A survey regarding diversity in the FTSE 100 senior leadership has been conducted by Green Park Business Leaders Index (formerly Green Park Leadership 10,000), since 2014. The survey charts the progress being made by the UK’s major private sector businesses to achieve greater ethnic and gender diversity at senior levels. This year, along with an analysis of industry sectors, for the first time it includes a breakdown of gender and ethnocultural diversity by job function.

The survey found that just 11 of the C-suite leadership roles were filled with individuals from an ethnic minority background - C-suite refers to the top tier, or executive-level roles within a company, such as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Operating Officer (COO) and Chief Information Officer (CIO) - and for the first time since 2014, there was not one black chair, CEO or CFO in any FTSE 100 company. This is even though, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), around 13% of the of the UK’s working-age population is non-white.

The survey also noticed that there is very little diversity in some functions, as they are dominated by a particular gender or ethnicity. Curiously, one of the least diverse functions is Diversity & Inclusion - where 85.4% of the leadership roles are occupied by females and 62.5% are white females. In this function, ethnic minority males are the least represented at 6.3%.

The HR function is also dominated by white females at 55%, while white males dominate the roles with traditionally more direct routes to the top, such as Finance, Operations and Digital roles.

Additionally, the report looked at gender diversity and found that 47.8% of non executive directors were female, about twice as many than were executive directors, at 27.7%. However, on the increase was the number of women in the top three roles, which had risen from 23 to 36 - an uplift from 4.3% to 12.2% since 2014.

The Sussex-based HR tech company for SMEs - BreatheHR - has revealed the findings from recent research carried out on attendees of its recent webinar.

Following the effects of the pandemic over the past 18 months, BreatheHR asked the question, “Who is HRing HR?’ - the aim being to understand how responsibilities have changed within the HR function and whether HR feel they are being supported.

More than half - 58.6 per cent - of HR respondents said that they are not being supported; 95.1 per cent said their workload has increased since March 2020, with 54.8 per cent stating they have had a 3 to 5 hour increase and 32.8 per cent reporting a 2 hour increase in their workload. Over 92 per cent said existing HR policies are not fit for the purpose and must be adapted, following the pandemic health concerns boom. 

Regarding concerns over mental health, the overwhelming majority - 87.8 per cent - of employees were highly concerned about teammates wellbeing in the past year, saying 26.8 per cent of SMEs have not provided additional training to deal with wellbeing concerns.  As a result, HR staff felt unequipped to tackle the problems.

Of the respondents, 78 per cent say duty of care has changed - with HR staff needing to further protect their teams, but 74.3 per cent of HR teams feel unable to gauge their staff wellbeing across remote teams. Experts warn that the impact on mental health - if not addressed - will contribute to staff burnout issues.

HR professionals cited updating company policies (21.4 per cent) and recruitment related administration (17.3 per cent) as the two areas taking up most of their time since March 2020. This was closely followed by maintaining employee records (15.8 per cent) and furlough management at 15.1 per cent.

Jonathan Richards - CEO at BreatheHR - commented:

“The truth is that HR teams have been a badly-hit part of many businesses. It’s shocking to see the extent to which these professionals are feeling unsupported, and the varied tasks the past 18 months have thrown up at them. As we emerge out of this, I think a key area will be for businesses to check in on their HR teams more. Understanding where their pain points are and helping to alleviate them, be that through talking about problems or implementing software that helps to automate tasks, will be crucial to getting making HR teams feel best supported.”

According to the 2021 Mind the Trust Gap report - which surveyed 500 HR talent leaders from varied sizes of organisation across different sectors - 85 per cent of UK businesses need to critically improve the quality of their recruitment processes and 77 per cent say they need to improve the way they assess the value and skills people bring to the business.

Despite recruitment across the UK having picked up - figures show the that the number of workers on payroll surged by 356,000 in June - businesses are clearly struggling to recruit amid rapidly changing circumstances.

The data collected from the research has shown that improving hire quality is the biggest priority over the coming year, as 57 per cent of all hires made in the last 12 months are not working out in some capacity - with 32 per cent working out in some areas but not all and 25 per cent not working out at all. Only 43 per cent are working out in all areas.

The key priorities needed to be implemented by HR managers in recruitment over the next 12 months, was found to be:

• Improving quality of hires
• Looking beyond CVs and interviews to differentiate candidates
• Speeding up the recruitment process
• Reducing the costs of recruitment
• Improving the candidate experience

The data further reveals that hiring managers believe the best indicators of how an employee will perform in an organisation are personality - 34 per cent; emotional intelligence - 32 per cent; adaptability - 32 per cent; performance in an interview - 7 per cent and qualifications 16 per cent. Relevant previous experience on a CV is no longer considered valuable.

Nearly all respondents - 88 per cent - of hiring managers and recruiters believe predictive hiring and hiring for potential will be essential to their organisation by 2023.

Sabby Gill - CEO of Thomas International, leading global assessment platform provider - commented:

“Businesses need to make a step change in how they recruit if they’re to hire the right candidates first time, every time. Otherwise, they risk falling behind. Predictive hiring can help identify traits in individuals and teams that can be harnessed and acted upon so companies can function properly and innovate successfully in this new world of work.”

Psychometrics were said to help enhance trust during recruitment by 72 per cent of those surveyed. When asked if only one method were to be used to predict the future performance of all hires in the next 12 months, 46 per cent of hiring managers opted for psychometric testing only. Only 33 per cent said interview and 21 per cent said CV.

The research also stated that 70 per cent found the benefits of predictive hiring were improved quality of hires; 86 per cent found improved employee engagement; 80 per cent found greater ability to discover areas for individual’s personal development and 79 per cent found highlighting skills shortages within the business.

The Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has urged employers to support staff with receiving their COVID-19 vaccinations, after commissioning YouGov to poll 2,030 senior decision makers in businesses in the UK. The survey was carried out online in June 2021.

The research found that 25 per cent of employers have not been providing staff with paid time off to get vaccinated - and have no plans to do so. In addition, a similar number of employers are not offering full company sick pay for those unable to work due to side-effects of the vaccine.

When asked about giving staff paid time off for Covid vaccinations, 59 per cent said they did; 4 per cent said they did not at present but planned to implement this soon; 25 per cent said they did not and had no plans to do so - and 12 per cent said they had not yet decided.

ACAS stated that the study showed that more employers should support workers to get a vaccine when it is offered. This would include being paid for time off - a move partially backed by the Confederation of British Businesses.

Susan Clews - Chief Executive of ACAS - said:

“The vaccine rollout programme has gone well - and our survey reveals that most employers have allowed staff paid time off to get the jab - but a quarter have not. Our study also reveals that a similar number of bosses have not paid full company sick pay to staff who have been unable to work due to side-effects from the vaccine. It’s in businesses’ best interests to have a vaccine policy that supports staff to take time off, as fully vaccinated workers are less likely to need longer periods of time off work to recover from Covid 19.”

John Foster - Director of Policy at the CBI - said:

“Delivering on the vaccine rollout is crucial to boosting confidence in the reopening and helping the economy adjust to the next phase of learning to live with the virus. The vast majority of businesses are continuing their commitment to protecting staff and customers during the pandemic. This includes showing flexibility when the time comes for their staff to get the jab. We’d encourage all companies to demonstrate this same level of consideration towards their employees.”

Some law firms in England, however, have advised employers against forcing staff to receive the Covid-19 vaccinations due to the risk of discrimination claims.

Alexandra Carn - Employment Partner at Keystone Law - stated:

“Companies that will introduce a contractual requirement that employees are vaccinated against Covid-19 could be falling foul of current legislation. Under the current Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, there is a requirement that employers are responsible for ensuring the health and safety of their employees so far as reasonably practicable. This has been cited as a means by which employers could demand employees to have vaccinations. However, this fails to consider other legal protections that employees may have, and does not consider the position in the event of a conflict of laws. Many employees may not be able to have vaccines for health reasons and as such a requirement for vaccination may infringe the protections for disabled persons. Employees may refuse vaccinations for religious reasons, a right also protected under the Equality Act. In addition, there is the issue that a belief in anti-vaccination is a non-religious ‘protected belief’ under the Equality Act. There is a large body of case law on what constitutes a ‘protected belief’ and from that it is clearly arguable that an anti-vaccination belief could qualify.”

Supporting the findings of the ACAS study, Andy McDonald - Labour Shadow Employment Rights and Protections Secretary - stated:

“Employers who are refusing to give their staff paid time off to get their vaccinations are putting their staff at risk and undermining the national effort against the virus. The Government is not doing enough. They should put pressure on employers to guarantee that workers will receive paid time off for their vaccination appointments and to recover from any after-effects.”

A recent survey conducted by YouGov – on behalf of the HR body, CIPD – and based on responses received from 2,064 persons aged between 18 and 30 years, shows that 43 per cent of them believe that the Covid pandemic has harmed their career prospects.

Reasons for this could be that they lost their jobs; the industry they want to work in has fewer vacancies or home working has resulted in them missing development and networking opportunities.

The latest official figures from the Office for National Statistics show that there were 166,000 fewer 16 to 24-year-olds in work in June 2021, compared with March 2020, when 3.9 million were employed. Despite that, it has also been reported that many employers are struggling with staff shortages, highlighting the need for more organisations to invest in young people in diverse ways to bolster their talent pipeline.

According to the survey, 50 per cent of young people currently not in work have been so for 12 months; 49 per cent of the unemployed are not confident about finding any work in the next three months and 72 per cent are not confident about finding a job in the next three months to meet their career ambitions and salary expectations. 

The research also found that 14 per cent of unemployed young people have applied for more than thirty jobs in the past three months; 51 per cent of those not in work have not accessed any support services to help them look for work and 44 per cent of those not in work had attended university.

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Adviser at the CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) - said:

“While Brexit and much talk of staff shortages in recent months may give the impression that it should be easy for young people to walk into a job, they are still often left at the back of the queue because employers tend to favour experienced workers. We want to help young people get their career off to a flying start as unemployment at a young age can leave permanent scarring - and means they’re more likely to earn less over the course of their working lives and experience more spells of unemployment. More employers also need to take a chance on young people - and be prepared to train them up - given our labour supply is changing and staff shortages are becoming more prevalent. We also don’t want them to miss out on the creativity, ingenuity and energy young people can bring to an organisation.” 

Employers are being encouraged to create jobs, internships, work experience and apprenticeships. Through a mentoring programme, the CIPD is offering jobseekers aged 18 – 24 years help with CV writing, job searching and interview technique. The mentors are all HR and recruitment professionals. 

Kevin Gaughan - Director of resourcing, learning & development at Openreach - said:

“At Openreach, we believe passionately in giving young people a chance, so we’re proud that over the last three years we’ve recruited more than 7,800 new apprentices - providing them with world class training, ‘on the job’ experience and life-long NVQ qualifications. We’re now investing billions of pounds to build a new, ultrafast full fibre broadband network throughout the UK and we can’t do that without a great team. By focusing on hiring the right individuals with the right attitude, rather than minimum educational qualifications, we’re bringing even more young people into our field and office-based teams - and the results speak for themselves. It’s helping young people take their first steps into a great career and it’s helping us to build and enhance our brilliant team - so it’s a massive win-win.”   

Figures from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) showed that the number of individuals on furlough dropped below 2 million at the end of June, for the first time since the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) was introduced in March 2020. HMRC announced that there were 540,000 employers with 1.9 million employees on furlough and this was 590,000 less than the previous month.

However, the government’s contribution is gradually being made less generous as the Chancellor Rishi Sunak prepares to bring the scheme to an end in October and experts fear many thousands will be made redundant as the support tapers off.

In July, the Government support dropped from 80 per cent to 70 per cent and from the beginning of August this was reduced to 60 per cent.

As the Government’s contribution drops, some fear that older workers are more likely to be left on furlough than their younger counterparts - currently one in 10 workers over the age of 65 were still on furlough, the highest of any age group - while younger workers were coming off furlough at a much faster rate.

Out of 250 businesses with employees still on furlough, 18 per cent told the British Chamber of Commerce that having to contribute more to furloughed staff wages meant they were likely to make redundancies.

In response, the British Chamber of Commerce stated that extra training is required to deal with the many thousands of redundancies being predicted and they also raised concerns that some older workers could find it hard to source new employment.

A Government spokesman said:

“We’ve always been clear that it’s not possible to save every job, but our Plan for Jobs is helping people of all ages find the skills they need to get back into work, including thorough the Restart Scheme, the sector-based work academy programme, and our Job Entry Targeted Support scheme.”

The Supreme Court has issued a judgement that a claimant making an allegation of discrimination at an Employment Tribunal must provide evidence that they were discriminated against in the first instance – essentially clarifying that the burden of proof is on the claimant.

The ruling came during a case brought by Mr Efobi against his employer the Royal Mail. Mr Efobi - who identifies as black African and Nigerian - had worked as a postman for the company since October 2011. He held computing qualifications and wanted to change roles and so applied for IT and management jobs between 2011 and 2015.

After being rejected for around 30 roles during this time, in June 2015 he launched a claim for indirect and direct race discrimination in relation to his job applications and harassment on grounds of race. Mr Efobi later amended the claim to include victimisation at work as a result of bringing his tribunal claim.

The victimisation and harassment claims were upheld by the initial Employment Tribunal, but the discrimination claims were dismissed on the basis that there was no evidence that the Royal Mail’s actions were linked to his race.

Following this, Mr Efobi appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, stating that the Employment Tribunal wrongly interpreted section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010, which concerns the burden of proof in discrimination cases.

Mr Efobi also claimed that the Tribunal should have drawn adverse inference from the fact that Royal Mail had not provided evidence from anyone who had dealt with his job applications, only about how its general recruitment practices worked.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Mr Efobi’s appeal but Royal Mail challenged this at the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal then agreed with Royal Mail that the Employment Tribunal had not made any error of law in its analysis of the evidence and reversed the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

Following this, permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was then granted. However, this found that the change in wording - when the Race Relations Act 1976 was replaced by the Equality Act 2010 - did not amount to a change in the law and therefore it still requires a claimant to prove that they had been discriminated against and it is not enough for them to merely assert that they have been discriminated against.

Of the decision, Jeremy Coy, a Senior Associate in the employment team at Russell-Cooke, said:

“It’s a general principle of civil law that claimants must provide evidence that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that their allegations are well founded. This decision reinstates the initial understanding of the burden of proof in discrimination cases. A claimant must first show facts that would tend to show discrimination had occurred and it will then be for an employer to provide evidence to show otherwise.”

Experts have warned that employers risk losing workers with skills and experience if they do not include the staff in consultations over returning to the workplace.

A survey of over 1,000 UK workers - carried out by HR software provider CIPHR - has revealed employee attitudes to returning to their pre-pandemic workplace and how some employers have not helped prepare their staff for the transition back. 

The survey found that 39 per cent of workers said they had not been consulted about their return to the workplace and 40 per cent of respondents reported that they had not been asked for their views about how many days they would like to be in the office.

Prior to the pandemic, 74 per cent of respondents worked onsite at business premises and only 8 per cent worked fully remotely.  However, during the pandemic that changed, with 61 per cent of respondents being required to work at home and for higher income earners the number increased to 75 per cent of workers – 74 per cent of whom were in receipt of an annual salary of £45,000.

Although the pandemic is still not over, thousands of businesses are now running at pre-pandemic staffing capacities.  It is not back to complete normality, however, as 67 per cent of employees intend to keep wearing a face mask in their workplace, with those most likely to continue wearing masks in all indoor public settings are the 40 per cent of fully vaccinated workers – compared to 39 per cent of all workers.  Only 10 per cent of respondents stated that they no longer intend to wear a mask – and another 10 per cent have decided not to get vaccinated.

For the 16 per cent of workers whose normal place of work has not yet reopened, 40 per cent say they expect to be back by September, with a further 20 per cent by the end of the year – 11 per cent are anticipating a return sometime in 2022; 17 per cent are not aware of when they will be asked to return and 12 per cent have had their workplace permanently closed.   

In general, survey respondents were positive about returning to the workplace - 24 per cent said they felt happy to return; 22 per cent said they were looking forward to it and another 22 per cent said they felt alright about going back. Only 23 per cent who worked at home during the pandemic were anxious or “dreading” going back.

Claire Williams - Director of people and services at CIPHR - urged all employers to consult staff about changes, particularly about returning to normal working. She advised that businesses need to be considerate of employees’ rights to submit formal flexible working requests and suggested that they should gain feedback from employees about measures they would like to see implemented for their specific situation - as well as using HR solutions.

She stated:

“Above all, it’s important that people feel listened to, and that employers act on their feedback, wherever possible.”

She added a warning that “employees’ loyalty can be easily lost by a failure to communicate, especially following a period where employers have had to call on a huge amount of goodwill from their workforce.”

The Department for Work and Pensions has been billed £87.9m over historic IR35 status contractor assessment errors - and experts state that this demonstrates the risk of relying on the check employment status tool (CEST) provided by the HMRC.    

Details of this payment were revealed in the publication of the Department for Work and Pensions most recent accounts, which outline expenditure made by the department during the 2020-21 financial year. The errors were found in March 2020, following a review by HMRC into the Department for Work and Pensions’ implementation of the IR35 tax avoidance reforms.   

The IR35 tax avoidance reforms came into force in the public sector in April 2017 and from this date, organisations assumed responsibility for determining if the contractors they engage with should be taxed in the same way as permanent, salaried employees, i.e. inside IR35.  However, although they would be expected to pay the same tax and Nation Insurance contributions as a permanent employee, they are not entitled to receive the same workplace benefits as a salaried worker. 

Outside IR35 - or off-payroll workers - are determined based on the work they do and how it is performed. Prior to April 2017, it was left to the contractors themselves to declare whether their engagements were inside IR35 or not.

Matt Fryer - Head of Legal Services at Brookson Legal - said:

“Businesses are somewhat reliant on CEST because it’s free, but clearly what may not have hit home is that you still need a general understanding of employment status to ensure you’re answering the questions correctly. This is a clear example of the risk involved in using online tools such as CEST to determine IR35 status. Relying on CEST alone does not demonstrate reasonable care or protect against HMRC fines.”

Matt Fryer added that - with the same rules now being applied in the private sector - employers should pay close attention to how the rule is being enforced in the public sector.

HMRC has said it will not charge any penalties on private sector businesses until April 2022.

Alison Woods - Partner and co-head of employment at international law firm CMS - warned that the Department for Work and Pensions bill “highlights that HMRC’s audit powers are wide should they choose to use them”.

Dave Chaplin - Chief Executive of IR35 Shield - said:

“The entire situation is absurd.”

He remarked that any additional tax paid by the Department for Work and Pensions would eventually “filter its way back” adding:

“The Department of Work and Pensions clearly would not bother spending hundreds of thousands of pounds to defend the status, when overall the rise in the coffers for the Treasury will be effectively zero.”

Kate Cottrell - Managing Director of Bauer and Cottrell - IR35 and Off-Payroll status specialists - stated that most businesses would not be able to foot a bill that big and said it was “a lesson for all medium and large businesses currently faced with the same rules”. 

According to a report from Culture Shift - a UK-based tech-for-good developer - the events of recent months have impacted positively on the culture of the UK’s industry. 

Of the respondents surveyed, 39 per cent said it has actively improved since they changed to remote working, with 73 per cent describing it as positive in the current climate.

The same report also revealed that more than 36 per cent said working from home has boosted their productivity, whilst more than 28 per cent said it has had a positive impact on their mental health - with 45 per cent saying they are dreading going back to the workplace.

However, whilst many have welcomed the remote arrangement, 50 per cent of employees in tech have said that working from home has made them feel isolated. 

Olive Strachan MBE, who is founder of Olive Strachan Resources Ltd and a global business woman and diversity and inclusion specialist - stated:

“There’s no doubt the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in challenging times for businesses. With many teams working remotely, organisations have had to improve their communication keeping employees informed of developments, while demonstrating empathy, and providing coaching plus support for their mental health and general wellbeing.”

She continued:

“The research found that most employees have credited their organisations with having a positive culture in the current climate, with many benefitting from improvements to their productivity, overall wellbeing, creativity, work-life balance and relationships with key stakeholders, such as their employer.”

On the positive impact of working from home, the research found that 51 per cent of employees in tech confirmed working from home has improved their work-life balance - and 43 per cent who said that they feel more likely to experience bullying in the workplace, became just 30 per cent whilst working from home.

Job motivation has been positively impacted by working remotely whilst 26 per cent receive less passive aggressive comments when not in the workplace.

More than one third of employees say that creativity has improved for them, with 37 per cent stating that trust in their boss has had a positive influence; 43 per cent said that their boss has asked about their wellbeing more often since they started working from home and almost half feel that they are being trusted to get on with the job. 

On the negative side, self-doubt is rife with 27 per cent feeling this more so whilst working from home, particularly 16-34 year-olds, where 31 per cent feel it more than when they were in the workplace.

Almost half of employees feel isolated; 23 per cent feel they have been affected negatively when it comes to promotion opportunities and 25 per cent say that it has affected their training and development.

Gemma McCall - CEO and co-founder of Culture Shift - said:

“With many organisations across the country now thinking about how they can bring employees back to the office safely, we wanted to hone in on the general consensus on remote working these past few months. While there have been some minor issues, it’s generally been quite successful.”

She added:

“Remote working has positively impacted employees’ wellbeing and is something employers should absolutely be considering as they plan for the future — especially now the success of this approach has been clearly proven. While there are of course some key factors organisations need to work on, like continued commitment to training and development, as well as progression, employers should be ensuring they have systems and tools in place to empower their teams to remain productive, creative and supported, even while they’re working from home.”

Censuswide survey consultants asked the opinion of 200 UK business decision makers, on behalf of privileged access management solutions provider, Centrify - in order to gather information for a new report regarding cyber security.

According to this report, since the Covid-19 pandemic began, almost four in ten businesses have fired someone over their involvement in a breach of security protocol. This is despite 65 per cent of organisations making considerable changes to their cyber security policy, in response to the pandemic.

Over half - 58 per cent - of companies are of the opinion that employees are more likely to attempt to get round the security practices when working from home.  Because of this, 57 per cent of decision makers are putting more measures in place to validate staff.  Biometric data checks - such as fingerprint and facial recognition technology - are being introduced to ensure that the correct person is accessing the right files, applications and accounts.  This has proved necessary as, due to businesses moving into digital channels en-masse, there have been a rising number of incidents where cybercriminals have been involved.    

In addition, more than half - 55 per cent - of businesses have already banned, or plan to ban, staff from using personal devices to work from home.

Andy Heather - Vice President, Centrify - said:

“With more people than ever working from home and left to their own devices, it’s inevitable that some will find security work ‘arounds’, such as using personal laptops and not changing passwords, in order to maximise productivity. It’s also possible that the changes in security procedures are not being communicated well to employees, and many are practicing unsafe internet usage without even realising.

The reality is the weakest link in any organisation continues to be the human element. Combating this issue starts from the top. CIOs and business decision makers must implement strict and transparent, cloud enabled and identity-centric security solutions. This will allow companies to quickly and safely deploy scalable security privileged access management measures, which make it impossible for an employee to access company networks, applications and data, unless they are following correct procedures.”

A poll in early June, by Royal London, suggests that young workers are opting out of pensions because of the Covid 19 crisis.

The poll, which surveyed 2,000 people aged between 18 and 34 years of age, found that a large percentage of employees are either reducing or stopping contributions - and it cautions that this could cause long term damage to retirement prospects.

The research found that 28 per cent of those aged between 18 and 34 years had reduced their pension contributions - with a further 12 per cent stopping their contributions altogether.  However, only 16 per cent of those in the age group 35 to 53 years had stopped or reduced their contributions. Of the 40 per cent who had reduced or ended their contributions, the main reasons given were pay cuts; redundancy and worries over job security.

Other reasons for reducing or stopping pension contributions included concern over an unstable investment market; that they had more important priorities or that they had left their employer.

Of the over 55 year olds only 9 per cent have either halted or cut pension their contributions.

It was suggested that those who stopped saving into a pension because of redundancy might be more likely to pick it up again later as they will be auto enrolled when they find a new job.  However, people who simply cut back might not have the impetus to resume saving.

Lorna Blyth - Head of Investment Solutions at Royal London - stated that employees were taking this step to compensate for lost income caused by the virus outbreak.   

She said:

“The Covid pandemic has put a real strain on many people’s finances and the research shows many are looking to reduce their outgoings by cutting or even stopping contributions.”

Only 11 per cent of those surveyed stated that they had begun to make contributions for the first time - or had increased them during the lockdown.

However, 79 per cent said that they planned to resume - or increase - their contributions at some future point, with 37 per cent saying that they planned to do so in the next three months.

Lorna Blyth stated:

“It is vital that people follow through with their intentions to resume contributions as soon as they are able if they are to avoid long-term damage to their retirement prospects.”

A survey, by the CIPD and the Adecco Group, of more than 2,000 employers has found that overall hiring of new staff has increased, with 49 per cent of employers expecting to take on new recruits in the next three months - compared to 40 per cent last quarter. However, this is still well below levels seen in previous years.

The report’s net employment balance - which measures the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staff levels and those who expect to decrease staff levels - has fallen from –4 to –8 over the last three months showing the lowest figure since February 2013.  

According to the latest quarterly Labour Market Outlook report, a 50 per cent increase in the number of businesses expecting to cut jobs compared to the spring report is cited. This rose from 22 per cent three months ago to 33 per cent in the latest report.

In the private sector, 38 per cent expect to make redundancies, as opposed to 16 per cent in the public sector.

The survey also shows that employers across all sectors intend to rein in pay increases over the next 12 months and those who do plan pay reviews expect the basic pay to increase by just 1 per cent - much lower than the 2 per cent median increase expected this time last year. In the private sector, median basic pay expectations have increased to 0.8 per cent from 0 per cent three months ago but whilst this is a modest rise in pay expectations in the private sector, improvement is hindered by a relatively large proportion of employers - 40 per cent - predicting the introduction of wage freezes in the 12 months to June 2021.  

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser at the CIPD - the professional body for HR and people development, commented:

“This is the weakest set of data we’ve seen for several years. Until now, redundancies have been low – no doubt due to the Job Retention Scheme – but we expect to see more redundancies come through this autumn, especially in the private sector once the scheme closes. Hiring confidence is rising tentatively, but this probably won’t be enough to offset the rise in redundancies and the number of new graduates and school leavers entering the labour market over the next few months. As a result, this looks set to be a sombre autumn for jobs. This will likely be accompanied by a pay squeeze for workers, which is actually to be welcomed to help preserve jobs despite any modest fall in real wages in the private sector. This could be an important factor in limiting large-scale job cuts, as it was in the last recession. We urge organisations to do all that they can to keep employees in work and only make redundancies as a last resort, exploring all other options first. This could include freezing recruitment, reducing hours or restricting overtime, or cuts to bonuses and deferring salary increases.”

Alex Fleming - Country Head and President of Staffing and Solutions, the Adecco Group UK and Ireland - stated:

“This latest report shows a mixed picture with regards to the status of the current labour market. Redundancy intentions have increased by 11 per cent compared to the previous quarter but, more positively, nearly half (49 per cent) of UK employers are planning to recruit over the next three months, which could be an indication that businesses are reshaping for the future. We’re also seeing more candidates applying for high skilled roles, which aligns with the trend of people sourcing alternate forms of education in order to upskill and expand their knowledge, during this time of uncertainty. As organisations continue transitioning into the new era of work, there will be ongoing shifts in working patterns not only for employees but also for those who are just starting out in their career. Therefore, businesses must demonstrate resilience and adopt new approaches to closing the skills gap by investing in upskilling and reskilling workforces. Creating a positive workplace culture is also integral to maintaining focus, engagement and motivation among existing employees.”

The HR body - CIPD - has warned that more consultation by employers is needed to ensure that workers feel safe and confident to return to the workplace.  

In July, employers were advised to encourage workers to return to the workplace - if it was safe to do so - and from 1st August the responsibility to determine whether home workers should return to their place of work became the employers.

A CIPD survey of more than 1,000 working adults in the UK indicates that there are employers who are not meeting three important criteria, i.e. whether it is essential to be at work; whether it is safe to be at work and whether it has been agreed with the worker.

The survey found a disturbing lack of consultation with the workers whose concerns about health and safety have not been addressed - only 44 per cent surveyed felt that they had been adequately consulted, whilst 55 per cent stated that they have received adequate information about the return to work, rather than consulted.  Only 28 per cent of workers with a disability felt that their concerns had been addressed.

Of the workers already going to the workplace, 26 per cent stated that they are being pressurised to do so and one in five were not satisfied with the health and safety measures their employer had put in place during the pandemic. A further three in ten said they felt anxious about catching or spreading the virus and of those not yet back in the workplace 12 per cent did not trust their employer to provide a safe environment.

More than half of the workers surveyed stated that they were looking forward to returning to their normal workplace - in contrast, 24 per cent disagreed, whilst 45 per cent said they felt anxious about returning. This rose to 57 per cent where the workers had a mental health condition and to 48 per cent where people had a physical health condition.

More than a third of workers were concerned about commuting to work with the number rising to 60 per cent in London.

Melanie Green - Research Advisor at the CIPD - stated:

“Workplaces should only be opening up if it’s essential to the business model, it’s mutually agreed with staff and it’s safe to do so. But our research suggests many employers are failing to meet these three tests. 

Employers must ensure they’ve taken all necessary steps to protect their staff against the virus and must not get complacent here. The rise in workplace transmissions over the last few weeks shows how vigilant employers need to be and the level of responsibility on their shoulders. 

Our research also raises serious concerns about the impact of the pandemic on people’s mental wellbeing. While some employees may be looking forward to returning to their normal place of work, perhaps because isolation and lack of social connections are taking a toll on their mental health, others are anxious about how safe it is to do so.  Some employees’ personal circumstances – whether that is an existing health condition or juggling childcare and work – may also create extra anxiety about returning to work. Employers shouldn’t make assumptions about what’s right for their people.

Greater consultation with staff will help employers to understand people’s concerns, what they can do to put them at greater ease and how they can make the return to work safer and less stressful. People are much more likely to agree to a return to work if they’ve had the opportunity to voice their concerns and work through solutions with their employer.”  

A third of workers want a Covid-19 vaccine or antibody test before returning to the office.  This is according to a new poll of 2,000 workers conducted by Canada Life.

Despite 41 per cent of workers feeling positive about returning to the office, 28 per cent are concerned and this number increases to 36 per cent amongst women.  Nearly a fifth of employees are of the opinion that it will be several years before working practices return to normal.

The poll showed that 18 per cent of respondents wanted regular temperature checks; 21 per cent wanted coronavirus testing in the office and 22 per cent wanted office spaces to be rearranged to accommodate social distancing.

Although 26 per cent of women are most looking forward to being out of the house again - against 18 per cent of men - women are more concerned about office working than male workers.   The female workers - 26 per cent - were more worried about their colleagues not taking the same precautions as themselves and 23 per cent of women were anxious about physically interacting with people again.

The poll found that 31 per cent of employees wanted the option to work from home in the future - as and when it suited them - whilst 23 per cent wanted to be able decide whether or not they returned to the office at all.

Paul Avis - Strategic Proposition Director at Canada Life - said:

 “Workers are unsurprisingly anxious about returning to the physical workplace. After such a long period of time working from home, many of us have developed new ways of working and fallen into new routines. And while lots of workers are looking forward to getting ‘back to normal’, many feel like the ‘new normal’ will never be the same as it once was. With the pandemic changing the way we’ve lived our lives over the past four months, I’m not surprised that some are understandably hoping for a vaccine or antibody testing before they get back into the workplace. But as anyone who may have spent the last few months working from a single bedroom flat will testify, a return to the workplace will come as a welcome relief alongside all the social benefits that brings. Concerns have been raised by psychiatrists that we face a tsunami of mental health issues and so a return to the workplace, noting work has been proven to be beneficial for mental health, will be welcomed by many who rely on the challenges of daily work and the social and support networks.”

It has been found that 35 per cent of employees search for a new role whilst at work due to the boredom they feel the job brings.

The Candidate Behaviour Barometer - from the UK’s leading independent job board, CV-Library - have carried out a new study which shows that Monday is the busiest day for job hunting, with 11am the most popular time for making job applications.

The job board evaluated millions of data points from its site to understand the most popular times and days of the week for job views and applications. It surveyed 1,700 UK professionals to understand how people balance their search for another job with their existing role. 

Firstly, the survey found that job adverts got 17.2 per cent of views on Wednesdays; 16.5 per cent of views on Tuesdays and 16.3 per cent of views on Mondays.  Sunday is the least popular day with 10.2 per cent of views.

When it comes to the most popular time for candidates to view jobs, it was found to be 10am and 11am with 7.6 per cent of views; second was 9am and 10am with 7.3 per cent of views and the least popular time to view - at 0.6 per cent - was between 4am and 5am.

The most unlikely times for job applications to be made are Saturday and Sunday, each showing 9 per cent - indicating that most people like to search for jobs whilst working at their current role. Over half state that they search for jobs when they are meant to be working - with 58 per cent saying they do not feel guilty about this.

Nearly two-thirds - 62 per cent - of employees who have been working remotely during the coronavirus pandemic have been looking for a new role and 80 per cent admitted it has been easier to search for a new job whilst they have been away from the workplace.

Lee Biggins - Founder and CEO of CV-Library - commented:

“Employers and recruiters that are continuing to hire during the pandemic are in a fortunate position, as there are more active job hunters on the market right now. But, while the job market has shifted, understanding how candidates behave will always be important. Our latest report provides some fantastic insights that can help you streamline your hiring process; and ultimately speed up your time to hire, while reducing costs.”

He added:

“We might be in the middle of a pandemic, but that isn’t stopping people from searching and applying to new jobs. Definitely make the most of this active talent pool if you can, but have a think about the best times to advertise your jobs and what you should be including in them to make them as appealing as possible.”

Julie Delve and Karen Glynn - supported by the campaign group ‘Backto60’ - last week took their case concerning pension age equalisation to the Court of Appeal.

Plans to increase the state pension age were first announced in the Pension Act 1995 but these changes were accelerated as part of the Pension Act 2011.

The changes meant that in 2010 the age at which women qualified for a State Pension began to increase - from aged 60 to 65 - to bring them in line with the age at which men receive their pension. A group of women born in the 1950s argued that these changes were made unfairly, as they were not given sufficient notice to add to their savings to make up the shortfall in state pension. The changes under both acts are thought to affect approximately 3.8 million women.

In 2019, Julie Delve and Karen Glynn took the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to court, claiming that the changes were discriminatory on the grounds of sex and age. However the women lost this hearing, with the High Court ruling that there was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because “this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law, rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women, and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men”.

Undeterred, Julie Delve and Karen Glynn’s appeal was eventually heard in a two day case at the Court of Appeal last week - in which the verdict is yet to be announced. As the judiciary has now broken for its summer recess, this is likely to be after October 1 when they reconvene.

On the first day of the hearing, Michael Mansfield QC for the Backto60 campaign, described the poverty and financial hardship faced by many women affected by the changes.

He stated:

“This cohort are bearing the brunt and shouldering the onerous situations that arise after the statutes come into force.”

He added:

“Besides the economic - almost poverty line - existence they have to face, it goes without saying that the psychological and mental stress placed upon them, has reduced many people to an inability to go and do what they need to do to make ends meet.”

The DWP continue to maintain that the changes were necessary, with representative Sir James Eadie QC, remarking that pensions must be economically viable. If the women win their case and are awarded full restitution, it is thought it could cost the taxpayer in the region of £215billion.

In the meantime the State Pension age continues to increase, with a scheduled to rise to 66 by October 2020 - then to age 67 between 2026 and 2028.

Sometime between 2037 and 2039 - on a date yet to be decided - the age of eligibility for State Pension will then rise to 68.

The risk to employers of taking employment actions when annoyed, rather than using reason - particularly when it comes to decisions about leaves of absence - was emphasized by a recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

In the case of DaPrato v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, the Supreme Judicial Court recently upheld a $1.3 million damage award to Mr Daprato, an ex-employee of the Water Resources Authority.

The damages consisted of $19,777 in back pay and $188,666 for lost future income and benefits; $200,000 for emotional distress and $715,385 in punitive damages plus $208,443 in liquidated damages and $605,690 in attorney fees and costs.

Mr DaPrato was fired from his job as an Information Technology Manager - where he had worked for many years and received positive reviews - after taking a vacation to Mexico while he was on a medical leave of absence.

He had informed HR that he was postponing a previously scheduled knee surgery to have a tumor removed from his right foot and his surgeon provided a medical certificate. This stated that the employee would require between four to six weeks of FMLA leave following the surgery and that he would need to wear a medical boot before being able to undertake weight-bearing activities.

After surgery, Mr DaPrato wished to return to work earlier than previously thought, but on approaching HR he was informed that he could not do so without a certificate from his surgeon - who was not available for several weeks. Mr DaPrato then requested to be paid under the employer’s salary continuation policy.

During the interim period, Mr DaPrato - who had a vacation to Mexico previously planned - went on the trip but curtailed his activities.

On receiving his paycheck it did not show what he had been expecting under the salary continuation policy. He emailed the HR Director and requested an updated paycheck, also stating that he did not want any “surprises” when he came to request additional FMLA leave for the knee surgery. The HR Director did not provide this to the employee but forwarded Mr DaPrato’s e-mail to an HR manager stating:

“Is he serious?”

The HR Manager replied:

“OMG.”

HR learned that Mr DaPrato had made the trip to Mexico and launched an investigation. A video was obtained of Mr DaPatro lifting luggage out of a car and although he explained that he had tried to return to work early and that he was wearing a boot while engaging in the doubtful activities - and that these activities did not conflict with the limitations described in the medical forms from his surgeon - the HR Director, together with another person, recommended firing Mr DaPrato, which duly happened. The company was not given the FMLA forms.

The HR Director testified to her belief that an employee on FMLA leave could not take a vacation and the company’s lawyers showed photos of Mr DaPrato standing holding a large fish - despite the fact that the company had no knowledge of the photos when the termination took place.

The State Supreme Court gave the following analysis that an employer should use when deciding whether or not an employee has exploited his FMLA leave:

“We clarify today that an employer may validly consider an employee’s conduct on vacation—or, for that matter, anywhere—that is inconsistent with his or her claimed reasons for medical leave, when the employer has such information at the time the employer is evaluating whether leave has been properly or improperly used.

Here, [the plaintiff] took FMLA leave to allow his foot to recover fully from surgery. Such recovery could take place in a warm climate as well as in a New England winter. That being said, vacationing while on FMLA leave may take either permissible or impermissible forms. An employee recovering from a leg injury may sit with his or her leg raised by the sea shore while fully complying with FMLA leave requirements but may not climb Machu Picchu without abusing the FMLA process. Careful consideration of the reasons for the medical leave and the activities undertaken, including the timeline for rehabilitation and recovery, are required to determine whether FMLA leave has been abused.”

In reviewing the punitive and liquidated damages awards, the State High Court found that despite the employer being honest in its belief that it was complying with the FMLA, it was not objectively reasonable in its belief.

The Court found that the employer ignored Mr DaPrato’s medical records and FMLA application and made its decision based on “shock, outrage and offense” that the employee might request additional FMLA leave for knee surgery - as shown in the e-mail exchange between the HR Director and the HR Manager.

According to the latest industry trends report by the TMF Group (a leading provider of tax, accounting and HR services on an international scale), together with the Global Payroll Association, a lack of knowledge of local regulations is the biggest challenge faced by global and in-country payroll professionals.

Of the in-country payroll professionals surveyed, 41% reported a lack of knowledge of local payroll legislation and requirements, which was an increase of 6% on 2016.

Cited by 30.2% of those surveyed was a failure of in-house professionals to understand local rules and regulations and 29.6% said they were responsible for sourcing local payroll compliance information, but were often unaware of where to find it. These were the most common reasons given for payroll errors.

Of the payroll professionals surveyed a high amount - 69.4% - reported having no or fewer than 50% of global policies that apply to all payrolls.

The top four challenges faced by global and in-country payroll professionals were found to be lack of knowledge of local payroll legislation and requirements; vendor management; ability to find information on legislation and compliance and lack of consistency in policies and processes.

Deborah Williams - Global Head of Service Lines at TMF Group - said:

"The payroll industry is doing remarkable work despite facing increasingly complex rules and regulations. Nonetheless, the lack of local knowledge is of concern, as it has potential repercussions on compliance. Ultimately, it can affect the payment of staff and the performance of the business.

It is encouraging to see that four out of five payroll professionals value having an in-country contact - such as ourselves - who speaks the local language to help them communicate more effectively."

She added:

"The lack of consistency and control that results from not having robust payroll policies and processes in place should be of concern to organisations operating in multiple jurisdictions as this leads to errors in payroll processing and increases risk of non-compliance.

Our report with GPA also shows that many organisations are yet to adopt appropriate technology to support their payroll operations at an international scale. This contributes to the failure of policies and processes.

There is a growing trend among organisations towards the adoption of middleware to solve the problem of trying to deal with a multitude of systems and suppliers across different territories. We now see many organisations turning to payroll outsourcing to fulfil these needs."

Melanie Pizzey - CEO of the Global Payroll Association - stated:

"Our second annual survey with TMF Group indicates that professionals responsible for multi-country payroll delivery are facing increased complexities on many fronts. As a result, global payroll transformation is - or will become - a priority for employers so they can achieve consistency in their global operations, and maximise the return on their investments."

Whilst students might still be resting their hopes of landing their dream job on the A-level results they have received, employers are placing more emphasis on essential skills like teamwork, presenting and problem-solving - qualifications are only part of the requirement.

Because of the difficulty in assessing at the recruitment and selection stage, for the first time leading organisations in the education and employment sectors - the CIPD, The Careers & Enterprise Company, Business in the Community, the Gatsby Foundation, EY Foundation and the Skills Builder Partnership - have joined forces to agree a universal framework for these essential skills.

Already used by over 700 establishments, the new organisation will develop the ‘skills builder framework’ and set out the skills needed to thrive at work. In addition, it will show how these can be assessed and developed - and can be used by students, workers and employers.

The benefits of the ‘skilled builder framework’ will include making those charged with educating students aware of the skills that are required by employers - so ensuring that they are well equipped to join the workforce.

Also, it will help employers to hire the right people and provide the applicants with a better idea of the skills required for success in each role. Employers will be able to see what progression looks like for each of the different skills - thus enabling them to plan how to up-skill or re-skill their workers.

Given the increasing use of technology in the workplace, employers also recognise that whilst automation can replace repetitive roles, the more creative and complex tasks need to be performed by humans - and require the essential skills.

In his review of Modern Working Practices, Matthew Taylor - the RSA’s Chief Executive and champion of this project - called for a framework like this to be introduced. Employers from different sectors will be consulted about the framework and it will go through several development stages with the final version expected in spring 2020.  He said:

“With the nature of work continuing to evolve, it is challenging to predict exactly what technical abilities and skills will be needed in years to come. However, there’s growing recognition that the core skills, which are essentially human and behavioural, will be vital in almost all jobs and roles. The work of the task force is an important step towards achieving a common understanding of these essential skills from education right through to our workplaces. Establishing a framework and a common language for these skills is vital in creating the clarity we need to achieve more productive, high-performing workplaces that enable people whatever their backgrounds to feel engaged and empowered in their jobs.”

Sir John Holman - Chair of the Essential Skills Task Force - said:

“If you ask employers what they are looking for in the people they hire, they increasingly specify essential skills like communication and teamwork. They take for granted that employees must have sound educational qualifications and what makes the difference is the higher order essential skills which a machine cannot offer. By producing a universal framework of essential skills that are clear, measurable and authoritative, we will give employers a toolkit that they can use to select and train the employees they need to succeed in tomorrow’s workplace. Equally importantly, it will be a toolkit that schools, colleges and universities can use to help the students develop these skills.” 

Christine Hodgson - Chairman of Capgemini in the UK, Chairman of The Careers & Enterprise Company and a trustee of Business in the Community - said:

“As an employer, we want to make sure we’re recruiting people with the right skills to thrive in the 21st century workplace. But without a common language and shared understanding, it can be difficult for employers to identify easily or communicate what they’re looking for. And it’s harder for schools to make sure they’re focusing on developing the right skills. By helping schools, young people and employers to all pull in the same direction, this work will help us prepare young people for the fast-changing world of work.”

For the fourth year in a row waiting times have risen for Employment Tribunal claims in the UK.

Research by employment law firm GQ Littler has shown that the average waiting time - from the Tribunal receiving a claim and hearing it - is now eight months. This is up by 14% from last year, when the waiting time was 207 days.

Since 2017, when the fees required to launch a claim were abolished, claims have been on the rise with 27% extra - a total of 35,430 claims - received in 2018/19.  This came about at a time when tribunal services were already struggling due to government funding cuts, resulting in HM Courts & Tribunals service finding it difficult to employ enough front-line judicial staff, such as salaried judges and key administrative support staff to deal with their caseload.

Both employers and workers are disrupted by the wait and face months of uncertainty - with senior management often being distracted from more strategic management issues.

Raoul Parekh - Partner at GQ Littler - said:

“Many businesses facing an employment claim feel like they are operating under a cloud until that claim is dealt with. That’s why it’s important to get these claims dealt with quickly. But at current trend Employment Tribunals will soon reach breaking point. Eight month delays are just not sustainable and can be very challenging for both parties involved. On this kind of timeline, it is not uncommon for key witnesses to leave, move to other roles or countries, and memories can also fade. A severe lack of resources means delays are endemic across the whole tribunals system – even when calling the employment tribunal’s enquiries helpline, you can be waiting for hours. If no material increase in funding arises then authorities may need to look at more creative solutions. Options put forward include introducing a new step in the tribunal’s process which gives both parties a chance to settle before a case is heard in court.”

Earlier this year, the Judicial Appointments Commission did launch a recruitment drive to hire an extra 54 salaried Employment Tribunal judges. As a result of this - by July 2019 - 27 new staff had been appointed and more are planned. 

A recent report by the ‘all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing’ showed that some whistleblowers were waiting between 18 and 36 months for their claim to be resolved, noting that the excessive duration of tribunal trials could discourage other whistleblowers from making a complaint.   Instead of confronting their employer, these employees were often just resigning or retiring.

Making comment on the GQ Littler report, shadow Justice Secretary - Richard Burgon – said:

“This is an unacceptable delay. Workers who have been unlawfully treated by bad bosses should not be forced to wait even longer for justice.”

In the tightest job market since 1969, employers are attempting to draw in workers - at times after only one phone interview - without having a face to face interview. Finding and hiring top talent is no longer limited by proximity or the coordination of increasingly busy schedules.

The practice has become most common in seasonal work, although it is spreading among in-demand white-collar roles, such as engineers and IT professionals.

The world of freelancing - known as the gig economy - is one area in which hiring workers unseen is not uncommon.

Remote.co surveyed more than one hundred companies with remote workers and as a result, Brie Reynolds - Senior Career Specialist at Remote.co and FlexJobs - stated:

“…….the vast majority use phone interviews—more so than video interviews—for hiring."  

Ira S. Wolfe - President of recruiting firm Success Performance Solutions in Wind Gap, Pa. - and an author who has emerged as one of HR's most visionary thinkers, said:

"The success of hiring sight unseen depends on the role. For a recent web project, I never spoke with the developer. All communication was via messaging."

He went on to suggest that - when hiring for traditional roles and full-time staff workers - consideration of whether the interviews should be conducted face-to-face; via video or teleconferencing, or without any visual interaction at all can be made based on very practical considerations - adding:

"If physical on-site interaction with employees or customers is required on the job, then a face-to-face interview is recommended. But if the job will be conducted virtually, then a video or phone interview offers an excellent assessment of how the candidate will conduct work.”

In Reddit - an American social news and discussion website - on a forum dedicated to Boeing Co, multiple users described being offered jobs for entry-level positions after phone interviews only.

Former Boeing recruiters said the company hired sight unseen, particularly for tough-to-fill technical positions and engineering roles and a Boeing spokeswoman stated that the company aims to hire a diverse workforce from the most qualified pool.

She said:

“With almost 1 million applicants a year, we strive to create a contemporary candidate experience that uses the most current practices in candidate assessment.”

However, Brie Reynolds commented that even when those being hired will have only slight interaction with others, there can be some potential drawbacks to remote interviews.

"One downside is the ease with which an interviewer can be distracted by an e-mail or chat message, or any number of things happening around them. Some people also miss the body language aspect of interviewing."

Denise Leaser -SHRM-SCP, President of GreatBizTools - an HR management company in Los Angeles, points to research carried out by job site Monster in which it was shown that:

"70 percent of candidates will turn down a job if they are turned off by their first impression of the company."  

She added:

"Remote hiring puts even more pressure on companies to be engaged and provide a great experience throughout the candidate and on-boarding processes."

Yet an elementary English language development teacher in Tulsa, Okla., had one phone interview with a school principal and received a conditional job offer days later. Getting hired sight unseen did not faze her because she had maintained plenty of relationships by phone and said:

“That’s what the 21st century is.”

The first bipartisan paid leave bill has been introduced in Congress by Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) - marking a major achievement in the history of paid leave legislation in the United States.

On July 24th, the paid-leave plan - that uses the child tax credit (CTC) to provide new parents with immediate funds to finance time off from work or to offset the cost of infant care - was released for discussion.  

The new proposal by Senators Cassidy and Sinema suggests another original means by which families can be guaranteed some financial security whilst taking time off after the birth or adoption of a new child under the age of 6 years. The idea is to allow people to use $5000 of their Child Tax Credit benefits - repaying into the system in future.

The CTC exists to help families with children. It has a minimum earned income requirement and is partly refundable. This allows families to claim cash benefits beyond their tax obligations - but does limit its benefits for the poorest households who do not have a tax liability.

Families on low income who would not meet the criteria for the full, refundable CTC would be able to bring forward their CTC benefit, receiving the equivalent of 12 weeks' wage replacement and their adjusted CTC benefit over the next 15 years.

In a statement, Senator Cassidy said:

"In many cases, the first year of life is the most expensive for a family. This legislation addresses this, focuses resources and eases financial strain to provide a longer bonding period for the family."

This proposal is thought to appeal to Republicans - it does not impose a new tax, nor requires people to seek money from Social Security - it simply allows people to take an interest-free loan from the government at their time of maximum need. Also, it offers flexibility - new parents can decide not to take the time off or alternatively, take advantage of an employer paid leave policy and still receive the regular CTC.

However, Politico - an American political journalism company based in Arlington County, Virginia - reports:

"The use of tax credits could win over reluctant Republicans worried about creating an expensive new program, but the lack of leave for family and medical emergencies will likely keep Democratic leaders from supporting the proposal”

Senator Cassidy stated:

"This is a common-ground solution that can pass Congress and become law,"

Senator Sinema said that the proposal was an important first step that offers parents a new option to finance time off from work or to help pay for child care.

She added:

"Too many parents are forced to choose between losing time with a new child or taking on debt to make up for lost wages."

Aparna Mathur - a resident scholar for economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.) - wrote in an online post:

"The CTC exists precisely to help families with children. It has a minimal earned income requirement and is partly refundable, which allows families to claim cash benefits beyond their tax obligations.

Given the political divide on what constitutes a perfect policy when it comes to constructing a federal paid-leave policy, it makes sense to start with small wins and some compromises."

At a Reading Employment Tribunal, an HR Administrator - Mrs H Bagri - was found to have been unfairly dismissed by Oracle Corporation UK Limited.

Judge Andrew Gumbiti-Zimuto found that after her employment was transferred from NetSuite - a cloud computing company - there was failure to consult with her during a company-wide restructuring exercise. 

A further complaint of breach of contract was dismissed.

Mrs Bagri commenced employment with NetSuite in November 2010 as an HR Administrator. She has a 1st class degree in Business and Human Resource Management and a Level 7 CIPD diploma.

On 1st January 2017, Mrs Bagri was transferred from NetSuite to Oracle, having previously been told by her line manager at Netsuite - in November 2016 - that she was under threat of redundancy and that her employment could end in May 2017.  However, this information was not correct and in December 2016 Mrs Bagri was informed by the Vice President Human Resources at Oracle that - at that time - no decision on headcount had been made regarding NetSuite or Mrs Bagri.

In February 2017, the Vice President HR undertook a review of the needs of the HR team. She concluded that a business reorganisation was required and that Mrs Bagri’s role would no longer exist. The reason for this was that her task - that of arranging the changeover of NetSuite employees to Oracle - could be automated.

On 1st March 2017, Mrs Bagri was notified by letter that her role was at risk. She stated that after receiving the letter she had no further contact with the HR team about her role, nor did she have any consultation meetings. She was dismissed on 31st May 2017.

Mrs Bagri appealed against the decision to dismiss her. She stated that she was made redundant because of the transfer from NetSuite to Oracle. She was informed that the appeal process was to be conducted on paper and by way of written correspondence, and was not invited to an appeal meeting dealt with by the Vice President EMEA HR for Oracle - who said that she “did not feel that the points raised within the appeal required any further direct questions to Mrs Bagri” and dismissed the appeal.

When Mrs Bagri brought claims of unfair dismissal and breach of contract to the Reading Tribunal on 29th August 2017, she argued that the transfer was the reason for her dismissal. She said that she had been told there would be individual consultations but that Oracle had not invited her to any meetings and there was no evidence of any formal meetings - which Oracle said had occurred - taking place. Mrs Bagri stated that she was of the opinion that Oracle had no intention of retaining her after the transfer and did not try to incorporate her into the HR team or the company.

Oracle argued that Mrs Bagri did not seem interested in remaining in the business and that despite her role as a qualified and experienced HR professional she did not complain about the redundancy process.

The Tribunal, however, ruled that Mrs Bagri had been unfairly dismissed, stating that there was a “50 per cent chance that she would have continued in employment if she was not unfairly dismissed”. The Judge ruled that no proper consultation with Mrs Bagri had taken place about ways to avoid redundancy.

Angela Brumpton - Partner at Gunnercooke - remarked:

“Some employers see appeals as a box-ticking exercise, or a necessary evil, when actually a thorough appeals process can cure procedural defects. Savvy employers embrace appeals as an opportunity to review the initial process and plug any gaps.”

She added that businesses should also use appeals as an opportunity to “fix any deficiencies in the initial dismissal”. 

Bosses and managers have been called to review their leadership style and learn new skills, or face losing talent in their organisations.

A survey was carried out in June and July 2019, by Jobrapido - a Symphony Technology Group company - and conducted on 1444 employees across more than twenty different industry sectors including sales, marketing, engineering, transportation, construction and technology. 

The research shows that 36 per cent of workers in the UK are planning to leave their jobs in the near future - because their boss does not inspire them. In addition, they reported that there is no clear career structure created and that their boss does not listen to them.

Two thirds of respondents stated that they planned to leave their employment within the next twelve months due to their boss’s poor leadership style.  

When the respondents to the research were asked what would persuade them to remain in their jobs, 47 per cent stated that their boss should inspire them - making them want to stay with the company. An additional 39 per cent believed the most important quality for a manager was the ability to listen and 10 per cent thought that bosses should provide a clear career structure for all their staff - not just a select few.

These latest statistics are further bad news for business owners who already face challenges in attracting and retaining their talent. Eurostat - the statistical office of the European Union - report a 2.7 vacancy rate in the UK, which is the highest level compared to the last decade.

Rob Brouwer - CEO of Jobrapido - stated:

“In the UK, the demand is becoming vigorously strong and far outstripping the supply for talent. There is clearly a need for bosses, line manages and HR departments to pay even more attention to the need not only to attract the best talents on the market but, once on board, to look at all the way to engage and retain them.

The issue can arise because staff and senior management, whilst technically brilliant at the job and or excellent at running a business, have never received training of how to lead, manage and nurture the careers of other members of their team.

If Britain’s bosses are keen to retain their staff, then they should look at way to inspire them and perhaps, getting direct and constructive feedback via 360 degree reviews from all their staff. Also, wherever possible, look at how they can address any concerns and give adequate responses.

At the same time, no boss or line manager should think they are above learning new skills if it can help to bolster the company spirit and retaining talent. Embarking on the right leadership training or a series of courses will be an important step to inspire staff so they feel inclined to stay for many more years within the company, considering how crucial the talent is for a company business and its success on the short and the long term.” 

Data obtained under a Freedom of Information request has shown that 3,365 employment tribunals were postponed within 48 hours of the scheduled hearing, between 1 August 2017 and 31 March 2018.  Cases that were adjourned on the actual day of the hearing have not been included in these figures. 

A survey of Employment Lawyers Association members - which received 320 responses - revealed that 90% of respondents had experienced delays in tribunals dealing with interim paper applications; 57% had experienced delays in receiving reserved judgments and 45% reported postponements of a hearing due to a lack of judicial resources.

These figures suggest that the tribunal system has been under strain since last year when the Supreme Court determined that tribunal fees were unlawful and should be abolished. 

In June, The Ministry of Justice published figures revealing that the number of claims brought by a single person - rather than by a group of people - in the first quarter of 2018, increased to 9,252.  This was up 118% in comparison with the previous year. During this time, the caseload which was outstanding increased by 89%.

A spokesperson from the Ministry of Justice said that the employees bringing the claims had requested postponements in 87% of the cases and added:

“Every effort is made to ensure delays are kept to a minimum.”

Barry Stanton, Head of Employment Law at Boyes Turner, told People Management:

“There have always been postponements; postponements cause stress to the parties (and the lawyers). Claims languish, often for months, before everyone has to refocus their efforts with a renewed hearing date. Those costs – and the need to recall events which are now even older – lead inevitably to dissatisfaction.” 

He continued:

“Sadly, postponements seem to be an inevitable part of the tribunal system. The alternative would be listing cases to be heard, with a guarantee that each case will be heard on the scheduled date. Doing that would lead to significant delays in getting cases to a hearing or significantly increasing tribunal resources, with the inevitable result that tribunals will incur costs without any tangible benefit and sit idle.”

Chair of ELA’s tribunal resources working party and Head of Employment at UK firm Kingsley Napley - Richard Fox - stated that reports had been received of delays of 'many weeks and in some cases, even months’, before tribunals dealt with claims. He added that many employment judges are dealing with the administration themselves – which includes typing up their own orders and directly distributing them to the involved parties and lawyers had been informed that it may take a year before there are appreciably more judges in place.  

He said:

“Our findings are deeply worrying. Tribunals are plainly under intense strain at the moment. Some of these issues are down to a lack of judicial resource; others to the lack of support at an administrative level. What is particularly concerning is that we are still far short of the number of claims being brought before the tribunal fees were introduced in the summer of 2013. So, in all likelihood, the pressures on the system are only going to get worse before they get better.”

 Croner's Associate Director - Paul Holcroft – said:

“The tribunal process can be distressing for all parties and postponements will only add to the distress felt – something which will be even more heightened when the postponement occurs so close to the hearing date.”  

He added:

“Although some postponements can be completely unforeseen – for example, those relating to adverse weather or hearing centre facilities – the lack of judicial resources must be a huge contributory factor and the quicker this problem is fixed, the better.”

In June, the Judicial Appointments Commission finished a recruitment drive for 54 salaried employment tribunal judges and Judge Brian Doyle has forecast that offers for positions will be made in January 2019.

The UK Employer Skills Survey - undertaken by IFF Research for the Department for Education - and involving 87,000 employers, found that 2.5 million UK workers are overqualified for their jobs. This is an increase of 8.7 per cent of the workforce.

It was also found that 35 per cent of employers were employing staff that were not being used to the best of their ability, due to either not being fully trained or for being overqualified for the job they were holding. This is an increase from 2015 when just 30 per cent of businesses said they had employees who were being underutilised and the equivalent of 7.1 per cent of the workforce was identified as being overqualified.

Many graduates are finding themselves working in jobs that would - in previous generations - have been filled by non-graduates and comparisons across Europe have suggested that this is a particular problem for the UK, with 58.8 per cent of graduates working in jobs that could have been filled by non-graduates.

However, 13 per cent of the employers surveyed stated that they had skill gaps in their workforce and 4.4 per cent were found to be lacking the expertise required to fulfill their role.  This was an improvement from 2015 when 5 per cent of the workforce was found to be lacking the appropriate knowledge needed to carry out their work competently.

Duncan Brown, Head of HR consulting at the Institute for Employment Studies – stated:

“Employers need to invest more in training and the right sort of training - and HR functions need to do a better job in evidencing the business case for this and showing that such investments pay off, particularly in SMEs.”

He added:

“We need to continue to improve relationships between employers and education providers, strengthen careers guidance services and do more to encourage lifelong learning.”

The Taylor Review of Modern Working Practices - published in July 2017 -recognised that, going forward, there was a deficiency in jobs which match the UKs talent profile as a key labour market.

The report drew attention to the fact that the proportion of graduates working in low-skilled employment had increased from 5.3 per cent in 2008 to 8.1 per cent in 2016.

However, a report published by the Open University last month found that 91 per cent of all businesses had found it difficult to find skilled staff in the last year - with skills shortages costing companies £6.3bn annually in recruitment fees; inflated salaries; hiring temporary staff and training workers.

According to research carried out by Barnett Waddingham – a UK independent provider of actuarial, administration and consultancy services – final salary pension deficits of the top 350 UK companies has been almost halved from £62bn to £35bn by the end of June. This is the third year in a row that deficit contributions have increased.

Now, the scheme shortfalls account for just 17 percent of total profits, which 18 months ago were showing a shortfall of 70 percent.  The research showed that part of the reduction was due to companies contributing more to their schemes – but Barnett Waddingham also observed that it was related to better performance of investment portfolios.

Nick Griggs - Partner at Barnett Waddingham – advised:

“With the health of the UK and global economy threatened by a lack of progress with Brexit and the threat of a trade war from Trump’s America First assault, there could a major impact on the size of pension deficits and the ability of FTSE 350 companies to pay the contributions needed to clear these. Companies should ensure they are comfortable with the level of investment risk being taken by their DB schemes and that the appropriate controls are in place to manage these risks.”

Recently, the collapse of British Home Stores and Carrillion – who both had large funding gaps in their schemes – highlighted the problems with DB pensions.  Lesley Titcomb, Chief Executive of the Pensions Regulator, wrote to the Work and Pensions Select Committee stating that the average length of recovery for those DB plans which were in deficit, was 7 years. However, 20 per cent of schemes have a recovery plan of 10 years or longer and 5 per cent of schemes have a recovery plan of 16 years or longer.

Steve Webb - Director of policy at Royal London – stated:

“While some firms are in a much stronger place and some schemes are now in surplus, there will be others with a toxic combination of a weak employer covenant and an underfunded scheme.”

He added:

“The overall trend is very much in the right direction but it is too soon to be popping the champagne corks.”

Barnett Waddingham’s Nick Griggs said:

“The majority of companies ended 2017 with their DB scheme in a healthier state than the previous year. While this is positive news, it would not take much to tip the balance the other way. Our analysis suggests that a 0.5 percent fall in bond yields in 2017 would have pushed the aggregate deficit of the FTSE350 DB schemes up to £85bn.”

Currently, the government is considering what steps it could take to make DB pension schemes more secure.  A white paper has been published by the department of work and pensions outlining possible crackdowns on bosses who mismanage final salary schemes and the government is considering whether the Pensions Regulator should be given greater powers. 

An online survey on how companies retain top talent was developed by Robert Half - a large specialized staffing firm - and conducted by a leading independent research firm.  It included responses from more than 5,500 decision makers across a variety of professional fields in the US.  

When asked if they ever extend counteroffers to employees to keep them from leaving for another job, 58% of the respondents replied that they did, whilst 42% stated that they did not.  The respondents included senior managers in finance and accounting; technology; legal departments; advertising and marketing and human resources.

It was found that many employers did not want to upset employee morale or to go through the lengthy hiring process to replace the departing employee and their only option appeared to be to make a counteroffer.  However, the study found that this solution was only temporary as, on average, employees who accept counteroffers only remained with their company for 1.7 years. 

Paul McDonald - Senior Executive Director for Robert Half – stated:

"Counteroffers are typically a knee-jerk reaction to broader staffing issues. While they may seem like a quick fix for employers, the solution is often temporary. When employees accept a counteroffer, they will likely quit soon afterward."

He advised professionals not to accept these offers and added:

"Money doesn't solve everything. If you accept a counteroffer, your employer may question your loyalty to the company. And, more importantly, the root causes of why you were looking to leave in the first place may still exist."

Ladders - a job board specializing in six-figure positions - confirmed that offering money to solve retention problems does not bring the right result, as only 30% of employees questioned for their research stated that money was their reason for leaving.

Of the employees surveyed by Ladders, 94% said they would take their dream job right away; 31% would take a pay cut for their dream job; 67% would change jobs immediately – even if it was not for their ideal job – and 23% would take a position with a higher title in preference to a raise in money.

Paul McDonald suggested that employers conduct stay interviews to get a sense of who is not happy and why, stating that these interviews will establish trust between the managers and employees - which would help identify problem areas in the organization before they become deal breakers.

As a result of a freedom for information request, new data has revealed that significant complaints were received by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) alleging employers had been inducing employees to opt out of pension schemes during the following time periods: 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014; 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015; 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017; 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018.

Ninety nine cases - which primarily relate to employers inducing employees to opt out of pensions - and a further 15 cases which do relate to inducement, were found.  Twelve cases were found during the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016; thirty eight cases between 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 and sixty four cases between1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 – an increase of 68%.

As it is an offence for employers to attempt to induce an employee who is eligible to be enrolled into a workplace pension to opt out - regardless of whether that inducement is successful or not - this has resulted in the watchdog being called upon to penalise the wrongdoers.

Senior performance and reward adviser at the CIPD - Charles Cotton - said;

“This can have a detrimental impact on what kind of retirement these individuals will enjoy, as well as undercutting those organisations complying with the regulations. Law-abiding firms will want to see those companies deliberately flouting the law pursued by TPR and punished.”

Steve Webb - Director of Policy at Royal London - said that 114 reports was a small amount compared to the total number of employees who had been auto-enrolled and stayed in a scheme but nevertheless, it was a worry.

He stated:

“The very low opt-out rate that we are continuing to see suggests that there is unlikely to be a general problem with employers actively encouraging opt-outs.” 

He then added:

“But it is important not to be complacent and a clear signal needs to be sent that membership of a workplace pension is a valuable employment right and that employers should not be seeking to put pressure on their staff to give up that right.”

A spokesperson from The Pensions Regulator said:

“The number of whistleblowing reports we have received must be taken in the context that more than 1.3m employers have completed their declaration of compliance – almost all of them in the last three years – as automatic enrolment has expanded. Nevertheless, we would encourage any workers who are not being given the pensions they are entitled to or who believe their employers are committing pension offences to contact us and we will investigate...We will take action against employers who fail to comply with it.”

In the meantime, data released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that 44% of employees felt their employer’s workplace pension scheme was the safest way to save for retirement – but the research also revealed that many were not aware of auto-enrolment. Ninety one per cent of those eligible for auto-enrolment thought they had not yet been enrolled into a scheme when, in fact, they had been.

Recent research has found that HR has the power to improve employee wellbeing - provided it gets line manager support. 

The research - Developmental HRM, employee well-being and performance: The moderating role of developing leadership - was conducted by by IÉSEG School of Management and researched the effect of HR practices on wellbeing and performance.  

The study examines the link between developmental human resource practices and employee task performance and includes both happiness and health related effects - such as exhaustion.

Seven organisations - 403 employees and 53 line managers - were questioned and the conclusion was that manager commitment carried a heavy influence.

The lead researcher, Professor Elise Marescaux of IÉSEG, said:

“Overall, we found that developmental HR practices increase employee wellbeing. When an organisation offers more training and self-development options, employees feel more committed and are less exhausted. But we also find that supervisors play a key role in ensuring the success of HR processes.”

The data obtained by the researchers show that distinct emerging HR practices influence the well‐being and employee performance differently and suggests that the leadership behaviour of line managers has an influence on the way in which HR practices affect employees.

However, Dr Charmi Patel, Professor of International and Strategic HRM and Organisational Behaviour at Henley Business School, said:

“Middle managers are very important, despite not necessarily being involved with HR. Every line manager should have training in people management practice, which people often confuse with back office HR.”  

She added:

 “Rather than saying line managers need to be up skilled in HR work, organisations should be promoting general people management training.” 

Skills policy advisor at the CIPD, Elizabeth Crowley, commented:

“Line managers are critical in ensuring policy is effectively implemented, but it’s also important that employees themselves are aware of the learning and development offers available to them, and are confident in having conversations with their line managers regarding their development needs and progression opportunities.  HR devises learning and development strategy, and line managers should be equipped to implement these opportunities, but enabling employees to have those conversations is equally important.” 

 Adding:

“We don’t invest in line managers in the UK to the extent that other countries do, and many receive no training at all, so it’s important to address that. Much of the time this can be achieved through short, bespoke blended learning opportunities around mentoring, coaching and performance, and having difficult conversations, enabling people to have those conversations and dealing with difficult employees.” 

In the meantime, BSI - the business standards company - has launched a new code of practice for organisations to help tackle a crisis in the mental health and wellbeing of Britain’s workforce.

The code of practice - PAS 3002 - provides recommendations for establishing, promoting, maintaining and reviewing the health and wellbeing of workers within organisations. It reflects on how health and wellbeing should be incorporated into the working environment and how leadership can ensure health and wellbeing related services are available to employees.

The document recommends capitalisation on diversity and inclusion as an organisational strength and proactive support for the physical and psychological health and wellbeing of workers.  In addition, a work culture that offers strong, ethical relationships, a collaborative and communicative management style, and an organisational culture in which learning and development are encouraged should be engaged; jobs designed so that they offer meaningful work and good people management policies and practices should be supported.

Anne Hayes, Head of Governance and Resilience at BSI, said:

“Health and wellbeing should be everyone’s concern within an organization. Increasingly, organizations are being asked to meet their responsibilities in relation to health and wellbeing in order to provide healthy workplaces and to protect people from harm. Enhancing employee wellbeing and engagement is at heart of this code of practice, and PAS 3002 provides guidance for organizations to provide early intervention to help prevent people being absent for health reasons and to use the workplace to promote individual health and wellbeing.”

According to TUC analysis, 2.2 million employees are not getting the minimum paid leave entitlement they are due, with 1.2 million not getting any paid leave at all.

This has been attributed to one in 12 UK workers bearing unrealistic workloads, holiday requests being denied by employers, or employers not keeping up to date with the law. Employees are entitled to a statutory annual minimum of 28 days paid leave.

It was shown that 9.2% of female workers and 7.2% of male workers were affected, resulting in nearly £3 billion worth of paid leave being lost each year.

The TUC stated that HM Revenue and Customs should be given new powers to clamp down on employers who deny staff their statutory entitlement and went on to say that minimum holiday entitlements are vital to reducing overwork, stressing that working excessive hours can severely affect an employee’s health.

TUC general secretary - Frances O'Grady - said:

"We're now in peak holiday season, but while many workers are away enjoying time off with friends and family, millions are missing out. And that puts them at risk of burnout. Employers have no excuse for robbing staff of their well-earned leave. UK workers put in billions of hours of unpaid overtime as it is. The Government must toughen up enforcement to stop bosses cheating staff out of their leave."

Adrian Crawford - a partner at law firm Kingsley Napley - stated that it had not been made clear whether employees are being denied leave or are choosing not to take it. 

He said:

“The suggestion that there are employers who are manipulating the system seems difficult to believe, so there needs to be further analysis in that respect. It’s certainly possible for employers to get things wrong. Education plays a really important role here, and a lot of smaller businesses who might not have strong HR departments might not fully understand the law. 

He added:

 “Annual leave is a health and safety issue; we know that taking time off is important in terms of staying healthy. Forcing companies to pay compensation over missed leave seems retrograde, and as we often see with millionaires, having more money will not make you happier.”

An employment lawyer at Howes Percival - Simon de Maid - stated:

“Some employers may get caught out by issuing old contracts that do not have the correct number of minimum days of annual paid leave. They can also slip up with self-employed and casual workers where there’s an assumption that because they’re not employees they’re not entitled to leave. This isn’t a case of unscrupulous employers, it’s much more likely that people just haven’t kept up to date with the law,”  adding that HR and line managers play an important role in making sure workers take their leave entitlement. 

He advised:

“Have appropriate procedures in place, communicate with employees, and keep track of who is taking leave, when they’re taking it, and how much. Taking annual leave is really important for employees' mental health, and if someone isn’t taking it there could be an underlying reason for that. It could be that they’re afraid they’re under-performing, that they’re stressed, or that they don’t want to lose out on income. Employers need to monitor leave and work on the underlying causes to address the problem."

A new report found that nearly four in ten American adults don't have a job and are not looking for one.

President Donald Trump alleged – in his election-season – that America’s unemployment rate did not tell the whole story and is ‘one of the biggest hoaxes in modern politics’.  He claimed that the real unemployment rate could actually be 40 percent higher.

Anyone without a job and who has been actively seeking work in the last four weeks is considered, by the government, to be unemployed.  Slipping through the cracks are those who have simply given up trying to get back into the labor force.

A new study by Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project, takes a closer look at the more than ninety-four million Americans not counted in the labor force.  In this analysis, the following questions were explored.  Of the approximately twenty four million men and women of working age who were not in the labour force in 2016:

• What are the reasons given for not working or seeking work?
• With whom are these persons living?
• How are they making ends meet?

The findings were that women with a high school education or less are overwhelmingly the largest group out of the labor force.  Excluding the care givers - who make up approximately forty percent - men and women give the same reasons for not belonging to the labor force.  Almost thirty per cent report being ill or disabled; eight percent are students and five percent have retired early.

Male and female nonparticipants were found to have different living arrangements, with females living with a spouse or partner and males living with parents.  Almost seventy five percent of these live in a household with earned income and only eleven percent report claiming income from a safety net when they are not receiving earned income.  More than 1.3 million Americans who are not in the labor force report having no income at all.   Forty five percent of households with a male prime-age nonparticipant and twenty eight percent with a female prime-age nonparticipant are in the bottom income group.

Researchers also found that more women than men sat on the sidelines in every educational subgroup, despite the fact that more women hold advanced degrees than men.

The report said, "Interestingly, the gender ratios among nonparticipants become more imbalanced as education increases. Among nonparticipants with a high school degree or less, there are nearly 2 women for every man; at the bachelor's degree level, three-and-a-half times as many women as men are nonparticipants."

Roughly 13 percent were not in any of the categories but had worked in some capacity over the course of the past year.

"Labor force participation is the key channel through which Americans contribute to and benefit from their economy, making it vital that we understand who is left out of the labor force," the report said. "Economic growth and broad sharing in that growth are both enhanced when the labor market makes the best possible use of workers' talents."

A survey by CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) and the Adecco Group - of more than 1,000 employers has identified that hiring demand remains strong, whilst unemployment is at a record low.  This is in comparison with a May 2017 report and it suggests that UK employment will grow strongly in the third quarter of 2017.  However, wage growth is likely to remain weak and basic pay award expectations for the next 12 months remain at just 1%.

The quarter’s net employment balance – which is a measure of the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staffing levels and those who expect to decrease them – shows an increase from +20 to +27 during the past three months.

The restraint on the basic pay award outlook can be put down to various reasons. 

Gerwyn Davies, Senior Labour Market Analyst for the CIPD said:

“Predictions of pay growth increasing alongside strong employment growth is the dog that hasn’t barked for some time now, and we are still yet to see tangible signs of this situation changing in the near-term. The facts remain that productivity levels are stagnant; public sector pay increases remain modest while wage costs and uncertainty over access to the EU market have increased for some employers. At the same time, it is also clear that the majority of employers have still been able to find suitable candidates to employ at current wage rates due to a strong labour supply until now. The good news is that the UK labour market continues to go from strength to strength. This is particularly good news for jobseekers, especially the long-term unemployed, who have recently been able to move into work more quickly than in the past. We believe therefore that the Bank of England was right to give more weight to the prospects for pay and productivity than to the rise in employment in their recent interest rate decision. Against the backdrop of future migration restrictions and a tight labour market, the need for a workforce development plan is greater than ever.”   

In the private sector, 23% of firms quote that delivering the National Living Wage is a brake on pay growth; 21% cite uncertainty over access to the single market and 21% suggest the Government’s auto-enrolment pension’s scheme is acting as a challenge. Another 21% of firms report that affordability is keeping down pay - which underlines the urgent need to address the weak productivity growth in the UK.  In the meantime, around three quarters of public sector employers state that restraint in the public sector is the main reason why they cannot complement the inflation rate target of 2% in their next basic pay award.

Research by the CIPD also indicates that employee pay expectations are weaker this year compared with last year.  This may suggest that employers are not coming under any additional pressure to raise pay from workers, despite the low unemployment rate.

In retrospect, the standard for all basic pay decisions taken in the first six months of 2017 is 1.5%. This may mean that employers have become more negative about basic pay growth over the past six months due to a slowing economy. 

Alex Fleming, President of General Staffing at the Adecco Group UK remarked:

“This quarter’s report demonstrates strong and stable employment intentions. These have remained in a positive range for the last two years during which time we have seen unemployment consistently fall. Context is important here though: employers continuing to hire isn’t, necessarily, an indication that they are convinced of a bright economic future, rather that nothing significant has changed in recent months. Many employers are getting on with the day-to-day hiring required to keep their businesses ticking along until they have enough information to build concrete recruitment plans. Overall, our labour market picture looks promising especially considering the unknown future impact of Brexit on the flow of talent in and out of the UK. Strong labour supply is a key contributor: the long-term unemployed are finding work more quickly and the amount of workers aged 50-64 who are in employment has risen by around 200,000 during the past year. However continued subdued wage growth that the labour market is currently facing is a real issue that employers need to tackle head on. Employers must to invest in staff to increase productivity, thus in-turn providing them with the opportunity to increase wage growth.” 

Although the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has revealed that the number of people at retirement age in the UK who now receive a private pension income has almost doubled, The People’s Pension (TPP) has reported that retiring fully and relying solely on a pension is no longer an option for the majority.

Whilst almost 80% of retirees received a private pension last year, 52% of 4,000 expectant retirees polled believe that their financial situation will not support the lifestyle they would want in retirement. To supplement their pensions, 39% said they would have to continue to work on a part time basis, with 24% stating they will rely on inherited wealth.

Darren Philp, who is Director of Policy and Market Engagement for The People’s Pension stated:

“This research confirms that the concept of a “carriage clock” retirement, whereby people completely stop work and rely on their pension savings is consigned to history. Instead, people appear to be planning for a phased retirement, where they may choose to work part-time, or surviving on uncertain funding sources such as an inheritance or property. Most worryingly, these “precarious pensioners” are not solely the generations of the future but include those over 55, many of whom may be unprepared financially for imminent retirement.”

Even though state pension income has almost doubled in the last 40 years, the ONS disclosed that over half of the increase in gross income for average retirees is a result of an increase in income from private pensions. Retired households with private pensions had 60% more income than those relying on a state pension.

At the end of 2016, whilst the average income for a retired household was less than the average income for a non-retired household, data does however show that it has grown at a faster rate than the average non-retired household over the last 40 years.

Steve Webb, Director of Policy at Royal London said:

"In previous generations being elderly was a by-word for being poor. That has changed dramatically in the last 40 years with pensioner incomes nearly trebling whilst the incomes of the working age population rose much more slowly.”

Experts believe that while automatic enrollment will go a long way to improving retirement outcomes in the UK, the minimum contributions still won’t be sufficient. Workers will need to build up their pensions from the earliest possible age and at a faster rate than at present.

An important decision by the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) regarding holiday pay for employees who regularly work voluntary overtime beyond their contracted hours, could have massive implications for UK businesses.

The EAT recently heard a case concerning Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willetts (and others) where they upheld a previously made decision that voluntary overtime worked for a sufficient period of time on a regular and/or recurring basis should be included in the first four weeks’ paid holiday.

Holiday pay claims had been brought against the Council by a group of 56 employees responsible for the repair and maintenance of council houses.   These employees normally worked 37 hours per week but once in every four or five weeks, they were on an ‘on call’ register and they worked additional voluntary hours. However, these voluntary payments had been excluded from their holiday pay and the workers argument was that this was contrary to the Working Time Regulations 1988 (WTRs).

When their initial claim was successful, Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council appealed to the EAT.  On upholding the earlier decision, the EAT referred to previous ECJ decisions which had stressed that all workers should receive their ‘normal remuneration’ when they take a holiday.  They should not be discouraged from implementing their right to take paid annual leave – and any decrease in their salary is presumed to be a deterrent.

The case was sent back to the Tribunal to determine whether or not Mr Willett and his co-workers had been underpaid their holiday pay.

Glenn Hayes of Irwin Mitchell stated, “This decision is extremely important and it is the first occasion the EAT has heard cases relating to purely voluntary overtime. Many businesses have adopted a ‘wait and see’ approach to voluntary overtime but this option is no longer possible and overtime that is worked regularly, must now be included in holiday pay.

“Not all voluntary overtime will have to be included but the EAT made it clear that overtime that ‘extends for a sufficient period of time on a regular or recurring basis’ will.

“There is no statutory definition of what amounts to ‘normal pay’ and Tribunals will continue to hear arguments about whether overtime, of whatever nature, has become part of an employee’s normal pay.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the United States economy produced 209,000 jobs in July.  This meant that the unemployment rate was down to 4.3 percent in July – beating all expectations from economists.

Jed Kolko, chief economist for job search engine Indeed said, "This was a banner jobs report. Job growth in the past three months is ahead of the 2016 pace and way ahead of what's needed to keep up with population growth. Working-age adults are now more likely to be employed than at any time since the recession."

Since a peak of 10% in 2009, the unemployment rate has been steadily falling.  In July, the unemployment rates were 4% for adult men and women, 13.2% for teenagers 3.8% for Asians, 7.4% for blacks and 3.8% for whites – all showing little or no change,  However, the unemployment rate for Hispanics was up to 5.1% from 4.8%.  Long term unemployed rose slightly to 1.8 million – 25.9% of the total unemployed.

According to the BLS, some unemployed people – although out of work and available for work – were not actively seeking a job as they believe there are none available for them. Others did not seek work due to family responsibilities.

Jed Kolko stated, "Today's low unemployment rate masks some reasons for concern.  Today's unemployed are more than twice as likely to be out of work for more than six months as the unemployed in April 2001. They're also more likely to be underemployed, as measured by the broader U-6 unemployment rate. Finally, a larger share of prime-working-age adults is not employed today versus April 2001 because they're out of the labor force.”

President Trump has tweeted encouragement to those who have given up looking for a job altogether, to start trying again to join the labor force.  He promised that he will continue to roll back "stifling regulations" that hurt jobs.

Cathy Barrera - the chief economic adviser for the online jobs platform ZipRecruiter – had been worried about younger workers falling behind since the recovery from the recession.  However, she stated, "……. we're starting to see a trend for that particular group with modest rises in labor force participation and downward ticks in unemployment.  We're seeing more jobs that don't require a college degree get posted. As more jobs become available for them, we could see their labor force participation return to pre-recession levels."

In July, food services gained 53,000 jobs; professional and business services gained 49,000 jobs and health care gained 39,000 jobs.  Employment in other major industries, including construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; information; financial activities and government showed little change over the month.

Jed Kolko pointed out that "The fastest job growth in July was in lower-wage industries. That's helping the least-educated Americans get back to work. The recovery is now strong and long enough to lift many of the people hurt most by the recession—except in manufacturing, which continues to lag overall jobs growth."

Wage growth remains sluggish - with average hourly earnings for all private-sector workers rising by 9 cents in July to $26.36. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 65 cents, or 2.5 percent.

Cathy Barrera observed, "While we're still mystified by the muted wage growth, wages among the lower 25th percentile is growing a lot faster than those who are at the top 75th percentile.  This is one indication that the job market for younger workers and/or workers without college degrees may be heating up, which is great news because this is the group that has not seen as full a recovery as everyone else."

The Taylor Review into modern working practices has recently been published, with Matthew Taylor - and his colleagues on the Taylor Review, writing: “The starting point for our review has been the strength of our labour market and of the key features of our system of employment regulation, what we refer to as the British way.  Record levels of employment, low levels of unemployment, high levels of voluntary flexibility, wages now growing fastest amongst the lowest paid; these facts provide a very positive backdrop – one that would be envied in many other advanced economies – for our consideration of how to improve the quality of work.”

Peter Cheese, Chief Executive of the CIPD (the professional body for HR and people development) commented on the publication, saying, “The Taylor Review has the potential to change how we look at the future of work, which is about quality of work and not simply quantity. Translating the ambition into practice has an added importance given some of the additional challenges we face in the UK, from access to skills to labour market regulation post Brexit.” 

Some proposals suggested in the report include ‘a new role for the Low Pay Commission exploring how to improve quality and progression in sectors with a high proportion of low paid workers; a national framework for employability skills so we can develop the kind of transferable capabilities that can be acquired in formal education and also informal and on the job learning; recognising and supporting the role that employers can play in promoting health and wellbeing at work and making it much easier for employees to access rights to independent representation, information and consultation.’

It further read...‘to increase clarity for business and workers we propose primary legislation to define the boundary between self-employment and worker status; moving towards aligning the categories used in tax regulation and employment regulation and that the employment status boundary should be defined - as is the tax boundary - in terms of the level of control and supervision experienced by individuals.’

Peter Cheese declared, “We have been calling for greater clarity over workers’ rights for a long time, and therefore welcome the main thrust of the recommendations to ensure fairer treatment for gig economy workers without losing the flexibility which we know many of them value. We also support the proposals to clarify people’s employment status and rights and back plans to require employers to provide details of terms and conditions of employment to workers as well as employees.”

He also commented, “While we welcome the proposals for a stronger test of supervisory relationships in order to ensure workers get the benefits they are entitled to, we need to ensure that the framework for enforcing this is practical, otherwise we risk discouraging employers from providing flexible roles and opportunities that many people benefit from.” 

Peter Cheese added, “Crucially, Taylor stresses that the best way to improve the quality of work is through effective corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations within organisations and flags the need to boost productivity and job quality through working more closely with low pay employers and sectors. It is vital the Government develops these ideas as part of industrial strategy to ensure that the Taylor Review has lasting impact on work quality in the UK.”

The Department of Labor has asked if employing multiple salary levels for white-collar overtime exemptions is a good idea and in its request for information (RFI) on July 25, it suggested more complex alternatives to the Obama administration rule - which has been blocked.  This included adjusting the levels according to different costs of living in different states. 

It added that gathering public input on the following questions will aid in the development of a notice of proposed rulemaking:

• Should the regulations contain multiple standard salary levels?  If so, how should these levels be set - by size of employer; census region; census division; state; metropolitan statistical area or some other method
• Should there be multiple total annual compensation levels for the highly compensated employee exemption
• Would updating the 2004 salary level for inflation be appropriate and, if so, what measure of inflation should be used
• Should the standard salary level and the highly compensated employee total annual compensation level be automatically updated on a periodic basis

Alexander Passantino, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw and former acting administrator of the DOL's Wage and Hour Division said, "Employing a cost-of-living-based salary test certainly would address a number of the concerns raised by employers in the previous go-round.  "A salary level that works for New York [City] or D.C. does not necessarily work for the rural South. Because of the way the duties test works in connection with the salary, however, the reverse is not necessarily true. The salary is a screening mechanism; if it is low enough to ensure we are not inappropriately screening out exempt employees in the rural South, it likewise serves that function in New York City."

The attorney went on to say that the DOL will have difficulty implementing different salary levels due to the fact that it will be hard to establish exactly where an employee works.      He added, "Imagine a company incorporated in Delaware with headquarters in New York; a regional office in Denver; a field supervisor working out of his home in Santa Fe who services a district covering El Paso, Texas, to Phoenix.  Then imagine he spends half his time in the Denver office and half his time working out of his home. The DOL would need to provide guidance on how to apply the proper salary level, which would be much more challenging for the department than setting one standard salary level. The multiple standard salary levels are "a great idea in principle—somewhat difficult in application."

Alfred Robinson Jr – an attorney in Washington D.C. and former acting administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, commented on the multiple standard levels by stating it ".......could result in some positions and employees being classified differently in different regions of the country even though they perform the same job duties."

Conversely, Jeffrey Brecher - an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Melville, N.Y. – said, "One of the criticisms of the original final rule was that it established a salary level that more than doubled the prior salary level and took no consideration for differences in salary levels among geographic areas. So setting a standard salary level that makes adjustments based on geographic location makes sense. Employers are used to variations in salary levels at the state-law level, so this is something the DOL will likely give serious consideration."

Speaking at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado on 19th July, John Kelly, US Homeland Security Secretary, discussed the decision taken earlier this year to allow personal electronic devices (PED’s) to be checked into baggage placed in aircraft holds, despite them being considered a risk in the passenger cabin.

Since March of this year until the end of June when they were eventually lifted, new security measures had been implemented which meant that passengers on US-bound services from some airports were forbidden from taking large electronic devices into the cabin. The ban affected 180 airlines and 280 airports globally.

However in June, DHS announced the lifting of the ban and issued a statement which read; “These airports and airlines have successfully implemented the first phase of enhanced security measures. There are currently no airlines under restrictions for large personal electronic devices. Airlines worldwide have implemented additional security measures that ultimately make the global aviation community more secure.”

The US government lifted the laptop ban as concern about the safety of PED’s in checked baggage heightened.  Counterterrorism analysts were puzzled as the same explosive detection technology is used for both hand and checked baggage and testing by FAA’s Fire Safety Branch  showed that PED’s packed in suitcases in the cargo hold could have serious consequences to aircraft.

At the security forum this month, Kelly detailed the reasoning behind the sanctions, stating that on his appointment to the position in January, he was informed that there was a very sophisticated threat.

"It was not only sophisticated but it was real, and it was targeted at certain airports," he said.

Just as importantly however, Kelly also learned that remote detonation of the device was not a possibility and direct access would have been required – hence allowing the PED’s to be placed into the hold.

Although the ban has now been lifted, Kelly insisted that there has been "no compromise" and security measures have been enhanced. He stated, "I am reasonably confident that we can detect the devices, given all of the things that we are requiring people to [do]," he says.

Human resource experts were asked to weigh in on an issue brought to light by a recent employment law case. What happens when an employee is out on job-protected leave and the company realizes business is fine without the duties this employee performs? Furthermore, what happens if the business realizes during this time that it may not be worth the 40-hour work week they pay for?

Although federal employment law typically requires an employee be reinstated at the end of a medical leave, many organizations do not know they have options under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer actually has entitlement when it comes to changing an employee’s full-time status if it is discovered the duties did not require this kind of schedule.

In Mendoza v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, No. 14-55651 the court had to review ADA claims filed by Alice Mendoza. She was a bookkeeper for the church and took 10 months of leave for a disability. During this time, the pastor took over her duties. He decided after performing her job duties that this job didn’t require a full-time employee. When Mendoza’s leave was over she returned to work only find that her full-time position had been changed to a part-time position. At this point Mendoza declined the position and filed suit.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgement to the employer because Mendoza was unable to dispute the church’s legit and nondiscriminatory reason for reducing her hours. Mendoza appealed but the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s ruling.

HR experts are urging companies, however, to note that this decision might only actually apply when the ADA is implicated without the Family and Medical Leave Act. When FMLA is involved, things typically play out much differently.

Mercer’s Pensions Risk Survey data shows the accounting deficit of defined benefit pension schemes for the UK’s 350 largest listed companies increased by £20 billion in less than one month.

At the end of last month, asset values showed a £23 billion increase when compared to the end of June, whilst liability values also showed a fairly sizeable increase. Human resource experts said that pension liabilities have reached an all-time high when analysing Mercer monthly deficit data.

One senior partner in Mercer’s Retirement business said the continued fall in high quality corporate bond yields meant an increase in liability values.

HR experts also explain that the vote for Brexit is obviously playing a factor. Depending on a person’s investment strategy and the nature of a sponsor’s business, some people will be more affected than others.

It is recommended that pension holders work through a series of scenarios and situations that might happen. These can be ranked in order of likelihood, which will then help identify threats and opportunities.

The Mercer data relates to about half of the all UK scheme liabilities. The survey’s underlying data is refreshed as companies report their year-end accounts. It is also important to note, data released by the Pensions Regulator tells a very similar story to the Mercer data.

The Department for Work & Pensions recently released data that shows over one million people 65-years-old and up were employed in the UK last year, approximately double the figure from 2004.

The data shows that more than one in 10 of those people were working full or part time last year. These government stats also revealed 69% of those aged 50-64 were in work, the highest number on record. This news comes just four years after the abolition of the default retirement age.

Human resource experts have been chiming in singing the praises of age diversity in the workplace. There is research that actually proves this kind of diversity increases productivity.

Of course a mixed workforce poses different issues for management and business owners. HR experts suggest management and authorities be trained on recognising generational differences. When you have five different generations working together at the same time, differences and conflict are bound to present themselves.

Former pensions minister Baroness Altmann reacted to these figures saying it is a “social revolution”. On the flip side, Age UK is afraid that this might not be such a positive thing. There is fear that many people are delaying retirement because they cannot afford to do so.

Whilst there is no support for these statements, the government has said that it is committed to supporting older workers.

An increased number of small to midsize companies are opting to self-insure their employee health plans, partly to avoid the coverage mandates and costs imposed by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Of course, there isn’t data that conclusively demonstrates the ACA is the sole reason for the shift, but findings do support it is a big driver. Employer-sponsored health plans are categorized into two different groups – fully insured plans and self-insured plans.

Fully insured plans mean employers pay premiums to an insurance company, which in turn pays health care providers for enrollees’ claims based on the outlined benefits in the plan.

Self-insured plans mean employers keep the plan premiums and pay the actual cost of the claims. An insurance company is contracted to process claims and provide admin services. Employers who opt for this type of insurance typically purchase a separate stop-loss policy from an insurance company to help cover very large claims.

Between 1996 and 2015 the percentage of United States private sector employers offering at least one self-insurance health plan massively increased to 39%.

Overall, HR experts explain that when it comes to self-insurance many companies will save money most of the time, but lose money in scattered years when some employees suffer any kind of major illness. Some companies will find this type of self-insurance advantageous in the long run, but not all.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have proposed to move the deadline for employers to submit the EEO-1 survey from September 2017 to March 2018, as part of a new proposal to collect pay data via the Employer Information Report (EEO-1).

As per the EEOC’s announcement, employers will have until August 15, 2016 to submit any written comments on the revised proposal, which should simplify reporting.  The change will allow employers to use existing W-2 pay reports, which are calculated based on calendar year.

On January 29, an EEOC announcement revealed the agency was proposing to use the EEO-1 survey in order to collect summary pay data from employers with 100+ employees, including federal contractors.  The due date switch came about as a result of comments the agency received after the announcement.

The EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs want to collect pay data to help in the fight against pay discrimination.  Currently the EEO-1 survey requires employers to provide demographic data, but the revision would require employers to report on other things like hours worked and pay ranges.  

Research from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce revealed out of 11.6 million jobs created in the post-recession economy, 11.5 million went to workers with at least some college education.

The report titled, “America’s Divided Recovery: College Have and Have Nots” revealed half of the jobs went to workers who held a bachelor’s degree or higher. Director of the Georgetown Center and lead author of the report explained that today’s society continues to “leave Americans without a college education behind.” He goes on to explain that over the course of the last few decades this split between the educated and non-educated has continued to grow.

This year, for the very first time, workers with a bachelor’s degree or higher are a larger proportion of the workforce than those with a high school diploma or less. HR experts explain that major drivers of change in the labor market are occupational and industry shifts. Production industries do not employ as many workers as they once did. On the flip side, healthcare, business and government services are accounting for a higher proportion of the workforce than ever before.

While it seems we have officially recovered from the recession and jobs are steadily coming back, not all new jobs are replacing jobs that were once lost. Many jobs that were lost during the recession included blue collar and clerical jobs, but human resource experts are reporting a surge of managerial and professional jobs. This further proves the change in the American workforce.

The EEOC have determined that Pallet Companies, doing business as IFCO Systems, should pay just over $200,000 to settle a case involving a gay employee at one of IFCO’s Baltimore facilities.

The employee, who will also be provided with other relief settlements, claimed she was repeatedly harassed by her supervisor due to her sexual orientation. According to the suit, her supervisor made numerous comments to her about her sexual orientation and appearance.

The EEOC charged that the supervisor did in fact make sexually suggestive gestures. IFCO retaliated against the female employee by firing her mere days after her official complaint was filed with upper management. She also placed a call into the employee hotline to report the harassment around this time.

At this point, the EEOC filed suit against IFCO in the US Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division.

In addition to the monetary payout, IFCO will have to:

• Retain an expert on sexual orientation, gender identity and transgender training to assist in developing a training program for management and employees;
• Redistribute equal employment opportunity policies to all employees in its north region;
• Give a letter of reference to all female employees;
• Post a notice about the settlement and report to EEOC on its compliance with the decree.

New research from Aegon UK says that young adults between 16 and 24 are the most unrealistic when it comes to their pension goals.  The report cites that this age group is hoping to retire with an average annual income of  £64,000 a year, which is almost six times the average income they are actually on track for. 

These 16 to 24 year-olds, according to the data, are hoping to retire at 63.  Unfortunately for them, Aegon UK broke down the numbers to determine if this is even really plausible.  In order to achieve a pension pot that would fund an annual income of £64,000, a 20-year-old aiming to retire at 68 would have to save £500/ month, assuming a 5% return.  In order to retire at 63, this number increases.  Realistically, over half of this age group doesn’t contribute any of their money currently to a pension pot at all.

HR experts chime in explaining that as people get older their retirement ambitions do tend to tail off, meaning their overall hopes and dreams for a certain income number become more realistic.

Oddly enough, although 16 to 24-year-olds are the most ambitious when it comes to their pensions, they are actually the least involved or engaged with their pension savings.  Approximately seventy percent of this age group has never done anything to review or affect plans for retirement.  Over half don’t even know whether they are eligible to be enrolled in a pension via their workplace.

The findings of this Aegon UK report, while not very pretty, are very realistic when it comes to the expectations of the youth.  If things don’t change for this age group, many people will fall short of the retirement income they want.

The primary principle of the Agency Workers Regulations 2010 is to protect the rights of temporary agency works and make sure they receive equal treatment in relation to their permanent employee peers.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010 actually implements the EU’s temporary agency worker directive 2008.  Under Article 6 of the directive, agency workers must be informed of any kind of internal vacancies at their job in order for them to receive the same opportunities as their full time counterparts.

Coles v Ministry of Defence (MoD), examined Article 6 and whether it gives temps an additional right to apply for internal vacancies on an equal footing with permanent workers.

The MoD employed a mixture of permanent and temporary workers in Wales.  Coles was a temporary agency worker who acted as a technical liaison officer.  When the MoD advised of internal vacancies, all workers could see the openings, but permanent employees in the redeployment pool were given priority.

At this point, Coles argued that this kind of prioritisation denied him the opportunity to apply for any job that he had held temporarily.  He further claimed that this was in fact a breach of Article 6 because he wasn’t given the same opportunity to find a permanent position as other permanent employees.

The employment tribunal disagreed with Cole and ruled against him but he appealed.  The EAT also agreed with the tribunal and dismissed Cole’s appeal.  It was found that although temporary agency workers do have multiple different rights relating to equal treatment, Article 6 only refers to providing information about vacancies.  What this Article does not do is prevent any kind of preferential treatment between permanent and temporary employees.

Human resource experts refer to this case as a useful clarification of the meaning of Article 6 and a great win for employers who abide by these rules and regulations.

The government is finally taking action to even out the playing field where the gender pay gap is concerned.  The recently issued consultation paper, ‘Closing the gender pay gap’ outlines plans to implement section 78 of the Equality Act 2010, which has been dormant for five years.

The new arrangements will effectively require any UK employers with 250 employees or more to report on their gender pay gap on a regular basis.  The paper outlines the request for a view into exactly how, when and where the reporting should occur.

Of course with any change come questions.  Some HR experts are already asking whether an employer should report on the overall pay gap figure, or whether that should be broken down by full and part-timers.  Human resources experts claim that in order to compare apples with apples, job grade and type should really be considered.  There are also questions about what will happen if a company doesn’t have a pay and grading system.

The suggestion from many HR professionals is that the implementation of the reporting should really be completed in phases.  For example, the recommendation is that larger employers should be given earlier compliance dates than smaller employers.

Once reporting commences, government officials assume that a gender pay gap will be present.  If this is the case, the real issue may be the gender talent gap.  It wouldn’t be fair to pay a woman with less experience or less certifications the same as a man who has more of both.

The Women’s Business Council issued a report this year identifying reasons for the current pay gap.  While it is noted by the Women’s Business Council and the government that the causes are “numerous and varied” one of the main culprits stems from women’s career decisions and the advice they receive.

The aim for the new reporting system, according to government officials, is really to shine light on each organisation’s gap.  There will not be any action or request for action unless there is meaningful data reported.

The definition of a disability has been expanded to the point where almost anything can be considered.  Unfortunately for one woman, even she couldn’t get past a California court with the story she was trying to pitch.

Michaelin Higgins-Williams was a clinical assistant at Sutter Medical Foundation.  Approximately three years into her employment, she visited her doctor complaining about stress.  Higgins-Williams claimed that this “stress” was caused by interaction she had with her manager and the foundation’s human resources team.  She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with anxiety.

Due to this diagnosis, Sutter granted Higgins-Williams a stress/disability-related leave of absence under California’s Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act and the FMLA.  Once her leave was over, Higgins-Williams returned to work.

Shortly after returning to her job, she received a negative performance evaluation from her manager.  At this point, Higgins-Williams claimed that her manager was singling her out.

One month into her return, Higgins-Williams requested additional time off as an accommodation for her disability.  Sutter Medical Foundation approved her request and granted her additional leave.

Right before she was scheduled to return to work, her doctor submitted a status report to Sutter that said Higgins-Williams needed to be transferred into another department and be under the supervision of another authority.  The doctor also requested additional leave for Higgins-Williams, which again was granted.

Two months after this request, Higgins-Williams’ doctor requested an additional month of leave and also requested that following the additional leave Higgins-Williams be put in a lighter duty position.  It was at this point that Sutter informed their employee that her doctor hadn’t provided any kind of information as to when she would be able to return to her position.  Her doctor had also neglected to provide information proving additional leave time would help her return to work.  Sutter Medical informed Higgins-Williams that without either of those documents she would be terminated.  The doctor failed to provide these pieces of information and Higgins-Williams was fired.

Higgins-Williams sued claiming disability discrimination, failure to engage the interactive process and failure to provide reasonable accommodation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, or FEHA.  In order for Higgins-Williams to even have a case, it needed to be determined by the court if she was even really considered disabled.  The court said:

“An employee’s inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor’s standard oversight of the employee’s job performance does not constitute a disability under FEHA.”

Eventually the court found that Higgins-Williams was treated fairly by her employer who complied multiple times.  She was also fully capable of performing the duties of her job since she wasn’t plagued by anything that would prevent this.  This is considered a huge win for human resource departments because it proves that complying with standards and procedures could help the company come out on top.

A new study shows that the treatment of women during pregnancy and maternity is continuously deteriorating.  Research from the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that thousands of new mothers are being forced to find new work after being dismissed, made redundant or treated poorly.

The research surveyed over 3,000 mothers with a child or children under two years old from over 3,000 workplaces across the entire United Kingdom.  Over ten percent of the women polled reported, “being edged out of work”.   If these results were to spread across the entire United Kingdom, human resource experts estimate that over 50,000 women could lose their jobs each year.

On the flip side, employers who were surveyed claimed to support pregnant workers throughout pregnancy and their maternity leave. This conflicts what the rest of the report presents, such as ten percent of the females surveyed who said that their employer discouraged them from attending antenatal appointments.

Although it was reported in the results of the survey that some of these expectant mothers were allowed to work by a flexible schedule, these same women complained that their careers suffered as a consequence.  They reported less work opportunities and feeling as though their opinions weren’t valued as much as they were previously.  One HR expert explains that this may not be isolated to pregnant women but that many people who work flexible schedules complain of the same thing.  It is possible that because they aren’t in the office as much, the office and their peer’s perceptions of them have changed.

Of course, discrimination of any kind is both unlawful and bad for business.  This research comes at a time when certain talents are in high demand.  For women, bad reviews from pregnant women or formerly pregnant women weigh heavily.

This research was released simultaneously with the launch of the #worksforme awareness initiative aimed to reduce pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

More start-up businesses are opening than ever before and less and less of them are having to close.  This equates to more small and micro employers

having auto-enrolment duties – actually more than even the Pensions Regulator formerly estimated.

The Pensions Regulator’s third annual automatic enrolment commentary and analysis was recently published, revealing that a total of approximately 1.8 million small businesses will need to meet their pension duties over the next 3 years.  This number is almost three times the previous estimate.

The analysis also showed that in the summer of 2017 a small peak will arise of about 350,000 small and micro employers whose automatic enrolment duties will come into effect.

HR experts use this report to identify changes in trends in the pensions landscape.  So far, human resource professionals feel that saving for a pension is becoming the norm.  Most employers are now choosing to use DC pensions with a fairly even split between trust-based and contract-based schemes.

The Pensions Regulator executive director of auto enrolment said auto enrolment has had a dramatic impact on the number for people saving for retirement in the United Kingdom.

The automatic enrolment commentary and analysis report also revealed that most small and micro employers completely understand their automatic enrolment duties.  

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against UPS after the package delivery company allegedly violated federal law.

Papers filed in federal District Court in New York State allege that United Parcel Service discriminated against applicants (and its current employees) worldwide, based on religious practices that conflict with their uniform and appearance standards.

UPS does not allow male employees in customer contact or supervisory positions to wear any kind of beard and prohibits the growth of hair below collar length.  Records indicate that since 2004, UPS has failed to hire or promote any individual who does not comply.  This includes any employee or applicant whose religious practices conflict with the policy.

The issue is that UPS does not appear to provide any kind of religious accommodations, specifically at its facilities throughout the US.

There are also situations noted in the filed papers that “prove” UPS violated anti-bias laws.  For example, one anecdote told the story of a Muslim who wears a beard as part of his religious observance who applied for a driver helper position.  This man was told he had to shave his beard in order to get the position and was also told “God would understand”.   Additionally, he was informed that he could apply for a lower-paying job if he wanted to keep his beard.

UPS is the United States’ largest package delivery company and operates in every state of the country.  They have yet to release an official statement.

Cookies & Privacy Policy

GMR Consulting's privacy statement describes the information we collect from clients and visitors to this site and explains how it is used. Please be assured that we will protect the privacy of users and ensure that any data is not misused in any way.

Information Collection and Usage

The information we may collect is comprised mainly of Anonymous Information. This is gathered from users to the site and is compiled using an analytical tool. The statistical information gleaned is compiled of IP address, duration of visit, which pages were looked at and for how long etc. The information is used internally to work out which website pages are working and which pages users bounce off. We can then design the necessary improvements to our website.

Personally Identifiable Information is collected from users who use the online contact form or who subscribe to our blog. Specifically, this may include name, user name, address, telephone number and email address. This information is treated as strictly confidential and will not be passed to any third party unless permission is given, or in legal circumstances.

Cookies

A cookie is a small file which asks permission to be placed on your computer’s hard drive. The cookie helps analyse web traffic or lets you know when you visit a particular site. Cookies allow web applications to respond to you as an individual. The web application can tailor its operations to your needs, likes and dislikes by gathering and remembering information about your preferences.

GMR Consulting uses traffic log cookies purely for analytical purposes, as described above, and essentially track which pages have been visited so we can improve our website. Cookies in no way give us access to your computer or any information about you, other than the data you choose to share with us.

You can choose to accept or decline cookies. Most web browsers automatically accept cookies, but you can usually alter your browser setting to decline cookies if you prefer. This may prevent you from taking full advantage of some websites, however.

Other Websites

This site contains links to other websites. However, GMR Consulting is not responsible for the privacy practices or the content of these websites.