New research conducted by Glassdoor - one of the worldwide leaders on insights about jobs and companies - has found that, amongst employees across the UK, there is no clear consensus as to what makes a good work-life balance.

It was also found that there was confusion about the actual meaning of work/life balance, causing employees to grapple with keeping work and home life harmonious. Of over 2,000 UK employees surveyed by Glassdoor, 52 per cent found that work was regularly eating into their personal life and 35 per cent said that a healthy balance is just not possible in their current role. This is despite, throughout the Covid pandemic, nearly half - 48 per cent - of UK workers having taken action to improve their blend of job and home.

A third of respondents - 36 per cent - stated that they are of the opinion that flexible working hours would supply a good balance between home and work life. A further 32 per cent want choice in where they work and 23 per cent want a reduced working week.

To 24 per cent of respondents generous paid time off is important and 28 per cent want the ability to change between work and personal life throughout the day, as needed. There is little consistency across gender, age or any other demographic.

The survey suggests that, with 8 in 10 employees stating that work-life balance would be a key consideration when looking for their next role, employers might consider a refresh of their HR policies to make it achievable to get a healthy balance between life and work.

Lauren Thomas - Economist at Glassdoor - said:

“Although the COVID crisis has shone a spotlight on the delicate balance between work and home, employees have been increasingly talking about mental health since 2018.

Discussions around wellbeing saw an immediate spike after the first lockdown in March 2020. However, it appears that employees are now feeling the impact of 18 months of change as mentions of burnout have increased 128 per cent since April 2021.

This suggests that employers are not fully meeting the needs of their workforce.”

The survey findings were published alongside Glassdoor’s 2020 rankings for the UK’s best companies for work-life balance and analysis of the market. It was revealed that tech companies dominate the list - but it is noticeably clear that great work-life balance can be found in every industry.

Speaking about the findings, Lauren Thomas said:

“Whether it is the autonomy to set one’s schedule, hybrid working policies or simply trust shown by management that work will be delivered without being tied to an office, it is clear that a healthy balance is best achieved when employees can individualise their approach to work.”

A people analytics expert has urged the government to standardise training policies in the workplace, following reports that one in five HR leaders are receiving inadequate or no training in diversity, equity and inclusion.

When polled, 97 per cent of 200 HR leaders surveyed by innovative behavioural assessment firm - AssessFirst - agreed that as 2022 is almost here and the topic of diversity, equity and inclusivity continues to be spoken about, it is a high priority across the country.

Over a third of respondents stated that the Covid-19 pandemic had accelerated progress in diversity, equity and inclusion in businesses across the UK. Yet, there is a worrying lack of regularisation in the implementation of company policy - resulting, for example, in the likes of disability and sexual orientation being overlooked in diversity goals.

David Bernard - founder and CEO of AssessFirst - is a leading advocate for the removal of bias in the workplace and whilst he believes that biases stem largely from outdated recruitment practices, he is of the opinion that the business case for gender, cultural, ethnic and socio-economic diversity is increasingly important to enable long-term success. 

He states that it is proven that companies who lead on ethnic and cultural diversity are 36 per cent more likely to be profitable than those who do not, adding:

“Following almost two years of widened remote working due to the coronavirus pandemic, this environment has opened doors for bigger and better opportunities for both employer and employee, allowing a multitude of candidates to apply for jobs that would have otherwise been deemed unattainable, for whatever reason. However, as we transition out of the other side of the pandemic, more and more businesses will revert to their previous ways of working, with a drop in remote working becoming inevitable.”

He added:

“We must not be allowed to reverse the clock and fall back into old habits. I truly believe it is imperative that the government introduce training regulations to support HR and recruitment teams as they source, evaluate and manage all candidates. Ultimately, this will create higher performing businesses that are more efficient – and free from bias.

It is a fundamental misconception that a CV is an effective way to identify and rank talent for hiring. As humans, we are all engrained to make decisions with bias. When this manifests in hiring managers and HR personnel alike, it results in a recruitment strategy based on intuition. Yes, intuition has an important place in business, but when relied upon too heavily in recruitment, it can mean that we make decisions based upon ‘what we are familiar with. It can cause us to rank candidates based on upbringing, education, experience, and even appearance.”  

David Bernard went on to say:

“Currently, more than 50 per cent of workforces across the UK are operating completely remotely. However, this figure is expected to drop to 22 per cent in 2022 - proving that some of the impacts of the pandemic are temporary.

Remote working helps to facilitate diversity, equity and inclusion because it offers greater equality of opportunity to a wider demographic. But in 2022, when the ubiquity of remote working subsides, we hope to see businesses maintaining the progress they have made under difficult circumstances.”

Reassuringly, 97 per cent of survey respondents declared that diversity, equity and inclusion will be a major priority for years to come and David Barnard remarked:

“HR is critical to a business’ ability to succeed - especially at a time when UK job vacancies are at a 20 year high. And HR is overwhelmingly saying that diversity, equity and inclusion is a very high priority. Most HR leaders are now well-placed to drive meaningful change, but only if they are supported with the right training and legislation.”

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has released its latest findings regarding wellbeing in the UK – which looks at “estimates of life satisfaction, feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile, happiness and anxiety at the UK, country, regional, county and local authority level.”

The ONS have been carrying out the survey since 2011, asking personal well-being questions to adults aged 16 years and over in the UK.

To better understand how they feel about their lives the survey asks the following questions:

• Overall, how satisfied are you with your life nowadays?
• Overall, to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?
• Overall, how happy did you feel yesterday?
• Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?

Respondents are asked to evaluate, on a scale of 0 to 10, “how satisfied they are with their life overall, whether they feel they have meaning and purpose in their life, and about their emotions (happiness and anxiety) during a particular period.”

The survey found that between April 2020 and March 2021 average ratings of wellbeing deteriorated across all indicators. This was a continued trend which was seen across most indicators in the previous period but this was the first period to take place entirely during the coronavirus pandemic In fact, results in this period showed the greatest annual declines in personal well-being in the UK since the survey started. Personal well-being for life satisfaction had a 0.27 point decline, anxiety a 0.26 point increase, happiness a 0.17 point decline and feeling that the things done in life are worthwhile a 0.15 point decline.

Commenting on the findings, HR specialist XpertHR described them as “bleak” but put the decline down to the enduring effects of the coronavirus crisis.

New criminal offences relating to UK defined benefit pension schemes have come into force.

They will apply to anyone whose intentional or reckless conduct puts members’ savings at risk. This includes any person - company directors, lenders, investors, trustees and advisors - who avoid paying pension debt or is responsible for actions which are detrimental to a defined benefit pension scheme.

They are expressed as any person whose actions detrimentally affect, in a material way, the likelihood of accrued benefits under a defined benefit occupational pension scheme being received; that the person knew or ought to have known that it would have that effect and that the person did not have a reasonable excuse for their act, failure or for engaging in that conduct.

The highest profile of the range of regulatory powers and sanctions are three new criminal offences - and alongside these, the Pensions Regulator has been given power to impose fines of up to £1 million in a range of circumstances; enhanced power to require defined benefit sponsors and related parties to make immediate payments into their scheme and to extend information gathering powers.        

It is expected that any prosecution would be instigated by the Pensions Regulator. However, a prosecution may also be brought by other persons or bodies - including the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There is no time limit on when the Regulator can bring a prosecution for these new offences - unlike its power to issue contribution notices which it can only exercise for up to six years after a relevant act or failure.

A criminal prosecution can also be brought against any person who assists with the commission of a relevant act or course of conduct.

As with the criminal offences, there is no time limit on when the Regulator can impose a fine under these new powers. However, depending on the circumstances, it may be easier for the Regulator to impose a civil fine on a person - as opposed to securing a criminal conviction - on the basis that a civil penalty is subject to a lower standard of proof.

In April 2022, the government is planning new reporting requirements in relation to certain material corporate transactions and the granting of security. This will mean that organisations will probably be required to notify the Regulator - and their scheme’s trustees - about such transactions at an earlier stage.

In Back Care Awareness Week, from 4th to 8th October, personal injury specialists National Accident Helpline called upon the government to recognise the massive disparity in the amount the public can claim in compensation for back injuries incurred through no fault of their own - but depending on where their injury took place - on a road, at work or in a public setting.

It was found by analysis that for the same severity of injury, accidents in the workplace - where the employer is at fault - could result in eight times higher compensation when compared to a road traffic accident compensation.

As those suffering these injuries are not at fault, the National Accident Helpline are asking why there is so much inconsistency in the claim amounts - and what can be done to rectify it.

Recent road traffic whiplash reforms, introduced by the government in May 2021, have been found to be the cause of the disparity. The reforms centre on a desire to lower the cost of insurance premiums by reducing the value of minor, exaggerated or fraudulent road traffic claims. Instituting fixed tariff damages - whilst increasing the size limit of claims that could be managed through the RTA small claims track - was deemed to do this and has resulted in both the potential amount of compensation awarded for RTA injuries - as well as the associated costs for claims - being lower.

However, the National Accident Helpline analysis highlights inequality that may have arisen from this policy change.

Prior to the pandemic, around 650,000 motor claims were made each year, with around 85 per cent of these whiplash related. The changes to the claims process meant that there are many members of the general public who will be out of pocket through no fault of their own.

Commenting on the whiplash reforms earlier this year, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers noted that:

The Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 will put into force a new tariff of compensation for pain and suffering for some people with whiplash injuries after a car crash. The amounts in the tariff which have been produced by the government, however, are derisory, offensive, and certain to result in under-compensation.

This potential for a victim of an RTA injury to receive unfair compensation is highlighted when compared to other forms of compensation. As an example, someone sustaining a three month back injury in an RTA would recover just half the amount of compensation that they could receive if their flight was delayed at an airport.

Jonathan White - Legal and Compliance Director National Accident Helpline - said:

“We're calling out to the government today to look into the shocking disparity in compensation claims for back injuries that people have sustained through no fault of their own. To have up to eight times more compensation for the same back injury, but due to a different cause, is not ethically right. Ultimately, the person who receives the injury is going to be affected in the same way and so should be compensated in the same way. We're keen to help raise awareness of the differences in compensation for the same injury to ensure people are no longer left out of pocket, or financially impacted, through an accident that wasn't their fault.”

Experts have called on the government to collaborate with companies, as they state that a record high wage growth will not sustain economic recovery.

A survey of 400 recruiters - by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and KPMG - recorded an increase in permanent starting salaries. In addition, they witnessed the rate of growth of permanent starting salaries accelerating in September - to hit a new record for the third month in a row. 

A rise in average hourly rates of pay for short-term staff was also seen in September - with salaries awarded to new permanent joiners and temporary staff both increasing at the fastest rate in 24 years of data collection.

Of the 400 UK recruiters polled 57 per cent saw higher pay for new permanent joiners, with less than 1 per cent seeing salaries fall.

Although it was reported that some candidates negotiated higher pay, recruitment experts suggest that the swell in starting salaries was predominantly because of the increased competition and attempts by businesses to attract applicants.

Claire Warnes - Head of Education, Skills and Productivity at KPMG UK - said:

“This month’s unprecedented increase in starting salaries – the highest in 24 years – is being driven by the near record fall in candidate availability. While higher salaries are good for job seekers, wage growth alone is unlikely to help sustain economic recovery because of limited levers to bring people with the right skills to where the jobs are and increase productivity.”

She added that whilst the end of the furlough scheme should bring many new workers to the job market, it was not likely that these people would have the right skills for the sectors with the most demand - advising:

“Reskilling and supporting people to move jobs which are in demand needs to be speeded up.”

Neil Carberry - Chief Executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation - stated that whilst this was the fastest growth in starting salaries since this survey began, recent events have shown how labour shortages have affected people’s lives.

He said:

“The scale of the shortages we are seeing cannot be explained by one factor alone but are a major challenge to businesses’ ability to drive the prosperity of the UK in the months and years to come - supporting families and paying the taxes that fund public services.”

He added:

“It is essential that the government works in partnership with business to deliver sustainable growth and rising wages, rather than a crisis-driven sugar rush.”

David Allison - Chief Executive Officer at GetMyFirstJob.co.uk - one of the recruitment firms that responded to the survey - remarked that the sorts of roles where more staff are required also command higher salaries.

He stated:

“Many organisations have historically relied on cheap labour from young people as part of the solution. However, our data shows that young people are increasingly well informed about their choices. The £4.30 apprentice minimum wage, for example, just won’t cut it. There is growth in demand for sectors such as digital, IT and professional services where not only is the starting pay better, but career progression is also understood. The message to employers is clear - if you are recruiting young people to build skills and capability for the future, then a competitive salary and career progression have to be part of the package.”

An Employment Tribunal Judge reduced a claimant’s compensation to zero because the claimant would still have been dismissed if the proper procedure had been followed.

Mr Paolo Porchetti - a highly paid senior executive at Brush Electrical Machines Ltd - was sacked after sabotaging a settlement process by submitting nearly £60,000 worth of outdated expenses which he kept in a shoebox.

Mr Porchetti had been offered a lucrative settlement package by the bosses at Brush Electrical Machines, to leave the company after they became very frustrated by his poor performance.

From 2015 until his dismissal on 30 July 2019, Mr Porchetti worked for Brush Electrical Machines as sales director for the Asia-Pacific region, based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from 2017. His Line Manager, Mr Van Schaik - the company’s Executive Sales Director - told the tribunal that during this time he had to constantly remind Mr Porchetti to submit expense reports and to create calendar reminders. Colleagues complained that he was unavailable; he failed to respond to key clients and was not successful in improving his sales team’s performance - causing disruption within the business.

A meeting was held in February 2019 between Mr Van Schaik, Mr Chris Abbott (Chief Executive Officer) and Mr Christian Londereau (group HR Director) where it was decided that the group HR Director, who was also a trained lawyer, would explore the possibility of Mr Porchetti being interested in a paid exit. In May, he was invited to a meeting - which Mr Porchetti was 45 minutes late for - and offered a settlement to leave the company with six months’ salary of £660,000. At that time, he did not disclose the amount of the expenses owing to him.

Later, he admitted to having three years of expenses to claim - receipts he had kept in a shoebox. The Tribunal was informed that company policy stated that all authorised expenses for trips should be forwarded to the finance department within 14 days from the date of return. Without agreeing to pay the expenses, Mr Van Schaik did agree to review them.

Two days later, Mr Porchetta returned his rental car in a damaged state without reporting the damage to the business or to local police. He was contacted by the HR Director who informed him that £2,000 would be deducted from his final settlement. However, Mr Porchetti later also returned his laptop in a damaged condition and failed to return his iPad.

Brush Electrical Machines refused to pay the expenses when Mr Porchetti finally submitted them - resulting in negotiations breaking down and the company feeling the relationship was irreparable. He was dismissed at the end of July, with the company admitting to the Tribunal that that Mr Porchetti’s dismissal was quick.

Employment Judge Victoria Butler, at the Midlands East Region hearing, endorsed the company’s statement that the dismissal was fair but said that Mr Porchetti’s actions amounted to blameworthy conduct leading to his dismissal and reduced his compensation and basic award by 100 per cent stating that he would have been dismissed regardless.

Barry Ross - Director and Partner at Crossland Employment Solicitors - said:

“Not every employee will be the architect of their own downfall in such a significant way, so it is important to ensure that fair procedures are followed.”

Kate Palmer - HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula Group - stated that employers should be wary of settlements and added:

“The danger with settling is employers often have made up their minds to terminate the employee before the agreement is signed. This employer learned the hard way how essential the process is before dismissal, even where the reason for the dismissal is valid.”

According to an announcement by the Treasury, in total UK employers have repaid £1.3 billion in furlough money to HMRC since July 2020. Included in this amount is £300 million handed back in the last 3 months by firms who have overclaimed, or decided they no longer need payments received through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, said:

“This Government stepped in to help when people needed it most, supporting nearly 12 million jobs through furlough. This worked, nearly 2 million fewer people are now expected to be out of work in the UK than previously feared.”

He added:

“Now with our recovery underway it is heartening to see that £1.3 billion in furlough grants have been returned as the economy recovers.”

In July 2021 the number of people using the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme dropped by 340,000 - with more than a third of those aged between 18 and 34 - to the lowest level since the start of the pandemic. At this time the government’s contribution fell from 80% of an employee’s salary to 70%, and employers had to start paying 10% of wages. For August and September, the government’s contribution was then reduced further.

The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme came to an end on 30th September 2021 – with employers that need to make claims for September, having until 14th October to do so. Over it’s lifetime the Scheme protected nearly 12 million jobs and supported more than 1.3 million businesses across the UK and to date, the Government has spent £68.5 billion o it.

Companies are expected to continue repayments through adjustments to claims and the voluntary disclosure service into 2022, additionally HMRC is cracking down on those who have fraudulently claimed furlough through its 1,250-strong Taxpayer Protection Taskforce.

Recent research undertaken by Opinium on behalf of GRiD (the industry body for group risk) amongst 500 HR decision makers and 1,165 employees, showed that only 57 per cent of employers believe their workforce is aware of all their benefits and understands them.  Over a third - 35 per cent - of employees say their company does not communicate benefits or if they do, they do not recall having done so.

It was found that 28 per cent of employers believe their workforce is aware of all their benefits but does not understand them all and 10 per cent of employers believe their workforce is only aware of some of their benefits.

According to 38 per cent of employers, the most popular method of communicating benefits is in a staff welcome pack – with the least popular method being posting details to home addresses.  However, employees have a different recollection of the methods their employers use, with 35 per cent not believing that their employer communicates benefits – or cannot remember if they do so. 

Katharine Moxham, spokesperson for GRiD said:

“A huge amount of resource, time, energy and money is invested in compiling employee benefits packages. This is maximised when a workforce is aware of the benefits and understands them.

Appreciation of benefits is connected to how well they’re communicated, so the research also looked at the frequency and methods of communication.

• 38 percent of employers communicate details of their benefits when there’s a change to the terms and conditions of a particular benefit
• 29 percent communicate benefits at recruitment stage
• 26 percent communicate benefits at least quarterly
• 22 percent communicate benefits at performance reviews
• 21 percent communicate benefits once a year
• 8 percent don’t communicate their benefits

The most effective communication strategies are those that are regular. Employee benefits don’t always resonate with employees if they don’t seem relevant at a particular point in time. However, life stages and circumstances change regularly, so benefits that weren’t relevant one day, may very well be the next.”

She added:

“We see people at some of the most vulnerable stages in their life in our industry: at times of ill-health, disability and bereavement. Circumstances that by their nature are often unforeseen. This is exactly why benefits that support such situations need to be communicated regularly, so they are front of mind when they are needed.

There’s a disconnect between how employers communicate, and what employees remember. This clearly demonstrates the need for regular communication and using a mix of methods for communications to be effective. Employees won’t always remember what’s been communicated if it wasn’t important at the time.  Likewise, different methods will resonate more with some employees than others. Some will diligently read their welcome pack or handbook, and others will be more likely to engage with the company intranet. There are also increasing options to promote digitally, and it’s important that this method is also embraced to reach all sections of a workforce.”

Katharine Moxham concluded:

“These findings are particularly pertinent given new legislation, which came into force 6 April this year requiring employers to inform employees about their employment and benefits on day one or on request. But, in addition to complying with this, to increase engagement and for benefits to be utilised, they need to be understood, to which communication is central. Whether we’re talking about pensions, healthcare, employer-sponsored life assurance, income protection or critical illness, the approach needs to be the same. Employers need to tell their workforce what they’re offered, communicate via as many means as possible, and do so regularly.”

Labour MP Stella Creasy has presented a Private Members Bill to Parliament to make provision for a right for employees to obtain information relating to the pay of a comparator.

The Equal Pay Information and Claims Bill (EPIC) 2020 -  which was submitted to the House of Commons - has cross-party support and the backing of former Home Office Minister and Tory Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes.

If passed, the bill would give employees the right to know what their comparators earn and will also require companies with at least 100 employees to report their gender and ethnicity pay gaps. Since 2017, companies have had to publish and report figures regarding their gender pay gap – which is the difference between the average earnings of men and women – but only if they employ 250 or more staff.

Additionally, as it stands women have the right to ask about a colleague's pay but employers are not required to provide details. This new bill would allow women to request pay data relating to a male colleague if they suspected there was a gap and provides a right to equal pay where even a single source can rectify unequal pay. Stella Creasy pointed out that 9 out of 10 women in the UK were working for firms where women were, on average, paid less than men and figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed in the year to April 2019, the gender pay gap for full-time workers rose to 8.9%

Creasy stated:

"Pay discrimination becomes so prevalent because it is hard to get pay transparency,”

She added:

"Unless a woman knows that a man who is doing equal work to her is being paid more she cannot know if she is being paid equally.”

The Fawcett Society also conducted a poll which was released to coincide with the Bill’s submission. This found that only 31% of women thought their employer would tell them if their male colleagues doing the same work, earned more.

Charles Cotton, Senior Reward and Performance Adviser at the CIPD said:

"Having fair recruitment, reward and promotion processes in place – and being open about these as well as the outcomes – should avoid the need for employees to ask their colleagues what they're earning.”

The Bill is unlikely however to become law, unless it is supported by the government.

Government statistics have revealed that 1.25 million workers - 4.5 per cent of employees - are not fully proficient in their roles. Compared to 1.15 million in 2017, this was the first increase in the number of employees unable to do their jobs properly since 2011.

The Department for Education survey has revealed that staff training has fallen to its lowest level in nine years - and experts warn that the cutting of Learning and Development budgets will only continue to harm their own cause.

The Employer Skills Survey 2019 revealed that workplace training was at its lowest level in a decade last year. In the year to December 2019, 61 per cent of employers had offered training to staff - down from 66 per cent in 2017. Over the same period, it was found that the proportion of staff undergoing training was 60 per cent - the lowest proportion reported since the Department for Education began producing these reports in 2011.

This survey of more than 81,000 employers across England, Northern Ireland and Wales was conducted before the coronavirus outbreak began impacting on the economy.

Lizzie Crowley - Senior Skills Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Some of the early indicators that we have got from our Labour Market Outlook data is that training budgets have been impacted by Covid-19 and the subsequent downturn, and they are likely to be so over the coming year, or however long the recession lasts for.”

She added that a CIPD poll conducted on employers in June, showed that 22 per cent of firms planned to cut their training budgets this year - with only 16 per cent intending to increase it - a false economy with employers who took this route “shooting themselves in the foot”.

Steve Ludlow - Head of Executive Education at Henley Business School - stated that cutting training budgets when businesses should instead be preparing for a “new normal” was short-term thinking that “reflected weak management and leadership.” 

He added:

“What needs to happen is for talent development to be seen as a vital tool for organisational transformation, not a discretionary cost.”

Jane Hickie - Managing Director of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers - warned that, to work, the skills guarantee would need “major investment” and reform of the adult education system.  

She stated:

“AELP’s view is that the government’s pledges on retraining will be best met if it brings adult education budgets together and makes them accessible via individual skills accounts where the learner can exercise choice over the type of learning needed.”

Steve Ludlow added:

“The issue is not to do with meeting political commitments, it is about ensuring the long-term health of British industry. The need for continuous development of people is essential to respond to changing technology, customer demand and organisational processes. The rate of change has increased in recent years – Covid has simply accelerated matters.”

The Department for Education’s report also showed the number of training days taken by staff fell to 99 million in 2019, down from 105 million in 2017.

It stated:

“This equated to six training days per annum per person trained and 3.6 days per employee, the lowest levels over the 2011-2019 period.”

It added, “…….a potentially significant turning point, with decreases across several key measures including the proportion of employers training, the total training days provided, and employer investment in training.

Employers were being less proactive and fewer employers with skills gaps in their workforce had taken any steps to address the lack of proficiency compared with 2017.”

It also said:

“The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 has clearly provided a significant shock to the economy and is likely to have lasting and significant effects on employers, and their recruitment and skills needs.”

According to new research by management consultancy Lane4, 44 per cent of employees under 35 years old say that a lack of motivation has been hindering their performance at work since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

One thousand employees over the UK were surveyed – the survey being carried out by YouGov – and the results showed that the performance of the under 35 year olds is twice, at 44 per cent, as likely to be affected badly by lack of motivation than that of 45-54-year olds, at 22 per cent.  The average for all age groups is 28 per cent.

Other factors impacting the performance of all workers in the current climate were shown to be - 21 per cent distractions from working at home; 19 per cent stated lack of connection or communication to colleagues within, and 14 per cent stated lack of connection or communication to colleagues outside, the people’s team.

Distractions from working at home were found to be most likely - at 30 per cent - to impact between the ages of 35 and 44 years. A lack of connection to colleagues within their team is cited by 26 per cent as most likely to impact the performance of people under 35 years. 

Employees are speaking to fewer colleagues since the onset of the coronavirus pandemic.  Prior to the virus, 56 per cent of employees had face-to-face or virtual conversations of at least five minutes with three or more of their colleagues, but this has dropped to 37 per cent since the pandemic.

Cited by 70 per cent of under 35-year olds is that encouraging better communication is the best way for organisations to establish trust between managers and employees.

Adrian Moorhouse - Managing Director, Lane4 - commented:

“It’s crucial that these findings are not misconstrued as the latest ‘evidence’ in support of the long standing – and deeply flawed – ‘lazy millennial’ stereotype. The pandemic has impacted us all, but an increasing number of studies show that younger workers have been some of the hardest hit when it comes to furlough and lockdown loneliness, both of which affect motivation.

There’s a lot of research into the psychology of motivation and what drives it. When considering these drivers, such as belonging and autonomy, in the context of remote working, it’s clear that young people may be disproportionately affected. We know, for example, that there can be a natural tendency during times of crisis for leadership and management teams to become very task focused and take on more responsibilities themselves. This can impact the sense of autonomy, and as a result motivation, of their often-younger colleagues.”

He continued:

“It’s understandable that in the early days of the pandemic a lot of organisational focus went towards keeping the lights on and implementing technologies to enable people to work remotely. But attention now needs to turn towards the behaviours that are crucial to enabling people to perform their best in the new world of work. The good news is that motivation and connection can be enhanced. We know that one of the most effective ways to do this is through managers. Because they speak to their team consistently, managers are in a unique position to understand and enhance the different factors impacting the performance of their individual team members.

For many people in HR, the recent months have been among their busiest. 

A poll by People Management finds that most HR functions consist of 10 people or fewer and look to remain that way - or to grow - as the profession plays a vital role amid the coronavirus crisis.

The survey polled 735 employers and found that 70 per cent had reported an HR team size of 10 people or fewer, whilst 18 per cent said their HR team was between 11 and 50-strong. A team of 51 to 100 was reported by 6 per cent; 3 per cent 101 to 250 and 2 per cent more than 1,000.

The crisis has undoubtedly increased the standing of HR in many quarters and respect for the expertise found within. The survey found that the majority of HR functions had not furloughed those within their ranks. The reasons given for that were that staff wellbeing issues are high on the agenda - and many firms are in the middle of difficult restructuring and redundancy decisions, which call for HR support and insight. 

When asked whether respondents anticipated downsizing their HR teams in view of the coronavirus pandemic, 49 per cent said that their team would probably stay the same over the next few years; 28 per cent said it would grow slightly and 4 per cent anticipated a significant increase – despite the anticipation of making redundancies in other parts of the workforce.

In terms of whether Learning & Development and Organisational Development were counted as part of the overall figure, 83 per cent of respondents said that Learning & Development was and 79 per cent said the same for Organisational Development.

The most common average ratio of HR team members to number in the workforce was 10 or fewer for an employee base of 50 to 249 – which 34 per cent of respondents fell into. An HR team of 10 or fewer for a workforce of 250 to 999 staff members was reported by 22 per cent and 10 per cent stated a team of 10 or fewer for a workforce of 49 or fewer employees.

The sectors with the largest HR teams were found to be financial, legal and business services - 3 per cent and 1 per cent respectively reported HR teams of more than 1,000 and 1 per cent and 2 per cent respectively reported a team of 501 to 1,000 in size.

Anna Penfold - Head of the HR practice at executive search firm Russell Reynolds - told People Management that ….HR team sizes staying buoyant was likely a sign of the many vital issues – both immediate and long term – people professionals were helping their organisations contend with in the wake of the pandemic. These included initial redundancies, but also significant changes in estate size and office mix, what that does to culture and engagement and the tax ramifications of a new way of working. 

She added:

“This has also meant that talent and learning and development is being invested in over and above many other parts of the HR mix as we seek to retain the best and develop increasing skills in our people in order to innovate and deal with ambiguity and also in anticipation of further Covid-19 waves and market disruption.”

Rebekah Wallis - Director of People and CR at Ricoh UK - agreed that HR had played, and would continue to play, a vital role tackling many of the organisational issues thrown up by the crisis.

She said:

“HR has supported businesses in pivoting their strategy and supporting employees through the difficult times, all with a smile on their faces.”  

She added:

“Many strategic activities have been postponed and replaced by day-to-day, operational support.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) have released a briefing note - using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) Covid-19 study - to examine how the work activity and retirement plans of older individuals have been affected by the pandemic.

The data - collected in June and July 2020 - took information from nearly 6,000 individuals who are in their 50s and older. 

The study showed that nearly a quarter of employees aged 54 and over were furloughed in June and July and of those still working, twenty per cent were working fewer hours.

Concerns about job security were rife -  with 18% of those still in employment “somewhat worried about their job security” and 5% “very or extremely worried”. However, those in the 54–59 age bracket were more worried about their job security than those older than this.

The study found that 13 per cent of older workers have changed their retirement plans as a result of the pandemic - with 8% planning to retire later and 5% planning to retire earlier.  The IFS stated that this “illustrates how disruptive this crisis has been to major life plans.”

Those employees currently on paid/unpaid leave are more likely than others to now be planning to retire earlier – which the IFS indicated could mean that they are “discouraged about their prospects of finding new work.” However those working from home are 5 percentage points more likely than other workers to now be planning to retire later.

Furthermore, those with more wealth are also more likely to be planning to retire earlier – whereas the effect of stock market falls on pension wealth is one driver of later retirement plans.

LEBC Director of Public Policy - Kay Ingram - stated:

“These research findings highlight the importance of having a financial plan in place.”

Most California HR professionals are familiar with requests from employees and former employees for copies of personnel records - as the right to inspect and obtain copies of certain records has been law in California for some time. Current and former employees - and their lawyers - have the right to request access to their personnel files and their payroll records.

Under California Labor Code Section 1198.5 employees have the right to inspect and receive a copy of their personnel records. These are records which show performance; have been used to determine an employee’s qualifications for promotion; additional compensation or disciplinary action - including termination.

Requests for records must be made in writing, within a strict time span and employers should provide the employee making the request with the appropriate form. Within 30 days of making the written request, the employee must be able to inspect their personnel file or be given a copy of it. Should a copy be provided, the employer may make a charge for the cost of copying the file.

The labor commissioner has given examples of information that can be requested - which includes employment applications; performance reviews; warning notices and attendance records, but specifically excluded is anything relating to any investigation of possible crime, references or any documents obtained before the employee was actually employed.

Employees also have the right - under Labor Code Section 226 - to inspect or receive a computer-generated record or copies of itemized wage statements received by the employee. As from January 1, 2019 employees now have the right to inspect or receive a copy of their records - as opposed to earlier when employers could require the employee to make their own copy.

As with personnel files, the employee can be charged for the actual cost of copying the records. Only 21 calendar days is allowed for the employer to provide the pay roll information - a shorter period than that applying to the provision of personnel records.

For failure to adhere to the strict timing code a fine of $750 can be made for each violation and the Private Attorneys General Act may provide for an additional penalty. In any lawsuit, a court can issue an injunction and require the employer to pay the employee’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

Under Labor Code Section 432, employers must - when so requested - provide job applicants, employees and former employees with a copy of anything they signed relating to the obtaining or holding of employment. This request need not be in writing and there is no specified time for delivery.

Employers are advised to send hard copy requiring proof of delivery and a covering letter detailing which documents are being sent in relation to the request received on a specified date. Plus, keeping an exact copy eliminates doubt and is also proof of what has been sent.

According to new research from HSBC, the average expat - by moving overseas - earns an extra £21,000 over their annual salary and after surveying 163 countries the best-paid staff were found in Switzerland, the US and Hong Kong.

The research - HSBC Annual Expat Survey - attracted a response from more than 22,000 people, most of whom were executives who already enjoyed a high level of income.

Of these respondents, 45 per cent said they got more money for the same job by moving abroad - whilst 28 per cent said they got promotion.

Andrew Talbot - who has been a certified financial planner for 18 years and currently works with Expat Financial Planning in Singapore - said:

“One year as an expat could be the financial equivalent of three years back home”.

John Goddard - Head of HSBC Expat - who is based in the Channel Islands and has himself worked overseas in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe - said:

“It absolutely is life-changing. That extra income helps people prepare for their future life. Over a third say they were able to put money away for retirement. Another third say they used it get on the property ladder.”

When it comes to personal lives, it was stated that Singapore is considered the best country or territory in the world for education and 60 per cent of expat parents in Singapore found that their children’s health and well-being was better there than at home.

Citing the huge number of perks on offer, HSBC said:

“Singapore packs everything a budding expat could want into one of the world’s smallest territories.”

John Goddard added:

“A taste of life in a new location can be the key to unlocking your creative potential, finding the work/life balance you’ve been craving, or taking your career in a new direction.”

A further study - conducted by the regulated property buyer Good Move - identified how much professions are paid in the UK and compared this against countries which are popular with people choosing to emigrate. 

This study found that doctors can boost their yearly earnings by £118,675 by moving to America and nurses - by moving to Canada - can boost their salary by £40,000.

The five professions which could increase their annual salary the most by moving abroad are doctors; nurses; directors; secondary school teachers and HR managers - who could earn £33,088 more by moving to Australia.

Ross Counsell - Director at Good Move, a Property Buying Specialist - said:

“The volume of people using our service in order to move abroad is continuing to grow, with more and more people looking to sell their property quickly and head overseas. Our research provides valuable insight into why this trend is occurring. The potential to earn more money abroad, across a large span of countries, evidently has huge appeal to those working in the UK. People are always looking to improve their quality of life and for an increasing amount of people, this now means moving to a different company.”

Sheffield Employment Tribunal has ruled in the case of Mrs J McBride v Capita Customer Management Services, finding that Mrs Mcbride was indirectly discriminated against after her employer tried to change her role from a part-time to a full-time position.

Before transferring to Capita Customer Management Services, Mrs McBride had worked with a company called Ventura – commencing her employment on 15 March 1999. Her position was that of Head of Quality and Compliance.

In April 2015 she started maternity leave, returning to work on 24 April 2017 as Implementation Manager, within a partnership deal she had previously worked on.

On 28 September 2017 – as a result of Mrs McBride having difficulty with the health of two of her children – she submitted a request to Mr Lovell, her Line Manager, requesting flexible working. This was refused.

In October of that year, Mr Lovell informed Mrs McBride there was the possibility of a job share and Mrs McBride accepted this proposal. On 2 November, Mr Lovell wrote to her confirming that she would be employed on a permanent part-time basis – but on a different project. 

However, Mrs McBride claimed that by December Mr Lovell had given her and the other employee sharing the job individual responsibility for separate projects and work streams - effectively weakening the original arrangement.

Mr Lovell told the tribunal that he had had to review the make-up of his team to deal with the requirements of a new initiative implemented by Capita - and to ensure that business hours were covered, all roles within his team would need to be carried out on a full-time basis. He also stated that he had previously observed risks and problems with the job share - but did not provide any evidence to substantiate this.

Mrs McBride felt the job share had not been adequately tested before the roles and workload were reorganised. She felt that the reasons given for not considering part-time working were not being based on a fair or reasonable benchmark - she believed a part-time or job share arrangement would work if the workloads were allocated appropriately.

On 30 April 2018 Mrs McBride was informed that all roles would be full time and she was invited to a consultation meeting to take place on 2 May 2018. She also attended redundancy meetings in May and June to seek alternative posts but she rejected all the positions offered as they were full time.

On 15 June 2018, Mrs McBride was given a formal notice of redundancy and despite her appealing against the decision, her redundancy was upheld on 16 July 2018. After working her notice period, her employment was terminated on 6 September 2018, resulting in her bringing claims of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination on 28 November 2018.

In upholding the claims of unfair dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, Employment Judge Robert Little stated that Capita had “endeavoured to distance itself from the part-time/full-time dichotomy” and stated that a reasonable employer would test whether or not making Mrs McBride’s job full time would ensure the role worked most effectively. He added:

“We conclude a reasonable employer would have given the job share a fair trial period, respecting the detailed plans that the two senior job-sharing employees concerned had prepared and which plans presumably had at least tacit approval from the employer.”

Andrew Willis - Head of Legal at HR-inform - said the ruling demonstrated to employers that the particulars of flexible working arrangements should be fully considered before a decision is made on their feasibility. He stated:

“As seen here, if an employer feels that the job share situation is not working in their company, they should be prepared to provide valid business reasons for this. Simply informing employees that they will no longer be able to job share, without justification and not addressing their arguments against such a decision could quickly leave a company open to an unfair dismissal claim if the employees have the length of service.”

A survey of 502 IT decision makers from different UK firms and carried out by Censuswide on behalf of tech jobs board CWJobs, has found that 68% of UK business leaders believe that employees with technology skills - such as coding and cybersecurity - are more valuable than those with traditional skills such as maths and science.

It was also found that 53% did not think children were taught enough tech specialisms at school – with 71% of businesses urging candidates to learn tech specialisms in order to further their careers.

The survey also found that 73% of employers felt that tech education needed to happen at either primary or secondary school level and, in order to help close the tech skills gap, 86% of businesses would consider partnering with a school or college.

Dominic Harvey - Director at CWJobs - said:

“The UK is facing a skills crisis and those with tech specialisms on their CV are being sought after by all companies, now more than ever. In order to plug that gap, businesses are calling for tech to be given more of a prominence in the school curriculum. What’s clear is that learning a tech skill isn’t just something that’s relevant for one role or one industry, but the entire UK workforce needs to be embracing it if the country is to remain competitive on the world stage.”

Tech skills can put jobseekers high on the hiring list as 80% of employers stated that having a tech specialism is an important factor in their hiring decision and 63% said that they would hire someone with a tech specialism over a candidate without one – with 64% giving their reason for this as the fact that the candidate would be able to train others.

Cyber security was cited by 79% of those polled as being the tech specialism most in demand.

Of London’s employers, 73% said skills around the Internet were important for their employees to have and in Birmingham, 54% think coding is a vital skill.

Within current UK workforces, 44% had Cloud skills - the most prevalent amongst employees, with Cyber security next at 43% but the majority of the UK workforces had no specific skill present.

Top suggestions for remedying the lack of tech skills in future job candidates were increasing training programmes - cited by 52% of those polled, with 50% suggesting more government investment in the tech industry and 47% wanting more apprenticeships to be offered.

In the recent case in the Royal Courts of Justice concerning pension age equalisation, Lord Justice Irwin and Mrs Justice Whipple handed down a judgement that stated:

"The court was saddened by the stories contained in the claimants' evidence.

But, the court's role was limited. There was no basis for concluding that the policy choices reflected in the legislation were not open to government. In any event they were approved by Parliament.

The wider issues raised by the claimants about whether the choices were right or wrong or good or bad were not for the court. They were for members of the public and their elected representatives."

The court had been hearing the case of two claimants - Julie Delve and Karen Glynn - who had taken the Department for Work and Pensions to court for discrimination on the grounds of age and/or sex and also stating that the government failed to inform them of the changes due to the increase in women’s pension age.

Women who were born in the 1950s claim that the rise is unfair as they were not given sufficient time to make adjustments to cope with the years without a state pension. This is due to the rise of entitlement from 60 years to 65 years - in line with men - and will further rise to 66 years by 2020 and 67 years by 2028.

The arguments put forward by the claimants were that the changes offended the EU law principle of non-discrimination, but this was rejected by the court who held that the legislation under challenge was not within the scope of EU law.  It also rejected the argument that the European Convention of Human Rights had been breached - as case law maintains that a new legislative scheme which effects changes from a given date based on age can be introduced.

With regard to the argument of sex discrimination, the court ruled 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.’

When handed down, the judgment drew gasps from the public gallery and later - on the court steps - the group Women Against State Pension Inequality chanted ‘shame on you’.

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said:

"We welcome the High Court's judgment. It has always been our view that the changes we made to women's state pension age were entirely lawful and did not discriminate on any grounds."

Carlisle Employment Tribunal recently ruled in the case of Hoch v Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications of Cumbria. The ruling stated that Mr W Hoch had been subjected to racial and homophobic abuse by his employer, leaving him terrified.

In the judgement, Judge Hodgson found that Mr Hoch, who worked as a buyer for Thor Atkinson Steel Fabrications in Cumbria from December 2014 until his resignation on 30 April 2018, was a victim of racial and homophobic comments.

Despite the employer - Mr Atkinson - insisting that the comments were office banter and a sign of a good working relationship, the Judge found that Mr Hoch had not encouraged the comments.

About one year after Mr Hoch has commenced working for the company, the owner - Mr Atkinson - began addressing Mr Hoch using racially offensive terms such as ‘foreign ****’ and the ‘N word’, with this form of address being used more frequently than his name. Other members of staff followed suit.

Mr Atkinson later began using homophobic slurs, such as ‘gay ****’ to address Mr Hoch, and told him to ‘get back to the Wendy house’ - which led to him being regularly teased by other colleagues about his appearance. 

In August 2017, Mr Hunter - a co-worker of Mr Hoch - posted a picture on Snapchat of Mr Hoch’s head superimposed onto the body of an emaciated black child. 

Throughout 2017 and January 2018 the slurs continued until in January, Mr Hoch recorded an exchange between himself and Mr Hunter. During this exchange, Mr Hoch was addressed with a string of racial and abusive slurs, despite Mr Hoch threatening to report Mr Hunter.

Mr Hoch resigned in April 2018 citing the fact that he frequently received abuse from Mr Atkinson and found it threatening, degrading, racist and a violation of his personal self - resulting in him having to seek medical attention.

Mr Atkinson offered Mr Hoch a grievance hearing which Mr Hoch declined on the grounds that he hearing would be conducted by the company’s HR representative - who was also Mr Atkinson’s wife.

Mrs Atkinson, who stated that she had more than 20 years experience in HR, then suggested that the hearing could be conducted by a cleaner employed by the company and who was a personal friend. Mr Hoch again declined.

The Employment Tribunal said that Mr Hoch’s rejection of both meetings was entirely reasonable and that the suggestion by Mrs Atkinson that either she or a cleaner conduct the grievance procedure was clearly wholly inappropriate. As a result of this, the claim of constructive unfair dismissal was also upheld as Mr Hoch had no access to a fair grievance process, which resulted in him taking a lower-paid job elsewhere. 

In evidence, Mrs Atkinson claimed to have processed written complaints about Mr Hoch’s difference in demeanour from other staff but could not produce the evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal questioned how someone with her HR experience could misplace paperwork. The Tribunal found her to be totally lacking in any credibility.

Mr Hoch and his witness - another company employee - were found to have given straightforward evidence.

The Tribunal - in finding in favour of Mr Hoch - awarded him a total of £52,686, made up of the sum of £1,524 by way of basic award; the sum of £500 by way of compensatory award; the sum of £22,000 by way of injury to feelings award in respect of the harassment claim related to race; the sum of £5,000 by way of injury to feelings in respect of the harassment claim related to sexual orientation; the sum of £5,000 by way of aggravated damages; the sum of £4,500 by way of damages for personal injury; the sum of £10,804 by way of interest; the sum of £3,326 by way of grossing up of the taxable element of these awards and the sum of £2,032 in respect of the failure to provide written statement of particulars.

A recent survey of 2,000 full-time employees by West Monroe Partners, a business and technology consulting firm - found that the majority of employees are loyal to their current employers, provided that the conditions are right.

The survey established that 82 percent of employees have a high sense of loyalty to their current employers, but 45 percent of employees who have been with their companies for less than a year have actually applied for new jobs after experiencing a bad day at the office. Also, 59 percent said they would leave their present employment if they received a more appealing offer from a new company - even if they were happy with their current company.

West Monroe Partners commented that “………in a time when U.S. job openings are at a record 7.1 million, employees have the pick of the litter when it comes to employment options. Overall, employees want to stay with their current companies. But in a tight labor market, there will always be other options for those who feel stuck or idle in their current jobs. If you don't provide your employees the professional opportunities they want they can, and will, find it elsewhere."

Mike Hughes - Managing Director at West Monroe Partners - said:

"Today's definition of loyalty isn't what it once was. Some define loyalty as being focused and giving their best efforts during their time with an organization. Others consider themselves loyal after they hit their one- or two-year anniversary with a firm. In our survey, nearly 90 percent had been with their employer over a year, so that may be enough for them to say 'yes, I'm loyal.' "

Aon, a London-based global professional services firm, conducted a survey which showed that 4 out of 10 workers are passively looking for jobs. They are not actively searching, but would consider another job opportunity.

Ken Oehler - Aon's Global Culture and Engagement Practice Leader - said:

"Most would like to stay with their company. But they are open to see what else is out there."  He added:

"The West Monroe Partners findings indicate that the compact between employer and employee is fragile and that loyalty has its limits. There are many points of vulnerability where an employer could frustrate and disengage an employee and where a competitor could offer something better. Higher pay can certainly lure employees away, but even if pay is in the right place, lack of strategic direction from leaders, frustration with work processes or technology, or lack of development could create the opening for another employer to steal top talent."

In general, employees were found to have high ambitions to stay with their current employers for the long term. The research showed that half of the respondents to the survey plan on staying at their current employer for another five years or more. In addition, more than a quarter said they if they received a new offer they would require a 20 percent or higher pay increase to justify the move.

However, a lack of professional growth opportunity was shown to be the employees' main reason for leaving their company - according to the West Monroe survey - with 46 percent of respondents saying that they left their previous company because they did not witness any opportunity to move up.

At the 2018 Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) conference in Liverpool it was suggested that staff were leaving their defined contribution pension schemes because employers had not explained them properly.

A study conducted by research consultancy Ignition House has shown that 42 per cent of people did not know how much was in their defined contribution scheme, and 26 per cent did not know how much they were paying in.

Director of Ignition House and co-author of the research - Janette Weir - stated that there appeared to be a lack of understanding about details of the employer’s pension schemes.  She said:

“It became clear to us that workers who opted out were making decisions very quickly – with very little input from their employer. There was no evidence that any employer was encouraging them to join. There was very little interaction, and it was often just a leaflet or a booklet given to them.”

Evidence was found that implied that pension members in the UK are not engaged with their annual statements and - even when they are engaged - do not fully understand the contents.

Janette Weir added:

“The annual statement is currently a missed opportunity for companies to communicate properly with their members. Worse than that, members taking part in the research told us that their statement is actually contributing to their confusion, making them feel stupid and leading to apathy.”

The TUC’s policy officer for pensions - Tim Sharp - said that it was a matter of concern to him as to who was explaining pensions to employees.  He stated:

“People get pension statements, but many employers typically outsource their pensions to another provider so it’s not their responsibility to talk about it. But the provider also says it’s not their responsibility to talk about it.” 

Respondents in the research felt that their pensions are important as they recognised that it is likely to form a main source of income for them in the future.

One female aged under 35 years had received her last statement - but did not read it.  She reported:

“It is something that I think about more now I am 27 and in the process of buying my first home – before that I didn’t understand any of it and I would have thought pensions are only for old people. A pension is important to me if I ever want to retire.”

A male respondent, aged over 35 years stated that he had read his last statement and understood it well.  He said:

“Although I still have a while to go yet, I try to keep an eye on my workplace and private pensions, because they will be what I will have to live on when I do retire.”

The Simpler Annual Statement - developed by Ruston Smith - which was launched recently will try to provide simple and personalised information on an employee’s retirement savings. 

Ruston Smith - co-chair of the Department for Work and Pensions’ 2017 Automatic Enrolment Review Advisory Board and chair of the Tesco Pension Fund, alongside experts with the pension industry – said:

“We have a responsibility and the ability to help our members achieve the best outcome they can in retirement. By working collaboratively together and making statements and other communications we send them simpler; more readable and consistent across the industry are important steps in our journey to engage with them.”

It has been established that managers often fail to make HR aware of employees' FMLA leave requests – leaving it open to intermittent leave misuse.

Managers need to know - when employees request time off because of a health condition or to care for a family member’s health problem - whether that leave could qualify under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Stephanie Dodge Gournis, an attorney with Drinker Biddle in Chicago, has commented that managers should be trained to notify HR when they become aware that an employee is requesting time off for a medical condition. The employees requesting the leave are not required to specifically say that they need FMLA leave – it is the responsibility of the employer to identify where leave requests could qualify as job-protected FMLA leave. If it is suspected, HR should be notified immediately.

Managers should know that employees with serious health conditions may qualify for FMLA leave. The 1993 law allows for qualified employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for the birth or adoption of a child; to care for their own serious health condition, or to care for an immediate family member who has a serious condition. The FMLA has defined a serious health condition as an illness requiring inpatient care or continuing treatment. This could include three consecutive calendar days of inability to work or perform other regular daily activities; two or more visits to a medical provider within 30 days or one visit with a schedule of ongoing treatment.

However, employees must not only have a serious health condition - but also must have worked for 1,250 hours for the previous 12 months for an employer with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius of the worksite.

Camille Toney, an attorney with Greensfelder Hemker & Gale in St. Louis, stated that HR should be notified by management if any employee is absent for three consecutive days in order that they can provide the employee with the required notices in a timely manner.  She added that waiting for the three days of absence to have occurred "may result in employees taking more leave than they are entitled to and also creates a risk that an employee may inadvertently be disciplined under the company's attendance policy on account of FMLA-qualifying days of absence."

A recommendation that employers should introduce a written policy stating that any employee who wants FMLA leave should contact HR has been suggested by Joan Casciari, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago – in order that employers may avoid liability if the manager fails to realize that an employee has asked for FMLA leave.

Medical certifications should be sent to HR within 15 calendar days of receiving the form or as soon as is reasonable given the circumstances and managers should be aware of this.

Stephanie Dodge Gournis stated:

"Managers should be made to understand that FMLA medical certification forms provide employers the best weapon for preventing potential employee abuse of intermittent FMLA leave, as the medical certification forms provide the employer with important information regarding the expected frequency and duration of intermittent leave."

A report by Business Linked Teams - Grow Your Own Leader - has found that 45 per cent of one hundred senior UK HR professionals felt that the responsibility of identifying and developing future leaders should fall to line managers. A similar percentage were of the same opinion regarding making sure existing leaders are continuously developed. 

However, more than two thirds found there was a requirement to cultivate the future leaders in their business.  Eighty nine per cent believed succession planning was their organisation’s main concern, 51 per cent believed that face to face workshops were key elements to a leadership development programme and 37 per cent of those surveyed recognised that a structured, individual personal development plan was very important.

The report went on to point out that it is not only vital that HR leaders get the development plan under control in HQ, but also in each different region where the leadership development programme is being carried out. It is important to ensure that the programme is tailored to each different region – allowing for the various local and cultural factors.  Only 16 percent of HR decision makers admitted to having a global strategy in place with localised leadership training programmes.

Samantha Caine - Managing Director at Business Linked Teams – stated:

“It’s clear that HR leaders are placing too much expectation on line managers without providing the right levels of support. As a result, line managers are struggling to overcome the challenges identified on top of their existing day to day challenges.”

She added:

“As organisations face the challenges of a globalised marketplace, they require experienced leadership that knows the business inside out and can seamlessly succeed current leadership while demonstrating the skills and behaviours required to bolster the organisation in each specific market.” 

The report ended by stating:

“HR professionals must ensure that line managers are fully on-board and not simply delegate the task of identifying leaders and expecting them to do the rest.”

Dan Lucy - Principal Research Fellow at the Institute for Employment Studies -commented:

 “Unfortunately, it’s still the case that too many individuals attain leadership positions as a consequence of technical competence without any real interest or capability in managing or developing people. HR has a huge and important role to play here in ensuring that the right people are put in leadership positions, and their capabilities developed.”

According to Hays UK and Ireland in its What Workers Want Report 2018, over 70 per cent of job applicants would abandon their online application for work if it took more than 15 minutes to complete.  Alternatively, 49 per cent would instantly show interest in applying if the procedure was simple.

Simon Winfield - Managing Director of Hays UK and Ireland - said:

“Today’s candidates are more digitally fluent than ever before. They have become accustomed to doing everything online; from communicating with friends and catching up on news to managing their finances and booking their holidays.  As a result they have come to expect a very slick and intuitive user experience regardless of service or function. Not unreasonably, they expect the same ease of use when applying for a new role." 

He added:

“Too many employers have been very slow to recognise the applicant’s user experience as a key tenet of their recruitment strategy, and by extension the potential it has to paint either a very positive or negative first impression of the company. In neglecting to invest in the applicant’s user experience many employers may be undermining their ability to compete for the best talent.”

The survey - in which 14,600 employers and employees took part - showed that the majority of employers are failing to make online application processes part of their talent attraction strategies, despite 41 per cent of employers being aware that they offer a bad online experience.  Fifty per cent of applicants gave poor ratings for their experience when applying online using the employer’s website, with 72 per cent of those citing a lengthy process as the chief reason.

However, despite applicants placing importance on a simple online process, the report found that they still valued personal communication - with over 69 per cent of applicants saying that it is essential that they should be in contact with a person who can provide information on the progress of their individual application.   

Deborah O'Sullivan - Operations Director at recruitment experts Ten2Two - remarked that it was a mistake for employers to ignore their online application’s user functionality. 

She said:

“It creates an overall impression of a brand and a first impression of what it might be like to work for that business. If the user experience and recruitment process is unresponsive, prolonged or difficult, it doesn’t tell a great story and could lose great talent from the outset.”

The Managing Director of an online recruitment and job site emphasised that, whilst user functionality is important, employers also need to take care not to lose the human touch altogether when using online application processes. For instance, responses need to be sent, even if these are automated and all candidates should be kept up to date, even if their application hasn’t been successful.

Previous research - a survey published by Indeed in collaboration with Censuswide - revealed that online reputations were increasingly becoming necessary for attracting top talent.  Seventy per cent of jobseekers would not apply for a position until they had carried out research into the potential employer’s online reputation - and 57 per cent reported that they would distrust and not apply to a company with no digital identity.

As a result of analysis - published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) - regarding teenagers misjudging their future salaries, HR departments have been advised to team up with schools to inform their scholars about the business world.

The research showed that most teenagers hoping to attend university were overestimating their prospective salary by about £11,000 - expecting to be earning £35,000 by their 30th birthday when, in fact, data published by the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings 2017 showed that the average wage for a 30-year-old was £23,700. 

In addition, teenagers who did not aspire to attend university also overestimated their future earning but not to the same extent, as they cited £25,000.

Some young people were even more ambitious in their expectations for future earning potential.   Five per cent thought that they could earn £80,000 or more at the age of 30 but in reality, only 2 per cent earned £80,000.

Senior reward and payment adviser at the CIPD - Charles Cotton - said that the findings highlighted:

“....the importance of the HR profession working with schools and universities to talk about what the world of work looks like and involves and what pay expectations they can get”.  He added:

“It’s a case of working out, if you want to earn that amount of money, the careers you’ll need to go into.”  

The ONS found, however, that young people were more interested in job satisfaction and security rather than earning capacity. Seventy one per cent of those aged 16 to 21years - surveyed in 2015 to 2016 - said that having an interesting job was very important; sixty per cent felt job security was most important, whilst just 25 per cent thought a high income was very important. 

But the ONS analysis also revealed that many young people failed to land their dream jobs. The top five types of employment designated as dream jobs by teenagers previously surveyed were in media; teaching and education; health professionals; public services - such as police or fire fighters - and nursing and midwifery.  Of these, only teaching ranked in the top five in which 22 to 29-year-olds found employment during 2017.

Separate research by the ONS revealed that 12 per cent of young people without a degree were working in jobs usually assigned to graduates. Fifty four per cent of graduates held a comparable job, with HR roles being acknowledged as one of the most common graduate jobs being allocated to non-graduates - and attracting an average salary of £26,319.

A survey, conducted by Avado Learning in collaboration with Arch Apprentices, has found that 15% of 16 to 25 year olds were not confident in their management capabilities. Sixteen per cent stated that they had asked their employer for more training - which they had not received. Various reasons were given for the lack of training, with 45% saying that cost had been cited; 42% mentioned lack of time and 19% stated that they would have been required to pay for their own training.

The survey has also highlighted a confidence gap between male and female managers in the UK workplace. Almost half of the men polled said that they were very confident in their management skills, compared to only 30% of women polled - and a fifth of female managers even admitted they would rather be managed by a man.

The findings showed that age also played a part in the way management was perceived - with 68% of 20-24 years-olds saying they felt their age was a hindrance to their colleague's confidence in them as a manager. Nearly half of UK managers felt their gender or age had diminished their colleagues' confidence in them.

The Chief People Officer at Avado - Dean Corbett - said he did not believe that dealing with these issues was exclusively the responsibility of HR, but he added that it was commercially essential. He said:

“On a basic human level, no one should be made to feel there is a cap on their potential. It might be suggested by some that a lot of previous attempts have been box-ticking exercises. To address this, businesses need to be clearer and more direct about action.”

Amy Crawford - Managing Director at AVADO - stated:

"It is disappointing to see the negative impact gender and age has on confidence in management capabilities but encouraging to see the powerful impact that being qualified can have on employees."

Unison Assistant General Secretary, Christina McAnea, recommended that businesses should run regular courses to tackle any sexist or ageist beliefs - adding:

"Employers must make sure their managers have the best possible support, so that no one is ever made to feel they're not up to the job.”

During a recent webcast, speakers from Mercer Sirota (a global consultancy focusing on talent, health, retirement and investments) stated that women - more than men - feel that they can't speak with candor in the workplace.

The speakers cited the fact that women feel they cannot be up front about ethical concerns and are not treated considerately by managers.  They based this on the results of a recent 80 question survey of 3,010 U.S. workers - and on findings from five years of surveys given to about 1.3 million employees. The study related to what drives engagement and satisfaction in the workplace for men and women.

The survey found that 68% of women who responded agreed that they are satisfied with their jobs compared to 73% of men - and although both men and women reported that the type of work they do is the key factor that engages them, they were found to differ on the other factors that motivated them. 

The question of whether pay in the workplace is fair and transparent was put to the respondents of the survey and 41% of women said they believed it was compared to 51% of men.  According to a Mercer webcast speaker, complementing pay to performance keeps men and women satisfied at work - but the absence of fair earnings is especially discouraging to women.  

However, women are more concerned than men about the consequences of being candid at work.  A third of women stated that the do not feel able to express their views or ideas without fear of repercussions.  This compared with 29% of men.  When interviewed, Megan Connolly - a senior consultant at Mercer Sirota - stated that since the results were based in part on Mercer Sirota's ongoing survey of about 1.3 million employees worldwide, even a 4-percentage-point difference is something to pay attention to.      

The webcast speakers pointed out that if employees cannot be candid about new ideas or concerns in the workplace, they are less likely to feel positive about their career advancement and development opportunities.

Sixty-six percent of women believe that employees can get a fair hearing for their complaints, compared with 70% of men and women are also less comfortable than men speaking out about ethical concerns. More than 1 in 4 female employees, 26%, said they do not believe they can report an ethical concern without retaliation, compared with 21% of men.

Fifty-one percent of female employees said they believe that managers consider the impact of their actions on staff before making decisions and 56% of male employees believe the same.

Megan Connolly said, "A common theme in each of these differences is perceived fairness. We know that fairness is a crucial factor when it comes to building engagement."

Mercer Sirota principal, Pete Foley stated, "This research clearly suggests that companies that measure these gaps and focus efforts on closing them can not only improve engagement but help women thrive in the workplace." 

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that an investigation into an employee’s misconduct could not be regarded as unfair because the investigation report included details of the employee’s previous acts of misconduct, for which no disciplinary action had been taken.

In the case of NHS 24 v Pillar, Ms Pillar - a nurse - was dismissed for gross misconduct after a third patient safety incident (PSI).

Ms Pillar had previously been responsible for two similar incidents - one of which was two years before her dismissal and the other four years before her dismissal. Neither of those previous incidents had been treated as disciplinary matters at the time. However, the manager who investigated the third patient safety incident included details about the two previous PSIs in his report and this investigation report was used at the disciplinary hearing which resulted in Ms Pillar’s dismissal.

Ms Pillar claimed unfair dismissal and at the Employment Tribunal it was decided that it was reasonable, based on patient safety, for the employer to have treated the latest PSI as gross misconduct.  However, to dismiss was unfair as it was not reasonable to rely on the investigation report from the disciplinary hearing - given that the report relied on the inclusion of details concerning the two previous PSIs which had not led to disciplinary action.

The employer appealed and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed with the arguments presented by the employer and decided that dismissal was fair.  Ms Pillar’s argument was that the investigation report included too much information regarding the two previous incidents for which she had not, in fact, been disciplined. 

However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal stated that this was not a case of ‘totting up’ warnings - as none had been given - but an overall lack of clinical competence and it was wrong of the Employment Tribunal to decide that background information relevant to patient safety should have been withheld. A dismissal could be rendered unfair if the investigation is overzealous or unfair, but the role of the investigator is to put together all the relevant information and in this case, the fact that the employee had committed two prior PSIs was relevant information, which was entitled to be taken into account when the decision was made regarding dismissal.

This case could be assumed to give some reassurance to employers but it also reminds them that a fair investigation must be carried out by a separate investigating officer - and that it is possible for dismissal to be unfair if the investigation is not sufficient.  Also, in relation to past misconduct which has not been the subject of disciplinary action, employers should consider carefully its relevance to the case in question.  

Research by the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) and XpertHR has found that female HR managers earn £4.5k less than their male counterparts – which equates to approximately 10% difference.

New analysis carried out by CMI and XpertHR shows that while the average salary of a female manager is £40,177, male managers have an average of £44,646. This vast difference of £4,469 includes salary, bonuses and perks such as car allowance and commission.

The gender pay gap in the HR sector although significant, is considerably lower than it is across other sectors in UK businesses where the average male manager earns 26.8% more than their female colleagues.

This is the first year that research on management pay has been published and the CMI and XpertHR note that only 77 of 7,850 UK companies to which the new regulations apply have published their gender pay gap.

The new research shows that the gender pay gap is particularly high in finance jobs -where male managers earn 33.9% more than their female counterparts, which is equivalent to a salary difference of more than £18,000.  It is lowest in IT, where male managers earn just over 8% - or £3,758 - more than their female colleagues.

The study also found that women are less likely than men to fill junior management positions - 66% of jobs going to men whilst only 34% were given to women. Men were also found to be more likely to occupy senior positions - with only 26% of director roles being filled by women.  What is most discouraging is that even when women do obtain the senior roles, the pay gap widens to £34,144 with men earning an average of £175,673 and women earning just £141,529.

Ann Francke - CMI’s chief executive - comments: “Too many businesses are like ‘glass pyramids’ with women holding the majority of lower-paid junior roles and far fewer reaching the top. We now see those extra perks of senior management roles are creating a gender pay gap wider than previously understood. The picture is worst at the top, with male CEOs cashing-in bonuses six times larger than female counterparts. Our data shows we need the Government’s gender pay gap reporting regulations more than ever before. Yet, less than one percent of companies have reported so far. Time for more companies to step up and put plans in place to fix this issue. It’s essential if UK companies are to survive and thrive in the post-Brexit world.”

This year’s analysis also suggests that whilst salary and bonuses are increasing for both men and women, the benefits are going, to a greater extent, to men. Male directors received a 5.8% increase in pay and bonuses - compared to 3.7% for women.

Mark Crail - XpertHR content director said: “We have always known that the gender pay gap appears to widen with seniority. But the results we are publishing today enable us to quantify the gap using a large volume of reliable, checked and verified pay data, drawn directly from employer payroll systems. Some people have tried to explain the gender pay gap away as being the result of different working hours or individual career choices, but when the analysis is based on the pay of more than 100,000 individuals in well over 400 organisations, it is clear that the pay gap is a very real fact of life for UK managers.”

Three Square Market, a technology company in River Falls Wisconsin, recently became one of the first companies in the world - and the first in the US - to microchip staff.  It was approved by regulators in 2004.

Three Square Market is taking its lead from Sweden, where several companies are pioneering the employee microchip movement.

Although other companies in Sweden, the Czech Republic and Belgium have previously offered similar programmes, fewer than 10 per cent of workers have taken up the idea.  However, at Three Square Market more than 50 out of 80 employees have volunteered so far making this the largest uptake of any scheme yet.  This should now herald the way for other such schemes to be commonly adopted.

The chip costs approximately £230 each and is the size of a grain of rice.  It uses RFID - or radio-frequency identification technology - which is also used by postmen who scan parcels on barcodes and the same technology is used in a contactless credit card.  It is implanted between the thumb and forefinger.

Employees will not be required to have the implants and the chip will not track employees or have GPS positioning. 

Todd Westby, CEO of Three Square Market explained: ‘We foresee the use of RFID technology to drive everything from making purchases in our office break room market, opening doors, use of copy machines, logging into our office computers, unlocking phones, sharing business cards, storing medical/health information, and used as payment at other RFID terminals. It's the next thing that's inevitably going to happen, and we want to be a part of it. Eventually, this technology will become standardised allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities."  He added, “We think it's the right thing to do for advancing innovation just like the driverless car basically did in recent months.”

Mr Westby stated that the response among staff ‘exceeded my expectations’.

In the UK, biometric access systems such as facial, eye and fingerprint recognition have grown in use without any legal challenges and as, so far, there are no reported cases concerning the use of implanted microchips in employees in the UK, there has not been a legal challenge. However, if considering implementing this in the workplace, employers should tread very carefully.

Employees would have to give full and free consent to having microchips implanted – and be able to withdraw consent at any time as an employee who was instructed or who felt pressured to accept could potentially resign – claiming constructive dismissal.

Human rights, religious objections, personal injury claims (if the chip was incorrectly implanted) and the forthcoming General Data Protection Regulation will also have to be taken into account.  However, just as CCTV grew to be universally accepted, micro-chipping employees may soon be the new ‘norm’.

Estée Lauder are being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for giving new mothers more paid leave for care giving and child-bonding than new fathers.

If the lawsuit is successful, it could alter common parental leave policies in the U.S.

On Aug.30, the EEOC alleged in their lawsuit that Estée Lauder Companies Inc. infringed federal law by giving female employees who are new mothers more parental leave benefits than male employees who are new fathers. 

In addition to the paid leave provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, Estée Lauder provides new mothers with six additional weeks of paid parental leave for child bonding. New fathers receive two weeks of paid leave for child bonding. The lawsuit - filed in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia - also alleges that new mothers are provided with flexible return-to-work benefits that are not similarly provided to new fathers.

The EEOC asserts that this policy violates the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination in pay or benefits based on sex.

The agency began the case after Christopher Sullivan, a stock worker at a Maryland store, requested six weeks of leave for the birth of his child - but was only granted two.  Mr. Sullivan informed Estee Lauder that he would be the child’s primary caregiver, but he was told that the company only applied the primary caregiver title in surrogacy situations. Estee Lauder’s parental care policy was implemented in 2013 and provides primary caregivers six weeks of paid parental leave.  Fathers at Estée Lauder are eligible for secondary caregiver leave only. 

The EEOC's lawsuit against Estée Lauder is the most recent to be brought against a company for having different parental-leave policies for their female and male staff.  In June, a male fraud investigator at J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. alleged that the bank discriminated against him, saying that fathers were denied equal paid parental leave with mothers.

Supporters of equal paid leave say that the imbalance reinforces traditional gender roles by encouraging new mothers to stay at home and discouraging fathers from taking time off to care for a new child.

Mindy Weinstein, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Washington field office praised Estee Lauder for its parental leave policy and flexible work arrangements which were great in their intent.  However, she added,  “… federal law requires equal pay for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women.”

Results of recent research by employee engagement specialists, Reward Gateway, shows that employees are not getting what they require from their current wellbeing programmes - despite the fact that their wellbeing has been a top agenda point for HR for some years. 

The research surveyed 250 employees and 250 employers (senior decision makers) and was conducted in September 2017 by Censuswide.

The disparity of opinion between employee and employers has been shown in the results - over half of employers agree that their company shows that they care about employee’s mental, physical and financial wellbeing - whilst only 14% of employees say that their company could not do more to show they care about their mental, physical and financial wellbeing.

Research states that it is in the employer’s interest to care about their employee’s wellbeing as it was shown that more than half (52%) of UK employees agree that they would choose a company that cared about their wellbeing over one that pays more.  It is even more urgent to address the closing of the gap when consideration is given to the following results:

• 33% of those surveyed said that their company currently offers no wellbeing programmes
• Only 29% said that their company currently offers a physical wellbeing programme
• Only 23% said that their company currently offers a financial wellbeing programme
• Only 22% said that their company currently offers a mental wellbeing programme

• Over 22 million British workers, or 7 in 10 employees (71%), have felt stress or financial strain in the last five years

Head of Wellbeing at Reward Gateway, Lucy Tallick said,

“Employee wellbeing is not about crisis management and fixing problems. It’s about helping your people live better and feel better by facilitating sustainable lifestyle changes that really make a difference.  Employers should take into consideration that everyone has unique desires and needs, and, in order to gain buy in, it's much better to give the employee solutions that provide choice and flexibility. By creating an inclusive programme, you’ll also hugely increase your engagement.”

Doug Butler, CEO at Reward Gateway said,

“Wellbeing is a crucial part of employee engagement and, as the research shows, companies are struggling to implement the wellbeing initiatives that their staff need.  We continue to innovate our wellbeing offering in order to help our clients on their engagement journey. The selection available is wide-ranging, inclusive, and designed to enable our clients to support their employees’ unique wellbeing needs. By offering a broad range of wellbeing solutions that include educational content on how to live a healthier lifestyle, impartial advice from money experts, an employee assistance programme (EAP), and industry leading discounts and payment plans on gyms and fitness equipment, our goal is to support what we believe to be the three key pillars of holistic wellbeing; Physical, Mental and Financial.”

Fawcett Society, a gender equality and women’s rights charity, is warning the government and employers that if no action is taken against the gender pay gap there will be serious damage to the UK’s productivity levels.

New research, according to the Fawcett Society, revealed that more than half of women and men believe it is the responsibility of businesses and employers to work on reducing the gender pay gap. A majority of respondents also said the government should be responsible for solving this issue.

Fawcett Society Chief Executive, Sam Smethers, said research shows reducing the gender pay gap would equate to over 800,000 more women in work, adding £150bn to the economy by 2025. Human resource experts and other sceptics are unsure of where these estimations originated.

Of course there are also socioeconomic reasons for why the gender gap is so prevalent. In the UK there is still a very unequal distribution of responsibilities, with women usually acting as the primary caregiver for children and the elderly. Employers are making this type of issue worse by being reluctant to institute shared parental leave at a rate of pay that matches the enhanced pay that many women get for maternity leave.

Some HR professionals feel as though progress is already being made with the move towards gender pay audits. Additionally, some finance firms are reportedly committing to have women fill at least 30 per cent of senior roles by 2021

Released by McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org, Women in the Workplace 2016 is a comprehensive annual study that analyzes the state of women in corporate America. Per the study, women fall behind fairly early and face great challenges the more senior they become. Additionally, women are far less likely than men to receive an initial promotion which is critical to growth. Due to these core issues the higher you look in a company’s hierarchy, typically the less women you will find.

Women in the Workplace 2016 is part of an ongoing partnership between McKinsey & Company and LeanIn.Org that helps give companies the information they need to promote female leadership and generate more equality in the workplace between men and women.

The data for the report is based on information regarding HR practices from 132 companies that employ over four million people. Companies like Visa, Facebook and General Motors are just examples of companies included in the study. Over 34,000 employees completed a survey for the study created to analyze their experiences surrounding gender, opportunity, career and work/life issues.

Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO and founder of LeanIn.Org, stated that diverse teams tend to perform better overall proving there is a huge incentive to fix this issue of gender inequality in the workplace.

Global managing partner of McKinsey & Company, Dominic Barton, explains that in order to accelerate any progress there must be a thorough understanding of what is actually holding women back.

Contrary to popular belief the report did show that women negotiate for promotions and raises just as often as men do, however they face far more pushback. The study also found women who negotiate are more likely than men to get feedback that they’re “intimidating” or “too aggressive.”

Overall, company commitment to gender diversity is reportedly at an all-time high, but companies are finding it difficult to make this commitment actionable. Luckily, the 2016 report outlines steps companies can take to progress their efforts in gender diversity.

Following a recent Court of Appeal ruling at the beginning of the month, any saver facing bankruptcy should not be forced to cash in their pensions in order to pay off any outstanding debts.

Horton v Henry was a case based on whether a bankrupt person who is subject to an Income Payment Order, or IPO, can be forced to cash in their savings to pay off the impending debt. As per the rules of an IPO, a person subject to such is required to pay a proportion of their income to the bankruptcy trustee usually in the form of salary or wages.

This case was initially heard about two years ago when the Judge decided there shouldn’t be any entitlement to undrawn funds in a pension under the aforementioned circumstances. This same principle applies to lump sum rights.

This ruling ran counter to Raithatha v Williamson heard in 2012. The Court in this case held that individuals with pensions that had not been crystallized could be forced to take them under an IPO. If this particular ruling had set a precedent, anyone over the age of 55 facing a bankruptcy could potentially be forced to draw their pensions whether they really wanted to or not.

Fortunately for savers, an appeal against the ruling in Horton v Henry was dismissed. One HR expert said this kind of pension freedom really changes the way savers can choose to spend their retirement pot. Other human resource experts also agree this kind of UK legal system decision really indicates how the legal system acknowledges the importance of the pension and the fact that it should truly belong to the saver.

It appears the younger generation might not be as fiscally irresponsible as previously reported. New figures released by HMRC show that under 35’s now represent the largest group of people who contribute to personal pensions.

This age group makes up 34% of all people who contribute to personal pensions, the largest percentage of any age group. Auto-enrolment has been cited as largely responsible for the vast year over year improvement. Human resource experts explain that auto-enrolment has had a positive effect on all age groups, not just the under 35’s. More people, overall, are contributing to personal pensions. Furthermore, this number is the highest it has ever been since 2001 when records first began.

While all of this news is extremely positive, one area of concern circles around the self-employed group who seem to be saving less. The number of self-employed people saving in a personal pension has fallen to less than 400,000 in 2014/2015. This is the lowest number since records began in 2001. This number is alarming, according to HR experts, because self-employed workers make up approximately 15% of Britain’s workforce.

Alistair McQueen, savings and retirement manager at Aviva, says that even though the harsh reality of the self-employed group cannot be ignored, the amount being saved overall is approaching an all-time high and should be celebrated. He goes on to say the financial challenges facing the under 35’s are well documented and include issues like increasing property prices, student debt and job insecurity. Yet, with all of these challenges, the fact that this age group has managed to save is to their credit. This age group is certainly helping lead the way in Britain’s pension revival.

Directly following concerns that employees and business owners will desert the capital after Britain leaves the EU, London’s mayor’s office is outlining a plan to create a London work permit.

Mayor Sadiq Khan recently told Sky News that a group of business reps were working on a model to ensure London organisations will still be able to recruit and attract the right skilled talent. Mayor Khan explained to Sky News that the office is speaking to business leaders, business representatives and businesses themselves to see what can be done to make sure London doesn’t lose out on the talent needed to ensure innovation.

Khan has already discussed the plans with Chancellor Philip Hammond, Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. Next, Khan will meet with Prime Minister Theresa May to discuss the proposal further.

While all of this is going on, it’s been revealed that Scotland will not receive any special power over migration. Separate controls would actually harm the integrity of the United Kingdom system, according to Immigration Minister Robert Goodwill. Any application of different immigration rules to different regions of the UK could complicate the entire immigration system.

Consulting group Mercer recently explained in a report that employers are increasingly offering paid time off for adoptions, partly due to the ever-changing definition of “family”.

Mercer further explained the findings by saying that providing leave for all parents is just a way to accommodate varied families, whether they be same sex couples or otherwise.

In its 2016 Global Parental Leave report, Mercer shows that United States employees enjoy 12 weeks of unpaid leave for adoptions, as long as they meet the Family and Medical Leave Act’s eligibility requirements. The report goes on to say companies are beginning to provide more generous leave, though. The 2016 Global Parental Leave report is based off findings from a study which surveyed companies around the world. The survey was able to show employers in countries with generous mandated leave really leaned on the applicable law. In areas of the world like the US, however, employers have “filled the void” with more paid time off.

When it comes to providing any kind of leave for adoption, United States companies rank the highest while Asia ranks the lowest.

Potentially the most interesting part of this report is that there is a complete lack of government mandates in the area of human resources. Many countries require paid maternity leave, but far less require the same paid time off for new fathers.

For companies who do offer this kind of paid time off, human resource experts are urging these organizations to use this as a recruiting and retention tool. This kind of thinking is still considered progressive and new, so highlighting something like this during a hiring process could provide a competitive edge.

Total membership of occupational pension schemes in the UK was at the highest level ever in 2015, according to the ONS’s Occupational Pension Schemes Survey series.

Active membership of occupational pension schemes exceeded 11 million in 2015, considering both private and public sectors. Total memberships in the UK equated to 33.5 million last year, or a 10% increase over 2014. An analysis of private sector defined contribution schemes showed the average total in 2015 was quite comparable to 2014 numbers, but membership and contribution rates are likely to have been influenced by factors like workplace pension reforms.

General Secretary Frances O’Grady recently replied to the staggering statistics saying auto-enrolment certainly started with a bang by bringing “millions more people into workplace pensions.” He continued by explaining the job isn’t nearly done, though. He said the UK should be extremely concerned about plunging pension contributions. More work definitely needs to be done by the government to provide a long-term plan for how pensions will provide retirement pots sufficient for low and middle-income earners.

Additionally, Tom McPhail of Hargreaves Lansdown reminds the government of the many millions of people who are opting for self-employment who are not enrolled in a pension. Between self-employment and the shift away from defined benefit pensions in the private sector, HR experts are predicting increased financial pressures on employers and employees alike.

Just Retirement, a specialist financial services company, says thousands of retirees are opting for higher risk and lower returns versus high performance pension incomes.

Official figures show that over 50% of people accessing pension money whose plans include a guaranteed annuity rate are not choosing to take advantage of this option. This number is even more surprising when you consider the fact that over one million savers have plans that offer a guarantee to pay income for life of five to ten times the return received from even the best savings accounts. Even more astounding, about one third of the people who are taking cash from pensions are storing it in savings accounts.

One human resource expert explains that if a person has a plan that offers a guaranteed rate for life this person should consider themselves one of the lucky few. This is considered a high performance option. Giving something like this up could be a very expensive mistake.

Breaking this down even further, Just Retirement found that years ago when rates were higher pension providers made promises they are now having to honour. From a guaranteed annuity rate the usual income paid was between nine and 12 percent. However, in some cases it was as high as 14 percent. Furthermore, these guarantees are such a big deal that providers are obligated to tell holders if your pension plan has one.

So, why are some people exploring this option while others are not? The research revealed that holders with smaller pension pots were more likely to shun a guaranteed annuity rate while those with bigger pots proved more open to advice.

HR experts are urging pension holders to examine all the facts prior to making a decision. There is no reason why a pension provider’s loss can’t be a pension holder’s gain.

Human resource experts and United States employers predict the strongest hiring plans since the fourth quarter of 2007 in the final three months of this year, according to ManpowerGroup’s latest Manpower Employment Outlook Survey.

While hiring plans in the United States seem to be a cause for celebration, globally things still appear to be a bit patchy. Brazil, Italy, France, Greece and Finland all report “negative” hiring intentions and China plans to add staff at the slowest rate in over six years.

The Manpower Employment Outlook Survey had over 11,000 United States employers participate. Chief executive officer of ManpowerGroup explained that the US labor market continues to show “broad-based, stable growth, with significant milestones over time”. Unfortunately, as the job market tightens up, employers are reporting that it is becoming more difficult to find skilled candidates.

Globally, approximately 59,000 employers were surveyed in 42 countries and territories. Overall, hiring prospects strengthened in 15 of the 42 countries while it declined in 20. HR experts feel that this varying degree of intent proves that there is a lack of widespread economic momentum. Politics and economic difficulties clearly play a role in these intentions to hire and as a result, employers are being extremely cautious when choosing when to bring on more working staff.

Some bad news for the UK, it appears that life expectancies have fallen when compared to 2014. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries CMI Mortality Projections Model released last week was used for the comparison, and is used by the vast majority of UK pensions schemes when making assumptions about the life expectancy of their members.

The model shows that a male is expected to live, on average, four months less than the 2014 model predicted. United Kingdom pensions experts estimate that this will reduce the liabilities of the UK private sector pension schemes by approximately £15bn.   Public sector pension liabilities could decrease by an estimated £70bn, including state pensions.

HR experts feel that this information will have to be taken into consideration by trustees and employers, who will have the option of adopting the new projections when updating their figures. These new life expectancy figures could technically just be a “random variation” or they could potentially indicate a slowing of any improvements that have been seen over the last few years. Human resource professionals feel that trustees and employers may even have to wait for another major mass lifestyle change or more medical advances before any kind of life expectancy or longevity begins to accelerate.

This new model should serve as a reminder to employers and trustees that this is simply a guide and not written in stone. As with any model, it should be taken lightly and not as the be all and end all.

Year after year it seems that health insurance costs continue to soar and while insurance plans help to a certain extent, employees are being asked to take on more of the financial load.

According to a series of annual workforce surveys conducted by Aflac, nine in 10 employees claim they expect more decision-making tools and support when they’re making their benefits selections during open enrollment. Since they’re expected to pay more now, HR managers are reporting employees asking for more involvement than ever before. A majority of the surveyed respondents said they want more brand name options, since a good reputation is important to them. Thirty-five percent of employees also agreed when asked if they needed to be more engaged in health insurance coverage decisions. This is a 21% increase from 2014.

When considering which insurance plan to select though, the number one factor employees said mattered was price. The survey also revealed that many individuals reportedly regretted choosing a high-deductible health plan because they didn’t fully understand what they were signing up for.

The majority of working age people with pensions do not understand the tax relief that they receive on their contributions.

A YouGov online survey conducted for The People’s Pension found that 15% of the respondents had never even heard of tax relief.   This statistic was proven by half of those with a workplace pension who said they’d be more likely to increase the amount they saved if they received a form of tax relief on their contributions.  This response was given despite the fact that most of these people were already receiving tax relief.

Director of policy and market engagement at The People’s Pension said that this research really highlights the fact that tax relief is barely understood.

Human resource experts were quite surprised by the results of this survey, due to the fact that there has been widespread publicity about pensions following the introduction of the freedom and choice reforms in April.  This publicity also directly followed the launch of the Chancellor’s consultation into tax relief at the Budget in June this year.

The survey also found that there was strong support for a system where the Government matched savers’ contributions.  Additionally, if this were to actually happen, over half of the surveyed said they would be more likely to increase the amount they saved.

As smaller businesses begin to stage for auto-enrolment, millions of people could possibly be introduced to the idea of a pension for the first time.  HR experts believe it is more important now than ever that people understand what a pension is, what comes with it and how to maximize their savings.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ‘EAT’, who recently ruled a woman had been discriminated against because of her caste, gave a “warning’ to employers to make sure they’re recruiting, paying and promoting on merit.

Permila Tirkey was recruited from India and paid only 11p an hour to assume her position as a cleaner and nanny for a family living in the United Kingdom.  The tribunal heard that Tirkey’s family are Adivasi people of “low caste” and her employers made her work 18-hour days, seven days a week as a domestic servant.  Tirkey was awarded £184,000 in unpaid wages in a landmark case deemed “the first successful case of its kind.”

This was not an easy process for Tirkey, though.  The case against her employers was originally dismissed prior to going to an Employment Appeal Tribunal in January of this year.  Tirkey originally claimed compensation for direct (as well as indirect) race discrimination, harassment and religious discrimination.  In May 2013 her claim was amended to say the treatment she received was also due to her ethnic and national origins (status, caste and descent).

Tirkey’s employer fought back citing her claim should be struck out because the Equality Act 2010 doesn’t specifically include caste.  Unfortunately for her employer’s, the EAT upheld the case.

This particular case has implications for the Equality Act and could potentially pave the way for further caste discrimination cases, according to human resource experts.  There are multiple questions surrounding what a caste actually is and how broad this definition extends.  Since this particular case is so highly publicised, HR experts expect to see further caste discrimination cases being brought to tribunal.  The only reason this may not happen, according to sceptics is the recent change to employment tribunal fees.

Women in the United Kingdom still earn almost 20 percent less than men (Closing The Gender Pay Gap).  Fortunately, the government have just finished a consultation on new regulations aimed at helping to close this gender pay gap.

Currently a gender pay gap exists in every EU country, although some governments are starting to tackle this matter by introducing legislature that requires employers to report on information like pay equality. 

Whilst the United Kingdom is therefore not alone in the fight for gender pay equality, they are trying to stifle this raging issue.  New regulations which are due to come into force in March 2016, will require large private and voluntary sector employers to publish data on gender pay gaps within their organisations.  While the full details surrounding these regulations haven’t been released, human resource experts do believe that the reporting transparency will apply to UK-based employers with 250 or more employees. 

Unfortunately for some employers, reporting duties currently differ from country to country.  This means businesses with employees across Europe will face a range of different rules, regulations and requirements.

HR experts explain that since all of these potential changes are now starting to come to light, some international businesses might decide that it’s worth governments considering a more uniform approach to gender pay gap reporting.  Ideally, one kind of requirement or compliance regulation globally for gender pay rate reporting would be a better scenario for certain businesses.  However, the issue with this is that a global rule would potentially affect countries that do not have a commitment to promoting gender equality.

Aegon is not allowing its customers to access pension freedoms unless they obtain some form of independent financial advice.

Unless these customers pay for advice, the pension provider company has completely prevented savers from having flexible access to their own retirement funds until April of next year.  Those who choose not to pay for advice can do one of three things: cash in the entire pension and face a tax bill, exchange the entire fund for an annuity, or transfer to another pension provider.

This particular decision, according to human resource experts, follows Friends Life’s decision.  Back in June, this company decided not to offer its customers any kind of flexible drawdown.  These decisions are leaving many left to wonder if pension freedoms are even being used in the way the government originally intended.

Aegon does say that it will possible launch a flexible plan next year, but nothing is set in stone.  This news comes at the same time as Sky News reported that the insurer hired investment bank Citi to oversee the possible sale of its UK assets.