaliation for the reports of all the wrongdoing she witnessed. This, if ruled in her favor, would be considered a clear violation of the MWA. Initially, the District Court dismissed her claims because of the two-year statute of limitations. Ford would have had to file the suit by April 2010 for her suit to be heard. Ford immediately appealed.

The Minnesota Supreme Court completely disagreed with the lower court on appeal and claimed the statute of limitations is actually 6 years – not two. It said that the two-year statute of limitations applies to common-law claims, but the longer statute of limitations exists for liability created by statute.

The court ultimately held that Ford’s claim only exists because the MWA created it. In this case, the six-year statute of limitations does in fact apply.

Human resource explains this case could easily stir up some confusion because of all of the different circumstances that applied. Since it is now abundantly clear that the statute of limitations can clearly extend far beyond two years, HR experts say human resource departments should consider keeping paperwork just a little longer to be on the safe side.

Human resource and employment experts said official figures reveal a reduction in wage growth with an increase in unemployment in the UK as a result of the uncertainty in the global economy.

The April UK Labour Market report from the Office of National Statistics (ONS), shows an increase in unemployment of 21,000. This is compared to the previous three-month period between September and November (2015).

Employment law experts predict that these figures are an indicator that employers are currently being affected (or planning to be) by a “series of costs” extended by the government. These costs include the National Living Wage (NLW), pensions auto-enrolment and the apprenticeship levy that’s upcoming.

The data also showed the employment rate was holding at 74.1%, or the joint highest level since records began in 1971. While wages are still growing, the rate at which wages are increased has definitely slowed. Human resource experts explain that these changes can be a sign of a slowing economy. Companies are trying to be smart, and conserve. When trying to conserve for most businesses, the first place to save is typically employee pay.

One report produced by Begbies Traynor monitors the health of companies in the United Kingdom and how they are affected financially. The most recent results showed that 60,000 businesses in industries most affected by the NLW were already in a wave of financial distress at the beginning of the year.

The mindset in HR departments has seemingly shifted as well. As opposed to looking for places to bring in new hires and find ways to train up, the thought process now seems to be trying to consider ways to keep current workforces motivated. A more productive and happy set of people doesn’t cost the company anything.

HR experts follow up explaining the ONS stats were “pretty modest,” since they still outstripped inflation. It only makes sense that companies now would be more cautious about giving raises and bonuses.

Finally, the ONS figures also found that for the three months to February over 100,000 people had been made redundant. While this was unchanged when compared to the previous year, it was 10,000 more than the previous three months that were examined.

RockTenn Company and RockTenn Services, Inc. will be forced to pay $187,500 to settle a disability discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a former HR manager.

The Michigan paper and packing manufacturer violated federal law by failing to accommodate the disability of Glenn Janisch. During a pre-authorized short term disability leave, due to his severe coronary artery disease, Janisch was informed that he was terminated.

According to the EEOC, Janisch started working for RockTenn at the end of 2010 as the Human Resources Manager for the Battle Creek plant. Janisch had open-heart coronary bypass surgery in January 2011 and was authorized for short term disability leave through mid-April 2011.

In early March, however, Janisch received great news from his doctor that he was cleared to return to work, initially for half days. He quickly notified RockTenn that he would be returning to work on March 21. On March 10, RockTenn terminated Janisch.

In addition to the $187,500 awarded, the settlement prohibits RockTenn from any such discrimination in the future and is required to post a notice about the lawsuit and employee rights under the ADA. RockTenn will also have to train their Human Resource Managers and the Battle Creek Plant Location Managers on disability discrimination.

Human resource experts urge employers to take the time to understand employment law. In this particular case, the law is extremely clear – medical leave of absence is a reasonable accommodation under suitable circumstances.   A lack of federal law understanding cost this company far more than just an employee.

Research presented by Canada Life Group Insurance shows that approximately one in four (7.2 million) United Kingdom workers say they expect to work past the age of 65 due to low interest rates. 

Since the 0.5% Bank of England interest rate was introduced seven years ago, over 20% of UK employees say they have seen their retirement plans negatively affected. This figure includes a group of workers who had no intention of working past the age of 65, but now feel as though they don’t have any other option.         

Human resource experts cite the rising State Pensions Age and the abolition of the default retirement age as driving the increase of UK employees who will work beyond the traditional retirement age.        

These HR experts explain that younger generations will really feel the changes. Eighty-five percent of people between the ages of 21 and 30 believe they’ll have to work well beyond the age of 65. 

Of course when asked why they will choose to work past the age of 65, most people cited financial pressures. Over 40% of those researched claimed their pension pot simply just wasn’t sufficient enough to enter into retirement. Surprisingly, though, another reason was just mere enjoyment of the job. Almost 40% said they didn’t want to leave their job because they would miss it in retirement.

Reforms announced a few years ago put retirement planning on the radar for many people who just weren’t thinking about it. Since reviewing their savings after the freedoms were announced, many employees realized they will have to work for a longer period than initially expected.       

Additionally, multiple years of having poor interest rates seems to be having a lasting impact on today’s generation who are struggling with insufficient pension contributions.   

With all of this said, employers are being urged to take into consideration this older employee set. They will soon be faced with a larger number of health issues that will have to be factored in and older workers are more likely to experience injury and illness. Flexible working and workplace wellbeing initiatives will start to prove invaluable.

Trade union GMB is calling for an investigation of British Airways, after a plan came to light of the airline’s intention to outsource up to 900 IT jobs to an Indian contractor. The union claims this could be a potential breach of immigration rules.

If the plan were to move forward GMB said that these IT roles at the airline would be made redundant prior to the transition to Tata Consultancy Services (TCS).

The new IT workers would return to the United Kingdom under an intra-company transfer and earn £10,000 per year with £8,400 in expenses. Home Office rules currently require a minimum yearly wage of £24,800 for foreign workers under the Tier 2 visa.

GMB represents a large number of British Airways employees and first questioned the airline’s plans by writing to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Home Office in December 2015. As it stands, under current Tier 2 visa rules, a non-EU worker cannot replace a permanent United Kingdom employee and cannot be sponsored to undertake an ongoing routine role. Foreign workers can only be used during a time-restricted service or project.

This intervention actually follows research from the MAC in January when it reported the misuse of Tier 2 visas. The research revealed that Tier 2 visas allowed IT suppliers with UK operations to hire staffs from overseas, cutting IT costs but not actually contributing to the stock of IT skills within the UK.

The GMB national officer said he believes there was “no way” this many workers could be classed as contractors working on a specific project. If the plan commences, non-EU workers on Tier 2 visas will be performing the same job functions as current full-time staff, just at half the cost for the airline.

British Airways has responded saying, “IT services are now provided globally by a range of suppliers and this is very common practice across all industries”.

Research by Towers Watson shows that with the amount of change pension legislation has seen over the last five years in the UK, companies are beginning to prioritise compliance requirements over adequacy in order to remain in line.

Over half of the companies surveyed in the FiT for Retirement report, claimed that compliance was their number one priority when it came to their defined contribution pensions.  This emphasis puts their workers’ education and understanding much lower on the totem pole. 

Unfortunately, according to many HR experts, the emphasis on compliance is forcing the issue of adequacy to sit on the back burner.  This isn’t entirely surprising to human resource experts, however.  Given the number of changes the pensions world has seen, it only makes sense that employers are working overtime to make sure they are following the rules.  Although it is understandable, is it right? 

Many workers feel as though the heavy emphasis on compliance takes away from why employers offer pensions in the first place; either for attraction and retention, or for employees to use during retirement.

The survey did find that UK employers were hoping to decrease the amount of emphasis that is being placed on compliance and shift to an increased focus on effective pension management. 

In the United States, compliance is the lowest priority for employers but pension regulations are far more stable in the US than they are in the UK. 

Gallup recently released a report that indicates female managers are better at boosting employee engagement than their male counterparts, by six percentage points. 

In the report titled State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders, Gallup says that employees who work for a female manager in the United States are, on average, more engaged. 

Gallup used data it has compiled over the years to create a checklist of positive qualities employees find in their managers.  The topics range from whether or not the employee feels their ideas are valued, to the type of feedback received from their manager.

State of the American Manager also compared the 2015 survey results with their 1953 survey results.  In 1953, only 5% of respondents stated that they would prefer a female supervisor.  This year, that number jumped to 20%. 

The report also showed that female employees who work for female managers are the most engaged type of worker.  Male employees who report to a male manager are actually the least engaged, according to the results.

Why are female managers considered better at building employee engagement, though?  The answer is, quite possibly, because they are more engaged themselves.  Forty-one percent of female managers are engaged at work while only 35% of male managers showed the same level of engagement. 

Results published in April 2015 from Computerworld’s 29^th annual IT Salary Survey, revealed that after several years there are signs of compensation increases for IT professionals.

The survey was conducted through December 18, 2014 and included over 4,500 IT professionals based in the United States.  In 2015, the average total compensation for IT professionals increased by 3.6%.  The survey revealed that the average in the three preceding years was only 2%.

A major reason for the rise in salaries is the increasingly competitive nature of the hiring market.  Managers are finding it harder and harder to fill empty positions, especially for those that are looked at as high demand.  For example, application development remains the most in-demand skill and a hard one to find in applicants.

Raises were also more prevalent than in past years.  Sixty-seven percent of the respondents reported receiving salary increases in 2015, but only 60% reported the same thing in 2014.  The most common bonus types came in the form of annual bonuses, performance-based bonuses and profit-sharing bonuses.

Money is a huge motivator in all sectors and IT isn’t any different.  The survey also showed that 60% of the respondents were highly motivated by higher compensation.  This was true even for IT professionals who were not actively seeking a new job.  A salary increase for this group would instigate a change in jobs.

Even though salaries and bonuses are on the incline, only half of the respondents reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their total compensation.  One quarter of them said they were dissatisfied or verydissatisfied.

An 8^th Circuit recently made a decision that proves in order to succeed in an FMLA case, an employee must prove that he or she suffers from a “serious health condition” as defined by the Act.  A single doctor’s visit can be found insufficient in proving this. 

Kendrick Johnson worked at U.S. Steel in Arkansas.  He was scheduled to work from May 12 through May 15 but on May 12 he informed his supervisor that he had blurred vision, a stiff neck and back pain.  At this time Johnson tried contacting the company’s employee-relations supervisor, Tammara Love, but was unsuccessful.  He then left a message explaining that he was going to see a doctor.

When Johnson went to a nearby clinic, Stephen Steward a physician’s assistant who had never seen him before, examined him.  Stewart diagnosed Johnson with high blood pressure and also prescribed medication for the condition.  At the same time, Stewart told Johnson that he should follow up with his regular physician.  Stewart also provided a note to Johnson that explained why he was absent and that he could return to work on May 16. 

Johnson took this note and delivered it to his supervisor and explained to coworkers that he would be absent for a few days as per doctor’s orders.  The very next day Love called Johnson and requested he come in to discuss the note.  She explained to Johnson that another note was necessary.  Johnson then left and returned with a note signed by a paramedic, because Stewart was busy.  This new note was rejected.  It was then suggested that Johnson seek out a note that had more detail surrounding why he had missed work.  The clinic refused to provide another, more detailed note.  Johnson was then suspended and terminated two days later on May 18.  The company stated that Johnson had altered, falsified or forged the work excuse.  U.S. Steel never provided Johnson with a notice of his FMLA rights/obligations.

After his dismissal, Stewart faxed new copies of work excuses to Love and explained that nothing had been forged. However Johnson still was not re-employed.  When Johnson finally got around to seeing his normal physician he was told his blood pressure was normal.  Johnson eventually filed suit against U.S. Steel alleging interference and retaliation under the FMLA.

In order to prove a claim under the FMLA an employee must show that he was entitled to the leave and then entitled to be re-instated.  The FMLA states that in order to be entitled to leave, an employee must have a “serious health condition that makes him unable to perform the functions of the position.”

Johnson claimed he qualified under the continuing treatment heading but after evidence evaluation, the court found that Johnson did not have “continuing treatment,” and did not qualify for FMLA protection. Since Johnson had very little evidence of subsequent visits to any doctor, the court found that his “condition” was more likened to a minor illness. Since he wasn’t entitled to the FMLA leave in the first place, his claims for interference and retaliation failed.

The bottom line and human resources takeaway is that if an employee cannot show he suffers from a “continuing” health issue that requires ongoing treatment, it isn’t likely that he will prove entitlement to FMLA leave.  In many cases, a single doctor’s note can prove insufficient, like in Johnson’s situation.

The Money Charity is warning savers that retirees will need greater protection if firms become insolvent.

Since the beginning of April, retirees have had different options when it comes to what to do with their defined contributions, or DC pots.  Unfortunately, HR experts reported that all have significant gaps in how each are protected.  The Money Charity identified that if a firm collapses while a consumer is building up their pot, they’ll receive 90% of the fund value under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).  Once they access those savings, though, the levels of protection will vary greatly.  For example, if a person puts a lump sum in savings or a current account they’ll be covered up to £85,000 per banking licence holder.  However, if a user buys an annuity they’ll be covered for the entirety of their policy.

Overall responsibility for setting the compensation limits is split between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.  The Money Charity is calling on both parties to review the levels of protection available to consumers across the market, as well as anyone who may try to access their retirement savings.  The Money Charity is requesting that these people in particular have access to guidance that will help them make fully-informed decisions on how to use their savings.

Some human resource experts recently discussed workplace biases against women, older workers, minorities and people with disabilities at a public meeting in Miami (April 15).  While the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, certainly improved job opportunities for these workers, it certainly did not eliminate any kind of obstacles.

During this meeting, the EEOC’s efforts to eliminate employment barriers and increase job opportunities for these Americans was applauded, but several voiced their concerns about the EEOC’s enforcement efforts.

At one point, the discussion centered on ways the EEOC could further help to break down barriers for minorities in the workplace.  One idea was to convince business leaders that corporate diversity and inclusion programs add value to the business.

One HR expert said that encouraging businesses to develop voluntary diversity programs that fit the needs of the organization is probably the best and most effective approach.  These programs include webinars and seminars on appropriate workplace behavior and discussion.      

The world of human resources and employment is forever changing. Many companies used to have a standard long-term assignment policy for expatriates, a short-term assignment policy and even a permanent transfer policy. Today, the employment industry is seeing a change in these very practices and policies.
Current assignment policies, all of a sudden, are taking on alternative forms. Human resource expertsexplain that over the last decade companies have introduced a commuter policy, a lump sum policy and even a developmental assignment policy.
HR professionals and global mobility managers explain that the reasoning behind these somewhat recent changes can be attributed to the constant spotlight on costs. These assignments can cost a company up to three times a base salary figure. This number can be even higher if an assignee has a partner, or a dependent. Organisations want to ensure that the assignees aren’t making less than they would if they stayed in their original locations but they also want to make sure they don’t make any significant financial gains.
Additionally, assignee administration is extremely time-consuming and cumbersome. The amount of paperwork that comes with an expatriate staff member is far more than that of an average employee. This amount of paperwork can cause an increased number of human resources administration errors and could spur feelings of disparity among assignees.
Global mobility functions are also working towards a transparent international assignment policy. By creating a transparent policy, global mobility managers are hoping to cut the number of individual assignment negotiations and clearly set expectations from the very beginning.
There has also been a shift amongst a new generation of assignees that look at their careers as “borderless”. These workers view an international assignment as merely part of their career plan. This is an opportunity where they can develop new skills and further their careers. Due to this new way of thinking, some mobility managers started offering a “core-flex” policy, which provides a basic set of fixed elements, as well as some optional benefits.
The core-flex policy helps a company tie in an assignee’s personal requirements with their own budget restraints.
At the end of the day, organisations are quickly learning to become more creative in balancing cost control while encouraging international experience.

Retiring comfortably equals having a lot of money in the bank. A new HR study by Towers Watson reveals that about two out of three workers would be willing to give up some pay for guaranteed retirement benefits. At the peak of the recession, circa 2009, this number was about 20% lower.
The Towers Watson survey polled over 5,000 full-time employees. Approximately 2/3 of the population said they were satisfied with their company’s sponsored retirement plans, which is a huge improvement from 2009. With this said, the number of employees who are satisfied with their health care benefits have declined greatly. This downward trend can be attributed, according to HR experts, to ageing workers whose health may be deteriorating. Overall costs of living have also increased greatly, while these benefit programs have basically remained the same.
While some workers would be willing to sacrifice some of their salary to receive better retirement services, these people weren’t willing to do the same in exchange for better health services. Reasoning for this is possibly because retirement security became ever more important during the recession when many employees decided to prematurely tap into their 401-k funds as a means for survival.
One human resource professional also said that this thought pattern could be contributed to recent cutbacks in DB plans.

When people start new careers many of these new employees are under a 30 to 90 day probation period, where the employer can choose to terminate the worker without reason. Spring Personnel conducted a survey comprised of managers and employees and revealed that nearly 1/5 of new recruits do not pass their probation period.
Overall poor performance was cited as the number one reason employees were let go. A close second, coming in at 50%, was absence and finally, poor punctuality. The most surprising reason some new workers were let go prior to the end of their probation period was “personality clashes”. Twelve percent of respondents pointed to an argument as a cause to refuse an ongoing contract.
Businesses are not prone to extending a probation period for a worker, even though this can be an option. Most employees, according to the survey, feel extremely insecure during their probation period. Some went as far as saying they put more effort in during the first few months than when they were assured their role was permanent.
In some cases, landing the job role might be the easy part while maintaining the position can be harder.
The survey was conducted by an independent research firm and questioned 403 UK workers responsible for employees going through probationary periods at work. It also included 1,498 UK adults who have held permanent roles in the last year.

Standard Life is claiming that in response to the budget changes to pensions, a clearer and simpler approach to the death benefit tax charge is needed.
The Government acknowledged in its consultation paper that the 55% tax charge could be too high in a majority of cases. This new death benefit tax charge only applies in two circumstances where a lump sum is paid out (most commonly with a SIPP).
Situation number one occurs when a person dies age 75 or older, applying to the entire fund regardless of whether the customer had taken any withdrawals from their pensions or not.
Situation number two occurs if a person dies before the age of 75 and had started to take withdrawals. The rule applies to the part of the pension that has been “touched” also referred to as “the crystallised fund”.
Human resource expert and Standard Life head of customer affairs, Julie Hutchison, said that she believes a simpler and fairer way of doing things is to align the death benefit tax charge for crystallised funds to the IHT regime. This particular solution makes sense for a few different reasons. It is fairer because the tax charge gets reduced to either 40% or 0% in line with IHT. Whether or not tax is due depends on the identity of the recipient and wealth of the person. Any money that would get passed to a spouse, civil partner or charity would be exempt from tax.
Expertsexpress that a charge of 55% risks driving the wrong customer outcome and acts as more of a penalty for people that choose to “do the right thing”. An IHT alignment would mean removing this stigma from those that choose to create a sensible income from their pension. Additionally, the age of 75 shouldn’t be used as a trigger point for tax. This would be removed in the proposed solution for the new regime.

Edward Lane was employed as the probationary director of Central Alabama Community College’s program for at- risk youth. The program was titled, “Community Intensive Training for Youth Program,” or CITY.
Lane found that the then-state representative, Suzanne Schmitz, was on CITY’s payroll yet not reporting for work and had not contributed any tangible work for the program. When Lane voiced his concerns about this, he was warned that terminating her would have potential negative repercussions for Lane and the community college as a whole. Lane ignored the warning from the community college president and fired Schmitz after she refused to report to work.
Schmitz filed a lawsuit looking to get her job back and allegedly told another CITY employee that she vowed to “get Lane back” for terminating her.
Not long after, the FBI started an investigation and contacted Lane for information regarding Schmitz. Schmitz was prosecuted by the US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama for fraudulently arranging and concealing a no-show job for herself with CITY.
Lane was present before a federal grand jury where he testified and at the rest of Schmitz’s trials for fraud involving a program receiving federal funds. She was convicted on all counts but one.
After Schmitz’s first trial, Lane was actually let go from his job as part of a layoff that involved 29 employees. All but two of the 29 laid-off employees had their terminations rescinded when Steve Franks, the community college president, realized that most of them weren’t probationary employees. Lane ended up suing Franks for damages.
The district court ruled that Lane’s testimony was made as part of his official duties as CITY’s director, and not as a regular citizen, citing that this would mean his First Amendment protections didn’t apply. The 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, but also added a tiny footnote.
The Court said that because there is a split of authority over whether a subpoenaed testimony is speech as a citizen or of public concern, Franks would have qualified immunity from any damages lawsuit.
Ultimately, Lane should have been protected under the First Amendment because he was speaking as a citizen on matters of public concern.   At the time, however, this First Amendment entitlement wasn’t exactly crystal clear.
If employees aren’t protected under a First Amendment and they are subpoenaed for any reason, what kind of message is that sending to workers who don’t have a choice but to testify?
Franks attorney argued that it is the character of the speech that has to be looked at to determine if the speaker should be protected under the First Amendment.
HR experts explain that it needs to be clear whether the First Amendment only applies to the expression of view and not to the conveyance of facts.
The Supreme Court is expected to make a decision by June.

A case largely built on emails among top executives, including Steve Jobs and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, seems to have reached a settlement.
Four major technology companies, including Apple and Google, have agreed to settle a large antitrust lawsuit over no-hire agreements in Silicon Valley. The suit began after technology workers filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe Systems back in 2011. Workers alleged that the companies conspired not to poach each other’s employees in order to avert any potential salary wars. The trial was set to begin at the end of this month on behalf of approximately 60,000 employees.
While the companies did admit that there were no-hire agreements, they disputed the allegation that there was some sort of conspiracy to drive down wages. The case was based on a series of emails about very explicit incidents. For example, after an instance where a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt emailed Jobs and said that the recruiter would be fired. An email was then forwarded to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face emoticon.
Terms of the deal made between the technology juggernauts and the 60,000 employees have not been disclosed at this time.

The job of an unpaid intern has just been made a little more bearable for the struggling student and…well, everyone. New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio just signed a bill that protects unpaid interns from discrimination and harassment by employers covered under the city’s human rights law.
HR experts explain that time and time again interns tell horror stories about how they were abused and taken advantage of at their internships, as employers often see interns as free labor.
The new legislation was passed unanimously by the City Council last month in response to a ruling where an unpaid intern wasn’t protected from unlawful harassment because she was not an employee. This ruling was made despite the fact that the law prohibits an employer from discriminating against any “person”.
Mayor DeBlasio said that the bill is being passed to help clarify human rights for anyone who may be interpreting the law too narrowly, especially in respect to interns. At the end of the day, an intern is just as protected as a full-time employee.
The amended law states that an intern is to be considered a “person” under the sections of law that prohibit any type of discriminatory practices. An intern is described in the amendment as a person who is performing work for the purpose of training.
This new law is effective starting on June 15, 2014.