A pervasive culture of overwork and unpaid overtime is severely impacting both businesses and employees across the UK, according to new research released today by Protime UK. The study - which surveyed 2,000 UK employees - sheds light on the detrimental effects of excessive workloads and unrealistic managerial expectations on employee motivation, productivity, retention and overall business performance.

Key Findings from the Protime UK Research:

Unpaid Overtime and Overwork

The research highlights that over half (54%) of UK employees put in between half a day and four days of unpaid overtime each month, amounting to a staggering 19 million days of uncompensated work. This overwork is primarily driven by unrealistic workloads, with 28% of employees reporting that they cannot complete their tasks within the standard working hours.

Employee Dissatisfaction and Turnover

The strain of overwork is leading to significant employee dissatisfaction. One in five employees (22%) expressed a desire to leave their current job within the next six months to escape the pressures of overwork. Furthermore, nearly half (49%) of the workforce is reluctant to take on additional responsibilities or pursue management roles, citing the same concerns.

The Vulnerability of Hybrid Workers

The research also indicates that hybrid workers are particularly susceptible to overwork. A notable 33% of employees working in a hybrid model reported being more likely to put in additional unpaid hours compared to their office-bound counterparts.

Managerial Challenges

The study underscores the need for better managerial practices to prevent overwork. Over a quarter (27%) of employees believe that managers should more proactively ensure that workloads are evenly distributed within teams. Additionally, 20% of respondents feel that the tasks delegated to them are unrealistic given the available time.

Impact on Business Performance and Employee Wellbeing:

Decreased Productivity and Quality

Overwork is not only harming employees but also affecting business performance. Approximately 38% of workers reported decreased productivity due to overwork, while 29% indicated that the quality of their work has suffered. Additionally, 28% of employees stated that overwork has negatively impacted their relationship with their managers.

Elevated Stress and Burnout

Employee wellbeing is another critical area affected by overwork. Over half (53%) of the surveyed employees reported experiencing increased stress and anxiety and 41% mentioned feeling burnt out. Alarmingly, 25% of employees do not take holidays because of their excessive workload.

The Call for Change

The findings from Protime UK's research make it clear that the embedded culture of overwork and unpaid overtime is unsustainable and detrimental to both employees and businesses. Proactive steps from management to distribute workloads more evenly and set realistic expectations are essential to mitigate these issues. Without significant changes, businesses risk losing valuable talent and facing continued declines in productivity and employee engagement.

Employment Tribunals across parts of London are facing unprecedented delays, with some hearings being scheduled as far ahead as 2026. This situation stems from a significant shortage of judges, which continues to exacerbate waiting times and backlog issues.

The extent of these delays was revealed in the minutes of the April meeting of the Employment Tribunals User Group. It was noted that in the London South region, hearings requiring six to ten days are encountering the most prolonged delays. In comparison, other regions like London East, North West (Liverpool), Midlands East, and the South East have cases listed for the latter half of 2025. Only Wales (South), London Central, the North East, and the South West currently have available hearing dates for 2024.

Regions beyond London are also affected. For hearings of three to five days, some regions are listing cases for the second half of 2025. These delays highlight the broad scope of the issue affecting Employment Tribunals nationwide. Judge Barry Clarke - President of Employment Tribunals for England and Wales - indicated that 60% of the backlog of single claims are concentrated in London and the South East, yet these regions only house 30-40% of the judges.

Despite efforts to address the judge shortage, the recruitment drives have fallen short. Although 19 new judges were recently recruited, the initial target was 50. This marks the fourth consecutive recruitment attempt by HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) that has failed to meet the required numbers, particularly in London and the South East. The minutes of the meeting noted, "There is no shortage of those who wish to become salaried judges in other parts of the country. The likeliest explanation for the shortfall is the cost of living in London and the South East."

As of April 2024, the tribunal system includes eight regional employment judges, three acting regional judges, 165 salaried judges, 350 fee-paid judges and 780 non-legal members. An additional 50 fee-paid judges are expected to be recruited this year but the next significant recruitment effort won't occur until three years later.

The latest quarterly tribunal statistics, covering October to December 2023, paint a stark picture. Single employment cases saw a 7% increase, while disposals fell by 11% compared to the previous year. During this period, the tribunal received 8,100 single claim receipts and managed to dispose of 7,100, leaving a backlog of 33,000 claims. For multiple cases, there were 16,000 new receipts, 23,000 disposals, and an open caseload of 431,000.

An informal survey of Regional Employment Judges provided additional insights into the scheduling disparities across the country:

Short Hearings (1-2 days): Most regions can schedule these in the second half of 2024, with greater flexibility in London East, London Central, North East (Leeds), and Midlands East.

Medium Length Hearings (3-5 days): Many regions can hear these cases in the second half of 2024, except for London South, which faces delays until the second half of 2025.

Longer Hearings (6-10 days): Wales (South), London Central, the North East, and the South West can still list these for the second half of 2024. Regions like London East, North West (Liverpool), Midlands East, and the South East are looking at the second half of 2025, with London South facing delays until early 2026.

Hearings Over 10 Days: Most regions are listing these for 2025, with Wales (South) and the North East having the shortest wait times, still able to list for late 2024. The longest waits are in Watford and Croydon, extending into early 2026.

The ongoing judge shortage and the resultant delays in Employment Tribunals highlight the urgent need for strategic recruitment and resource allocation within the HMCTS. Without substantial improvements, the backlog and waiting times will continue to affect claimants and the justice system's efficiency across England and Wales.

UK employers are demonstrating a strong willingness to pay a premium for workers with artificial intelligence (AI) skills, with a significant 14% wage increase on average for roles requiring these capabilities - according to recent research by PwC. This trend is driven by a notable surge in demand for tech skills and the productivity gains observed in sectors most exposed to AI.

PwC’s 2024 Global AI Jobs Barometer highlights a rapid increase in job vacancies demanding AI-related skills - such as machine learning - outpacing the growth seen across all other job categories since 2016. This demand has led employers to offer substantial wage premiums to attract talent. Notably, the wage premium varies by profession, with database designers and administrators commanding a remarkable 58% premium, while lawyers see a 27% increase.

Between 2012 and 2023, job postings for AI roles in the UK grew 3.6 times faster than for other positions, rising from three per thousand job ads in 2012 to nine per thousand in 2023. Despite this growth, the UK's rate remains relatively low compared to other countries. For instance, in Singapore, the demand for AI-related jobs has expanded 13.5 times faster than the overall job market during the same period.

The sectors most exposed to AI - where technology can be readily employed for various tasks - have experienced significant productivity growth. Globally, these sectors have seen productivity increase by 4.8 times more than those less able to adopt AI. In the UK, sectors such as financial services, information technology and professional services have witnessed productivity gains marginally above the global average.

PwC's comprehensive analysis, covering over half a billion job advertisements from 15 countries representing more than 30% of global GDP, provides empirical evidence of AI's transformative impact on job markets. The research underscores that AI-exposed occupations, such as financial analysts, customer service agents and software coders, are evolving rapidly. Skills required by employers in these roles are changing at a 25% higher rate than in less AI-exposed occupations, necessitating continuous upskilling for workers to remain relevant.

The report suggests that AI could be instrumental in overcoming stagnation in productivity growth, leading to economic development, higher wages and improved living standards. For each AI specialist job posted in 2012, there are now seven such postings. The demand for AI skills has grown 3.5 times faster than for all other jobs since 2016. In markets with available wage data, such as the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Singapore, jobs requiring AI skills command a significant wage premium, reaching up to 25% on average in the US.

The shift towards AI capabilities is not just about higher wages; it reflects a broader economic opportunity. As AI becomes more integrated into various industries, the value of these skills is increasingly recognised. For example, in the US, wage premiums for AI skills range from 18% for accountants to 49% for lawyers, demonstrating the cross-industry demand for AI proficiency.

The findings from PwC's report indicate that to capitalize on these opportunities, workers must continually adapt and acquire new skills. As AI reshapes job markets, the ability to demonstrate proficiency in AI-related competencies could be crucial for career advancement and economic success.

The 2024 Sunday Times Best Places to Work list has been unveiled, highlighting standout employers across various sectors in the UK.

This prestigious list - compiled using 26 questions from WorkL’s employee engagement survey - offers a comprehensive insight into employee sentiments across very big, big, medium and small organisations.

The Sunday Times Best Places to Work awards are based on a rigorous survey developed by WorkL, incorporating insights from behavioural scientists, data analysts, psychologists, business leaders and academics. To rank highly, companies must excel in a six-step framework encompassing reward and recognition, instilling pride, information sharing, empowerment, wellbeing and job satisfaction.

This survey meticulously measures employee engagement, wellbeing and discretionary effort and organisations must achieve a minimum 70% overall engagement score. The top ten companies in each size category - very big, big, medium, and small - are those with the highest engagement scores, reflecting their success in creating outstanding work environments.

Resource management service Veolia, banking organisation Aldermore and health insurance firm Vitality have secured spots in the top 10 for very big organisations, showcasing their commitment to creating exemplary workplaces.

Veolia:

Veolia has earned accolades for its exceptional focus on job satisfaction, empowerment and instilling pride among its workforce. The company’s high engagement scores are a testament to its robust programmes designed to enhance employee experience, foster a sense of purpose and promote inclusion and diversity. By prioritising wellbeing and ensuring that employees feel valued and empowered - including offering initiatives designed to help its older workforce - Veolia has positioned itself as a leading employer in the resource management sector.

Vitality:

The health and life insurer shows a strong performance in empowerment, job satisfaction and pride: 85% of employees are proud to work at Vitality, 82% believe they contribute to something worthwhile and 87% feel the company genuinely cares about diversity and inclusion. These figures highlight Vitality’s successful efforts to create an inclusive and motivating work environment where employees feel both valued and supported by offering policies from flexible working to equal parental leave and ADHD and autism diagnosis and treatment.

Aldermore:

Joining Veolia and Vitality in the top 10 for very big organisations is Aldermore Group, a prominent player in the banking sector. Aldermore’s inclusion in this list reflects its dedication to fostering a positive work culture through effective reward and recognition systems, transparent information sharing and a strong emphasis on employee wellbeing.

The top 10 very big organisations, each boasting more than 2,000 employees, making it onto The 2024 Sunday Times Best Places to Work list include:

• Aldermore Group
• CGI IT UK
• David Lloyd Clubs
• MBDA
• Moto Hospitality
• Octopus Energy
• Tui
• Valor Hospitality Europe
• Veolia UK
• Vitality

These companies have demonstrated excellence across WorkL’s six-step framework, achieving high engagement scores that set them apart as exemplary workplaces.

By excelling in areas such as empowerment, job satisfaction and diversity, those organisations on the award list not only enhance their own workforce’s experience but also set benchmarks for others in their respective industries. As the landscape of work continues to evolve, the practices and policies of these leading companies provide valuable insights into building and maintaining successful, inclusive and fulfilling workplaces.

In 2019, the term "ghosting" wasn't just reserved for dating scenarios. It had permeated the professional sphere, leaving both employers and job seekers perplexed and frustrated. Fast forward to 2023 and Indeed - the world's leading job site - embarked on a comprehensive international study to delve deeper into this phenomenon. What they uncovered shed light on the complexities of ghosting in the hiring process and provided actionable insights for both parties involved.

Indeed's recent survey, conducted by Censuswide, spanned the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, encompassing over 4,500 job seekers and an equal number of employers. The findings paint a vivid picture of the prevalence, causes and consequences of ghosting in the global job market.

One striking revelation from the research is the universality of ghosting across demographics. Contrary to initial assumptions, all age groups and backgrounds were found to engage in this behaviour. From entry-level applicants to seasoned professionals, ghosting transcends boundaries, highlighting its significance as a widespread issue requiring attention.

While the reasons for ghosting varied, a common thread emerged: dissatisfaction with the hiring process. Lengthy recruitment timelines, lack of communication and opaque procedures were cited as primary catalysts for candidates' disappearance. Employers, too, expressed frustration, with many acknowledging the negative impact of ghosting on their recruitment efforts and overall business operations.

In the UK, the sentiment toward ghosting is particularly pronounced. Both employers and job seekers unanimously agree that it is unacceptable behaviour during the hiring process. However, despite this shared stance, ghosting remains prevalent, indicating a misalignment between perception and action.

For UK-based employers, the consequences of ghosting are tangible. Recruiter burnout, exacerbated by the additional workload resulting from candidate dropouts, is a significant concern. Moreover, the lack of accountability among job seekers who ghost poses challenges in maintaining a reliable talent pipeline.

To address the issue, both employers and job seekers in the UK advocate for concrete measures. For employers, streamlining the hiring process and enhancing communication emerge as key priorities. On the other hand, job seekers emphasize the importance of competitive compensation and transparent benefits to sustain their engagement throughout the recruitment journey.

Interestingly, a notable fraction of job seekers admitted to ghosting after uncovering negative information about prospective employers. This underscores the significance of employer branding and reputation management in today's competitive job market.

Indeed's research highlights the need for proactive measures to mitigate the prevalence of ghosting in hiring. By fostering transparency, improving communication, and prioritising candidate experience, employers can cultivate stronger relationships with potential hires and minimize the likelihood of ghosting incidents.

Recent research conducted by Pregnant Then Screwed - in collaboration with Women In Data - sheds light on the challenges faced by fathers in the UK when it comes to taking paternity leave. With the impending changes in paternity leave legislation, it's crucial to address the financial and societal barriers that prevent many fathers from fully embracing their entitlement to parental leave.

The findings reveal a staggering 70.6% of fathers who only utilised part of their paternity leave entitlement cited financial constraints as the primary reason. Despite the upcoming Paternity Leave Amendment Regulations 2024, enabling fathers to split their leave into more manageable segments, the core issue of insufficient statutory paternity pay persists. Currently, the UK offers the least generous paternity leave entitlement in Europe, with statutory pay capped at £172.48 per week or 90% of salary (whichever is lower).

Only 63.7% of fathers took two weeks or less of paternity leave following the birth of their most recent child, indicating a significant gap in the uptake of parental leave. Access to enhanced paternity pay through employer benefit schemes remains limited, especially for households with incomes below £60,000. Even when fathers have access to enhanced leave, nearly half (48.3%) could only take two weeks or less, highlighting the disconnect between availability and actual utilisation.

Pregnant Then Screwed advocates for a substantial increase in paternity leave to six weeks, paid at 90% of salary, as a means to address the existing disparities. A collaborative 2023 report from Pregnant Then Screwed, The Centre for Progressive Policy (CPP), and Women in Data underscores the potential societal and economic benefits of such a policy change. Notably, extending paid paternity leave could contribute to reducing the gender pay gap and fostering greater gender equality in the labour market.

The research also delves into the readiness of fathers to return to work after their paternity leave. While only 32.3% felt physically prepared to return, a mere 14% and 12.8% were mentally and emotionally ready, respectively. This highlights the need for comprehensive support systems that address not only financial concerns but also the holistic well-being of fathers during the transition back to work.

Joeli Brearley – CEO and Founder of Pregnant Then Screwed commented:

“Paternity leave isn’t a break from work, it isn’t a holiday – it is crucial bonding time. We know that paternity leave has huge benefits for the whole family: children do better in the education system, and there is research to suggest they have better physical health. Paternity leave reduces the divorce rate – couples are more likely to stay together. It has benefits for the physical and mental health of mothers, and we know that many dads are desperate to spend more time with their children. When fathers and partners take paternity leave, it supports the mother’s return to the labour market. We need a parental leave system which recognises and supports the crucial role dads play in families.”

A recent Ocado shareholder meeting drew significant attention as nearly 20% of shareholders expressed their dissent against the company's proposed remuneration policy. The bone of contention was a potential bonus of up to £14.8 million for Ocado's co-founder and Chief Executive, Tim Steiner. This hefty bonus is contingent upon Ocado's share price hitting £29.69 within three years, amongst other performance targets.

The proposed incentive plan has sparked outrage, particularly in light of Ocado's current share price trading at less than £4, a stark contrast to the ambitious £29.69 goal. Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the company's financial performance, with Ocado reporting a significant annual pre-tax loss of £394 million on sales of £2.7 billion last year.

Amidst the dissent, shareholder advisory groups have voiced opposition to what they perceive as "excessive pay" and a departure from market norms. The discontent is further fuelled by Ocado's turbulent financial trajectory, marked by a plummet in market value from £21.6 billion to less than £3 billion in four years.

Critics argue that while Ocado seeks to reward its top executive handsomely, the disparity in pay between its highest earners and lowest-paid workers remains glaring. Despite discussions about addressing low pay over the past five years, Ocado has yet to commit to paying its employees the real living wage. This stands in stark contrast to other retailers like Tesco, Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer, all of which have made commitments to paying their staff the real living wage as a base rate.

Campaigners emphasize the tangible impact that paying the real living wage could have on the lives of Ocado's lowest-paid workers. The call for action gains resonance in the wake of Marks & Spencer's recent announcement of a new retail pay offer, which increased wages for 40,000 customer assistants to £12 per hour.

Dan Howard, head of the workplace inequality campaigning organisation Good Work said:

“Ocado has been talking about addressing low pay for five years but has yet to make a long-term commitment. We’re calling on the board to pay the real living wage. This would make a significant difference to the lives of hundreds of its lowest-paid workers.”

The disparity in pay and the apparent misalignment between executive rewards and employee welfare underscore broader concerns about corporate governance and social responsibility. As Ocado shareholders navigate these issues, the spotlight remains firmly fixed on the company's commitment to equitable pay practices.

In a groundbreaking move aimed at fostering inclusivity and transparency, the John Lewis Partnership - the UK's largest employee-owned business - has taken a significant step in redefining the recruitment landscape. By publishing interview questions on its careers site, the partnership seeks to demystify the job application process, alleviate candidate anxiety and promote diversity in its workforce.

The initiative comes at a critical juncture when businesses across various sectors are grappling with talent shortages amid a fiercely competitive labour market. Recognising the need to attract top talent from diverse backgrounds, John Lewis Partnership has embarked on a mission to redefine the traditional recruitment paradigm.

Lorna Bullett - the talent acquisition lead at John Lewis - highlighted the importance of this move, emphasizing the organisation's commitment to identifying and nurturing the best talent, stating:

"We want the right people, from a variety of backgrounds, with the best talent to join our organisation. It makes absolute business sense to find ways of helping candidates to really demonstrate what they can do so that we get the right fit for the role."

This sentiment echoes the growing recognition among forward-thinking companies that diversity is not just a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage. The decision to make interview questions publicly available reflects a broader shift towards skills-based hiring, wherein candidates are evaluated based on their specific competencies rather than conventional educational qualifications. By providing candidates with insight into the types of questions they may encounter, John Lewis Partnership aims to empower individuals to showcase their skills and experiences effectively during the interview process.

The published interview questions cover a diverse range of topics, from communication and customer skills to inclusion and strategic thinking. By offering transparency into the selection criteria, the partnership seeks to level the playing field and ensure that candidates from all backgrounds have an equal opportunity to succeed.

Importantly, the initiative is not merely about compliance or meeting legal obligations but represents a genuine commitment to inclusive hiring practices. By going beyond the minimum requirements for reasonable adjustments and embracing a holistic approach to recruitment, John Lewis Partnership hopes to tap into a wealth of untapped talent and foster a culture of belonging within the company.

While the move is expected to benefit a broad spectrum of candidates, it holds particular significance for neurodiverse individuals, including those with autism, ADHD, or dyslexia. By providing a structured framework for preparation and enabling candidates to demonstrate their abilities in a supportive environment, the partnership aims to create a more inclusive and equitable hiring process.

It is however essential to note that while the interview questions are available for review, the interview process itself remains rigorous and comprehensive. Candidates can expect in-depth follow-up questions tailored to their responses, ensuring that assessments are thorough and meaningful.

In a recent turn of events, KPMG - one of the prominent members of the Big Four accounting firms - has made headlines by revoking job offers extended to foreign graduates in the UK.

This decision comes hot on the heels of the UK government's implementation of stricter visa regulations, particularly concerning skilled worker visas, which has significantly impacted the eligibility criteria for sponsorship.

According to reports from the Financial Times, KPMG informed affected incoming staff this week about the withdrawal of their offers, attributing the move directly to the government's decision to raise the minimum salary required for sponsoring a skilled worker visa in the UK. The firm cited how the changes in eligibility criteria unfortunately affected some of their graduate programmes that were previously eligible for sponsorship under the skilled worker visa category. However, KPMG has not disclosed the exact number of offers that have been rescinded.

The crux of the matter lies in the UK government's announcement earlier this year, wherein it declared a significant hike in the salary threshold for skilled workers from £26,200 to £38,700, effective from April. Additionally, a lowered threshold of £30,960 was set for individuals under the age of 26. These adjustments directly impact various sectors, including the professional services industry, where firms like KPMG traditionally recruit a substantial number of graduates.

The ramifications of these visa rule changes are felt deeply within the graduate employment landscape. Typically, first-year graduates in the Big Four firms receive salaries ranging from £25,000 to £35,000 in the UK, placing them squarely within the ambit of the new visa rules. Consequently, KPMG has ceased hiring overseas graduates who require skilled worker visas outside of London, underscoring the far-reaching implications of the altered eligibility criteria.

For the affected graduates who saw their offers rescinded, the options are limited. They have been informed that deferring their placements to 2025 is not an available recourse. However, they may request a transfer to a different graduate programme this year, provided that the applications are still open on the firm’s website and the role is eligible for sponsorship. Nonetheless, the uncertainty surrounding these transfers adds to the anxiety and challenges faced by the affected individuals.

KPMG, known for its robust graduate recruitment programmes, hired 1,400 graduates and apprentices last year alone. With the vacancies created by the revoked offers, the firm intends to fill these positions with individuals entitled to work in the UK, further signalling the ripple effects of the visa policy changes.

Trafalgar House - a leading third-party pensions administrator - has recently unveiled the results of its annual Trust & Confidence Index of the pensions industry, marking a significant uptick in public trust for the fourth consecutive year.

The findings, derived from a comprehensive study involving over 2,000 individuals aged 18 and above, were compiled at the close of 2023. This ongoing initiative aims to gauge the sentiments of the British populace toward the pensions sector, shedding light on the level of trust placed in the industry and the confidence individuals have in it to fulfil their retirement aspirations.

Using a rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 - where 0 signifies 'no trust at all' and 10 denotes 'complete trust' - respondents were asked to evaluate their level of confidence in the pensions industry. The headline figure from the survey indicates a noteworthy increase in trust, with the score climbing to 5.26 out of 10 in 2023, up from 4.95 in the preceding year. This upward trajectory follows a consistent pattern of year-on-year improvements, with trust scores of 4.63 in 2021 and 4.46 in 2020. In essence, this represents a remarkable 18% surge since 2020, signalling a growing faith in the pensions sector among the public.

Delving deeper into the data reveals a notable decline in negative perceptions, as responses indicating 'no trust at all' decreased by 1.8%, while those expressing 'little trust' diminished by 1.3%. Collectively, this reflects a 3.1% reduction in negative trust responses. Interestingly, the shift hasn't merely transferred to moderate trust levels, as the category of 'to some extent' also witnessed a decline of 3.5%. Instead, there has been a substantial increase in positive evaluations, with responses indicating 'a reasonable amount' rising by 5.8% and 'a lot' by 0.9%. Combined, this accounts for a 6.7% surge in higher trust ratings. Consequently, the proportion of individuals harbouring little to no trust in the pensions industry now stands at a mere 22%.

These findings offer encouraging insights into the evolving perceptions of the pensions industry, painting a picture of increasing trust and confidence among the British public. The consistent year-on-year improvements in trust scores reflect concerted efforts by stakeholders to enhance transparency, accountability and service delivery within the pensions sector.