The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has called for urgent action from the government to address pension inequalities, after new analysis revealed that women are more than twice as likely as men to miss out on automatic pensions enrolment. The TUC's research found that approximately 10.9% of female employees (1 in 9) are in jobs where their employers are not required to enter them into a workplace pension, compared to just 4.3% (less than 1 in 20) of men.

The analysis also highlighted regional disparities, with Northern Ireland (15.2%), the West Midlands (14.5%), and Wales (14.2%) having the highest proportions of women employees who do not qualify for auto-enrolment. On the other hand, London (7%) has the lowest proportion. These discrepancies indicate a pressing need for action to address the gender pension gap, as women continue to be disproportionately affected.

Under current regulations, employers must automatically enrol workers earning £10,000 or more per year into a pension scheme and make contributions on their behalf. However, around 1.4 million women earn less than this threshold, leaving them without an occupational pension. This issue becomes even more concerning when considering the future reforms proposed by the government, such as lowering the age threshold for auto-enrolment to 18. The TUC's analysis revealed that a significant number of young workers, especially women, in low-paid and part-time jobs do not earn enough to be automatically enrolled. Specifically, more than one-third (36%) of younger women and 15% of younger men aged 18-21 fall into this category.

The gender pension gap has reached an alarming level, with an estimated income gap of 40.5% between men and women in retirement. This figure is more than double the current gender pay gap of 14.9% and represents the highest gender pension gap since 2015-16 when it stood at 40.7%. The TUC has identified several key drivers behind this disparity.

Caring responsibilities, where women are more likely to take time off work or work part-time to care for children, significantly impact their ability to accumulate a sufficient workplace pension.

The gender pay gap, resulting from women earning less than men over time, also contributes to the pension gap. Furthermore, gaps in pension auto-enrolment disproportionately affect low-paid workers, who are more likely to be women.

Lastly, historical differences in National Insurance have led to lower state pensions for women on average.

The TUC emphasises that unless these disparities in pension wealth are addressed, the gender pension gap will persist when today's workers reach retirement. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak has called for increased investment in childcare and social care, industries where women are predominantly employed. He believes that closing the gender pay gap and improving retirement incomes for women starts with these investments.

To address the gender pension gap, the TUC has proposed several measures for the government to consider. Firstly, a statutory requirement for ministers to report on the gender pension gap should be introduced, accompanied by an action plan to tackle this issue.

Secondly, auto-enrolment should be improved to include all workers, irrespective of income, by removing the earnings threshold and lower earnings limit.

Moreover, the government should outline a timetable for increasing statutory minimum employer contributions from the current 3% to ensure all workers receive decent contributions.

Lastly, the introduction of funded, high-quality childcare accessible to all and free of charge is crucial, as caring responsibilities significantly impact women's ability to build up pension savings.

The TUC's findings highlight the urgent need for government intervention to address the gender pension gap and prevent a future generation of retired women from facing poverty. By implementing the recommended measures, the government can take decisive steps toward closing the gap and ensuring that all women have access to a decent income in retirement

In a significant development, three women spearheading the equal pay battle against Next - a prominent high street retailer - have achieved a crucial milestone by gaining permission to proceed with their case to the final stage. Should they succeed, the outcome could lead to Next paying out tens of millions of pounds in backdated pay compensation.

Last week, the employment tribunal in Leeds delivered a unanimous ruling, affirming that the sales consultants - who are predominantly women - perform work that is of equal value to the tasks carried out by warehouse operatives, who are predominantly men. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that both groups should be remunerated at the same rate.

Since the commencement of this legal battle in 2018, more than 2,000 current and former sales consultants have joined forces with the three lead claimants, amplifying the magnitude and impact of the case. It is anticipated that the number of participants will continue to grow as the proceedings progress, potentially surpassing expectations by the time the case reaches its conclusion in May 2024.

In the event that the claimants are victorious, the sales consultants could be entitled to receive up to six years of back pay, covering the period from the initiation of the claim until the case's conclusion. This compensation would bridge the pay disparity between the sales consultants and their counterparts in the warehouse.

Additionally, contracts will be automatically amended to ensure that sales consultants are remunerated equitably for work of equal value in the future. This crucial change aims to rectify the existing gender pay discrepancy within Next.

The determination of the relative value of the sales consultants' work versus that of the warehouse operatives was established based on 11 factors assessed by experts appointed by the tribunal. These factors encompassed various aspects such as the physical skill and effort required for each job, the knowledge necessary and the demanding nature of the working conditions.

Notably, the tribunal found that in nine of the factors evaluated, the sales consultants' roles were deemed equal to or even surpassing the positions held by warehouse operatives. This finding strongly supports the claimants' argument for equitable pay and emphasizes the significance of their case.

Next, which employs over 15,000 sales consultants across its vast network of 400-plus stores in the UK, had initially disputed the notion of equal work between the two groups. However, the recent tribunal ruling has established a crucial legal precedent, shedding light on the gender pay disparity within the company.

This victory marks a significant step forward in the fight for gender pay equality, as it not only brings potential financial restitution to the claimants but also sets a precedent for other retail establishments to re-evaluate their pay structures and ensure equitable compensation for work of equal value. The outcome of this case has the potential to reshape the landscape of retail employment and promote fairness and inclusivity within the industry.

A recent interim application before the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) has shed light on the circumstances under which a party in court proceedings can replace experts.

The case involved a dispute regarding fire safety defects and the claimants sought to replace two experts close to the commencement of the trial. The TCC granted permission for both replacements but imposed different conditions based on the distinct reasons provided by the claimants.

The background of the case involves a fire that occurred in 2019 at Beechmere retirement village in Crewe, resulting in significant property damage. The claimants initiated legal proceedings, seeking damages of over £40 million due to alleged deficiencies in the design and construction of the property.

The court had previously granted permission to the claimants to call multiple expert witnesses, including a forensic scientist, Ms H, and a fire engineer, Mr W. However, the trial was adjourned when Ms H fell seriously ill.

Subsequently, the claimants made an application to replace both Ms H and Mr W, with each application having different circumstances. The claimants sought to replace Ms H due to her illness, which prevented her from participating further in the proceedings. On the other hand, the claimants initially expressed dissatisfaction with Mr W as an expert but later raised concerns about his views and approach.

The court has the discretion to permit a party to change the identity of an expert, considering the material circumstances and the Overriding Objective. While the court generally allows a party to rely on a new expert, it can impose conditions to deter "expert shopping" and ensure transparency.

In the case of Ms H, the court had no criticisms of the claimants' application to replace her due to her ill health. Although the defendants did not object to the replacement, they argued for the disclosure of Ms H's expert reports, site inspection reports and interview notes with witnesses. However, the court found it unjust to impose this condition and ordered only the disclosure of notes taken by Ms H during site investigations.

Regarding the replacement of Mr W, the situation was more complex. Initially, the claimants cited dissatisfaction with him as an expert. However, during the application hearing, it became apparent that their concerns related to overlapping opinions with other experts and a perceived lack of careful document review. The defendants opposed the application, claiming it was "expert shopping." Nonetheless, the court held that the claimants should be allowed to rely on an expert they have confidence in and therefore granted permission to replace Mr W. However, it imposed the condition that all his reports, including drafts and any further documents expressing his opinion, must be disclosed.

The court found no indication of “expert shopping” on the part of the claimants or their experts, which is why it did not order the disclosure of attendance notes.

This recent application before the Court provides valuable insights into the circumstances under which permission to change an expert witness may be granted and the related disclosure requirements. Legal teams can learn from this case and understand that permission to replace an expert may be granted if it is in the interests of justice and if there are valid reasons for the change. However, disclosure obligations may be imposed to ensure fairness and transparency in the proceedings.

Aberdeen, Northampton, London, Huddersfield, Slough and Warwick have emerged as the top towns and cities in the UK for HR professionals, according to a study conducted by HR systems provider, Ciphr. The research examined employment data and local area information for 100 major towns and cities, considering factors such as average earnings, the number of medium and large employers and housing affordability.

Aberdeen secured the top spot in the rankings, showcasing consistent performance across multiple criteria. The city boasts the second-highest average salary for HR managers at £50,450, indicating attractive earning potential for professionals in the field. Furthermore, Aberdeen has a high business density per capita, with around 17.2 medium and large businesses per 10,000 working-age adults. This suggests a favourable employment landscape within the area.

The study also found Aberdeen to be among the top fifth in terms of housing affordability. With an average monthly rent of £786, which represents 19% of an HR manager's salary and an average property cost of £187,543 (3.7 times the average HR manager's salary), Aberdeen offers reasonably priced housing options.

Northampton secured the second position in the rankings, offering HR managers an average salary of £42,850, which is over a third higher than the average full-time wage across all occupations in West Northamptonshire. The town also boasts a higher-than-average business density, with 16.3 businesses employing over 50 people per 10,000 working-age adults.

London, despite its lower ranking in terms of housing affordability (95th), placed third on the list due to its abundant job opportunities. The UK capital hosts the highest number of medium and large businesses (over 50 employees) at 10,060. HR managers in London earn an average salary of £50,350 but housing costs pose a challenge, with typical homes averaging 14.5 times earnings (£731,178) and over a third of wages being spent on rent (£1,475 per month on average).

Beyond the top three, Huddersfield, Slough and Warwick also featured prominently in the rankings. These locations offer a mix of competitive salaries, business density and housing affordability.

When examining the UK cities that pay HR managers the highest salaries on average, Chichester claimed the top spot, offering an average salary of £51,800 per year. This figure surpasses the UK average for HR managers (£44,050) by 18%. Chichester's average HR manager salary also exceeds the city's average full-time wage by over £21,000, showcasing the lucrative nature of HR roles in the area.

Other cities that pay HR managers significantly more than the average full-time worker include Oldham (£43,400), Blackpool (£40,600), Bury (£42,300) and Newcastle-under-Lyme (£42,050). These cities present attractive opportunities for HR professionals seeking higher earnings and better career prospects.

While the study focused on key factors such as average salaries, business density, and housing affordability, it is important to note that there are other crucial aspects to consider when making career decisions. Factors such as work-life balance, flexible working hours, employee benefits, job security, satisfaction and learning and development opportunities should also be taken into account.

The study provides valuable insights into the UK towns and cities that offer favourable job opportunities and attractive conditions for HR and people management professionals. As with any career decision, individuals should carefully evaluate all relevant factors to make an informed choice that aligns with their personal and professional goals.

In 2021, Brewdog - the craft beer brewing company - faced a significant challenge when a group of former employees launched the "Punks with Purpose" campaign. This movement aimed to shed light on the negative experiences and workplace culture they had encountered while working for the company. The campaign garnered attention in the media and brought forth a critical examination of Brewdog's practices.

The Punks with Purpose campaign highlighted allegations of a toxic work environment, including claims of a culture of fear, pressure and mistreatment of employees. The former employees alleged that the company's strong growth and ambition had led to a disregard for its people, resulting in a challenging and hostile workplace for many.

The accusations made by the ex-employees through the campaign had a significant impact on Brewdog's reputation, which had long been associated with a rebellious and nonconformist image. The allegations contradicted the image of a company that championed a progressive and inclusive work culture.

In response to the Punks with Purpose campaign, Brewdog acknowledged the concerns raised by the ex-employees and pledged to address them head-on. One of the company's founders, James Watt, issued a statement expressing his regret for any instances where employees felt mistreated and promised to take immediate action to improve the work environment.

Brewdog committed to launching an independent review of its practices, including an assessment of its company culture, HR policies and internal procedures. The company also invited current and former employees to share their experiences and suggestions anonymously to aid in the investigation.

Furthermore, Brewdog initiated several internal changes to rectify the issues highlighted by the campaign. This included implementing an employee representative programme to facilitate open dialogue, revising internal policies and procedures and investing in leadership and management training programmes to ensure a supportive and respectful work environment.

The Punks with Purpose campaign served as a wake-up call for Brewdog, prompting the company to reflect on its values and practices. It underscored the importance of not only creating a positive work environment but also fostering open communication, trust and a strong sense of employee well-being.

Following on from this, the Aberdeenshire-based brewer entered a period of change. There was a salary reassessment, more resources for thinly staffed areas and an independent review checking in with all 1,694 employees. The result is Brewdog's inclusion on The Sunday Times Best Places to Work 2023 list.

The Sunday Times Best Places to Work list is an annual ranking that identifies the top companies in the UK that prioritise their employees' well-being and create a supportive and fulfilling work environment. This recognition is highly esteemed as it acknowledges organisations that go above and beyond to ensure employee satisfaction and engagement.

In response to Brewdog's inclusion on The Sunday Times Best Places to Work 2023 list, James Watt shared an open letter on his LinkedIn profile. The letter not only expressed his gratitude to the Brewdog team and reflected on the company's journey to becoming an exceptional workplace but also hit back at “… the small group of individuals who seem to have made it their life’s work to take down our company”.

Brewdog's inclusion on The Sunday Times Best Places to Work 2023 list is a significant milestone in the company's journey as the awards are “based on an anonymous companywide employee survey which is conducted anonymously by the Sunday Times’s partners WorkL, who are experts in employee experience.”

James Watt signed off his letter with the statement that they are a business “that is determined to be the best employer it possibly can be – today is a significant step in our journey towards that ambition.”

Lady Justice Simler recently delivered the keynote speech at The Expert Witness Institute’s Annual Conference, where she discussed what makes an excellent Expert Witness and how Experts can increase their credibility in the eyes of the court.

In her speech, Dame Simler focused on practical things that experts can do to enhance their credibility, based on recent cases. She covered the importance of;

• Preparation for giving evidence
• Not stepping outside the bounds of expertise or expressing opinions on legal issues
• The best approach to a changing case or alternative points of view and
• The importance of being independent and ensuring equality of arms between the parties' experts.

The role of an Expert Witness is crucial to the legal profession and Dame Simler emphasised that the justice system depends on expert evidence being of the highest quality. Many disciplines lack a wide pool of high-quality Experts and whilst renumeration and rates of pay are one factor for this, fear of criticism from the courts, counsel during cross-examination and criticism from those that they assess also play a role.

Lady Justice Simler suggested that an increased awareness and engagement in accreditation schemes and conferences could increase confidence and greater awareness in the professions from which Experts are drawn, potentially attracting more women and those from different and diverse backgrounds.

In her speech, Lady Justice Simler also emphasised the importance of an Expert Witness's duties to their clients and the court.

Expert’s should always answer the questions asked of them in court and avoid giving the impression that they know better than anyone else. They should avoid ‘cherry-picking’ pieces of evidence that provide support for their conclusion while avoiding material that may point in the opposite direction. A contrary interpretation, analysis, or view should be set out in the report. An Expert who fails to discuss or consider contrary views may be viewed by the court as losing objectivity and independence, which could diminish their credibility.

In conclusion, Lady Justice Simler's keynote speech at the Expert Witness Institute Conference highlighted the importance of preparation, staying within the bounds of expertise and remaining independent as key factors in being an excellent Expert Witness. Experts must recognise their duties to their clients and the court and be prepared to engage with changing cases or alternative points of view. By following these principles, Experts can increase their credibility and enhance the quality of expert evidence relied upon by the justice system.

The gig economy has been a hotly debated topic for years now, with companies like Uber, Deliveroo and TaskRabbit offering flexible work to hundreds of thousands of people. Indeed, one recent survey suggests that approximately 750,000 adults in the UK currently work in the gig economy.

However, a recent study by the University of Bristol has shown that many of these workers are earning below the UK's minimum wage.

The study - which was based on a survey of over 510 UK workers that span the diversity of the gig economy - found that over half of them (52%) were earning less than the minimum wage of £8.97 per hour - a figure below the UK minimum wage at the time of the research (£9.50) - and which rose to £10.42 in April.  This is particularly concerning given that the majority of these workers are classified as self-employed and therefore not entitled to the same protections as traditional employees.

The researchers also found that gig economy workers were more likely to experience financial insecurity than those in traditional employment. Many workers have irregular incomes and a major factor contributing to low pay rates is that the work entails spending significant amounts of time waiting or looking for work while logged on to a platform. Not only is the work low paid but it is also extremely insecure and risky.

Whilst only around a third of the survey respondents earned 90% or more of their total earnings from the gig economy - or worked at least 37.5 hours a week on platforms – it found that the median respondent spends 28 hours a week undertaking gig work and this work constitutes 60% of their total earnings.

The study has sparked renewed calls for greater protections for gig economy workers, including a minimum wage floor and stronger employment rights.

The Gig Rights Project asked the workers themselves what policy interventions would have the biggest impact on the quality of their working lives and nearly all respondents selected at least one of five core employment rights as having the most immediate potential for making a positive difference to their working life. Priorities were:

• The national minimum wage
• Paid holiday time
• Payment whenever logged on to the platform/app and looking for work
• Sick pay
• Protection against unfair dismissal (including platform deactivation).Top of Form

The UK government has previously introduced some measures to address these concerns, such as the Good Work Plan and the introduction of the National Living Wage. However, critics argue that these measures do not go far enough and that more needs to be done to ensure that gig economy workers are treated fairly.

The study's lead author, Professor Alex Wood, said:

"The findings highlight that working in the UK gig economy often entails low pay, anxiety and stress.

As food, fuel and housing costs keep rising, this group of workers are especially vulnerable and are in urgent need of labour protections.”

Deloitte and PwC - two of the largest professional services firms in the UK - have recently announced that they will be providing additional coaching to their youngest staff members. This move comes in response to concerns about the impact of lockdowns on the education and development of recent graduates.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted education around the world, with many students having to adjust to remote learning and limited in-person interactions with peers and teachers. For recent graduates entering the workforce, this disruption has meant that they may have missed out on some of the soft skills and experiences that are typically gained through in-person teamwork and communication activities.

Ian Elliott, PwC’s UK Chief People Officer, said it was:

“understandable that students who missed out on face-to-face activities during Covid may now be stronger in certain fields, such as working independently, and less confident in others”.

Deloitte and PwC have recognised the challenge and are taking proactive steps to help their young staff members develop these crucial soft skills. Jackie Henry, Deloitte’s UK Managing Partner for people and purpose stated: “….. there is a greater need for employers to provide training on basic professional and working skills, that wasn’t necessary in prior years.” Both firms are therefore providing extra coaching and training sessions focused on teamwork and communication, as well as other skills that are important for success in the professional services industry.

This coaching is expected to help bridge the gap between recent graduates and previous cohorts who may have had more opportunities to develop these skills through in-person education and extracurricular activities. It is also a reflection of the firms' commitment to investing in the development of their staff members, particularly those who may be facing unique challenges due to the pandemic.

The idea is that some client-facing employees will receive training to enable them to coach junior colleagues, then spend time on secondment as full-time coaches, guiding on career development, performance and enhancing their skill sets. The firm will then fund the coaches if they wish to pursue formal career coaching qualifications.

Overall, this move by Deloitte and PwC is a positive step towards supporting their youngest staff members and ensuring that they have the tools and resources they need to succeed. By investing in coaching and other resources, these firms are helping to bridge the gap between recent graduates and previous cohorts and supporting the ongoing development of their staff members.

A recent study conducted by Health Shield Friendly Society has revealed that the youngest employees in any workforce - those aged 18 to 24 - take more sick days compared to older employees. The study was conducted on a sample size of 1000 employees from different age groups working in various industries.

The research shows that Gen Z employees take an average of 3 more sick days per year than those employees from older age groups. This is a significant difference and raises questions about why Gen Z employees are taking more days for illness.

The study found that the top reasons for sick leave among Gen Z employees were mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression and it seems as though  significant worries over finances could be contributing to these higher levels of sickness absence, as 44% of employees surveyed who are in this age group stated that they worry about money every day. This was higher than for any other age group.

In comparison, those aged 55-64 rarely take time off for mental health reasons. One possible reason for this trend could be the difference in work styles and work-life balance between Gen Z and older employees. Gen Z employees are known for their strong desire for a work-life balance and they prioritise their mental health and well-being. They are more likely to take time off work to address their health issues, which could be a contributing factor to the higher number of sick days they take.

Matt Liggins, Head of Wellbeing at Health Shield, commented:

“Our survey has highlighted a real concern over the health of the youngest members of the workforce. Those aged 18 to 24 should be in the best of health, yet they are taking significantly more sickness absence than much older counterparts. While it may be that younger people are more willing to be open about their struggles with mental health – saying a lot about progress made by employers to remove traditional stigma – these findings do suggest it is a serious issue that employers should be addressing urgently.”

Another possible explanation could be the difference in health conditions between Gen Z and older employees. Gen Z employees are at a stage in life where they are still developing their immunity and may be more susceptible to illnesses. They may also be more likely to take time off work to attend appointments with healthcare providers.

These findings highlight the need for employers to focus on promoting a healthy work culture that supports employees' mental and physical health.

Employers can take several steps to address this trend and promote a healthier workforce. They can start by implementing flexible work arrangements that allow employees to balance their work and personal commitments. Employers can also provide access to mental health resources, such as counselling services and stress management programmes, to help employees deal with mental health issues.

Moreover, employers can focus on promoting healthy habits among employees, such as encouraging regular exercise and providing healthy food options in the workplace. This will not only improve the overall health of employees but also help reduce the number of sick days taken by Gen Z employees. The study conducted by Health Shield Friendly Society highlights the need for employers to focus on promoting a healthy work culture that supports employees' mental and physical well-being. By taking steps to address the reasons for the higher number of sick days taken by Gen Z employees, employers can improve employee health and productivity, leading to a more engaged and committed workforce.

The UK government has recently proposed new measures that will allow parents who have not claimed child benefits to retrospectively claim National Insurance credits. The move is aimed at helping those who may have missed out on contributions towards their state pension due to not claiming the benefit.

Child benefit is a payment that is made to families with children under the age of 16, or under 20 if they are in full-time education or training. It is a tax-free payment that can help to support families with the cost of raising children.

One of the benefits of claiming child benefit is that it also provides National Insurance credits towards a parent's state pension. National Insurance credits are essentially a way of filling gaps in a person's National Insurance record, which can affect their entitlement to certain state benefits such as the state pension.

However, many parents may not have claimed child benefit due to various reasons, such as not being aware of the benefit or not wanting to be taxed on their partner's income if they are a high earner. As a result, they may have missed out on National Insurance credits. This could affect their entitlement to a full state pension as they may be left short of the 35 years of National Insurance credits needed, meaning that their state pension is reduced.

Currently those who have missed out on child benefits can only backdate a claim for three months, however the new proposals would allow parents who have not claimed child benefit since 6th April 2006 to apply for National Insurance credits retrospectively. This means that parents who may have missed out on contributions towards their state pension will have the opportunity to make up for lost time.

The move has been welcomed by campaigners who have been calling for changes to the current system for some time. Many have argued that the current system is unfair, as it penalises those who may have missed out on National Insurance credits due to not claiming child benefit.

The proposals are still subject to consultation, but if they are implemented, they could make a significant difference to the retirement income of many parents. It is important for parents to be aware of their entitlement to child benefit and National Insurance credits, as they could have a significant impact on their future financial security.