In a survey for Bond Solon - a leading training organisation for expert witnesses - more than 40 per cent of witnesses who had been cross-examined in a remote session stated that barristers are less aggressive than when in the courtroom.

Mark Solon - the solicitor-founder of the organisation - stated:

“It is more difficult for the cross-examining lawyer to control the flow of the courtroom encounter online.”

He added that barristers “may also have found aggressive courtroom dramatics do not actually work online. A booming voice, intimidating stare or a look of disbelief appear silly on a small screen.”

He went on to warn that in the future, advocates “may need a more forensic approach and find more screen-appropriate methods of disconcerting a witness to discredit their evidence. They will need new online advocacy skills and experts will have to keep up.”

Of those who had given oral evidence online, it was found that approximately half thought that it was given as much significance as when in a live hearing.

Mark Solon speculated that the drawbacks of technology may have added to increased attention, remarking:

“This may be because a judge or jury needs to be very attentive as the image of the witness is in two dimensions and looks much smaller than when seen in person in the courtroom, and the sound may not be as clear.”

Courtroom experts are unwavering in their desire for improvements in the digital revolution in the courts if it is to continue without damaging justice.

Mark Solon added:

“It is crucial that the technology used by courts is of high quality so those involved can hear and see clearly. Interruptions by an impatient cross-examining lawyer also appear ruder on a TV monitor, and lawyers may have learnt to be silent as a witness speaks, and this could give the impression to the witness that their evidence is given greater weight.”

According to the survey, experts said that – in terms of lower costs and greater convenience – the use of remote hearings are an advantage. Over 60 per cent of expert witnesses reported conducting roughly half of their work remotely during the pandemic and Mark Solon describes that as a “seismic shift from before Covid. It has implications for how investigations and examinations are conducted, how instructions are taken and how evidence is given.”

He stated:

“This also means that the time saved can allow the expert to have more time for their day job and the ability to take more instructions.”

HR have several questions to ponder on the issue of whether employers can insist that staff take the Covid vaccine when it is offered to them.

At present there is no legal basis for forcing people to get vaccinated and therefore reliance must be on persuading them of the safety of the vaccine and the fact that it is in their interest to accept it.

The government has issued guidance to frontline healthcare workers specifying the benefits of being vaccinated - reduced chance of catching Covid or becoming seriously unwell if they do and less likelihood of infecting their friends, family and any vulnerable people in their care. As the government are unable to legally compel people to be vaccinated, it is means that employers cannot force the issue either.

However, Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 requires employers to take all reasonably practicable steps to reduce workplace risks to their lowest practicable level. To reduce the risk of catching or spreading the virus to others at work, staff should be strongly encouraged to get vaccinated. If it can be shown that asking staff to accept the vaccine is a reasonable management instruction and it is refused, disciplinary action may be justified.

Employment lawyers do not agree about whether it is a reasonable request to ask staff to be vaccinated and then to act against anyone who refuses. The argument hinges on whether vaccination will protect other members of staff or people they are in contact with - but advice from both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the government is that vaccinated people are much less likely to transmit the virus to others, making it likely to be reasonable to instruct frontline staff to be vaccinated.

Consideration also needs to be given to the fact that some staff will not yet have been offered the vaccine - but advance warning to them of the company approach to ‘jab or no jab’ would be sensible.

Staff may be worried about having the vaccine - this is referred to by the World Health Organisation as ‘vaccine hesitancy’ and is considered as one of the top ten threats to global health. This should be discussed with the people concerned and advice given to them as to where they can obtain reliable, impartial information before any sort of action is instigated against them.

Some of the staff who refuse to be vaccinated will be protected under the Equality Act 2010 - which covers religion; disapproval of the vaccine because animal products were used in the development and race, age, sex and disability - and if challenged, employers will have to justify their approach as it will potentially be indirectly discriminatory to insist on vaccination. Other solutions, such as permanent homeworking, could be considered.

Before dismissal, employees should be warned and given a final opportunity to comply. Dismissal should be on notice and ideally, legal advice should be sought before any action is taken against anyone refusing to be vaccinated.

Much depends on whether asking them to be vaccinated is a reasonable management instruction.

In the case of Martine Robinson and Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation and Dr Chris Mercier in the County Court at Liverpool, the judge ordered expert witness Dr Mercier to pay £50,000 in costs, following the ruling that the witness had acted in a wholly unreasonable and negligent manner.

This is a warning to all expert witnesses to ensure that they only accept instructions on matters within their expertise; to help and assist the Court on matters within their expertise; to keep their duty to the Court under constant review and to understand that their duty to the Court is theirs alone and that it is not for another party to police that duty.

The background to the case was that a claim for dental negligence had been brought by Ms Robinson against the hospital trust - for treatment that she had received at Aintree Hospital. It concluded with Ms Robinson withdrawing her claim after evidence was given by the expert witness, Dr Mercier.

In the ruling the judge stated:

"I formed the view during trial that Dr Mercier was not making any efforts to assist the court, but instead wilfully sticking to his case theory irrespective of the questions asked or the evidence given. His evidence was grossly unhelpful and wholly unreliable in my judgement. I will not at this stage detail examples of the same, because it is not relevant to this application. The application before me is predicated on the specific assertion that it should have been obvious to Dr Mercier at the outset, and at various stages throughout the proceedings, that he was not the appropriate expert to opine on the management and treatment afforded to the claimant on 8th November 2016."

The judge concluded that, but for Dr Mercier’s report the claim would not have been brought and added:

“All costs claimed within the defendant’s cost budget are therefore caused by Dr Mercier’s flagrant disregard for his duty to the court. A public body has been put to considerable expense in financing costly litigation that should not have been brought.

Although it is not part of my considerations, I observe that a hard-working oral and maxillofacial surgeon was maligned in public and undoubtedly caused significant distress by the actions of Dr Mercier."

Simon Berney-Edwards - EWI Chief Executive Officer, said:

"This case once again highlights the importance of those giving expert evidence understanding their role and their duty to the court. That absolutely includes highlighting where a matter is out of your area of expertise as Dr Mercier should have done. Members of the Expert Witness Institute sign up to a code of professional conduct and ensure they understand their role and duty to the court.”

A study conducted by the Recruitment & Employment Confederation (REC) found that Britain’s job market is experiencing record numbers of vacancies, with a total of 2.68 million active postings.

In the first week of November around 221,000 new job adverts were posted and the REC feels that this increase shows no signs of slowing down in the run up to Christmas.

The study showed that the largest increase in vacancies was amongst driving instructors, prison officers and some key workers such as forklift truck drivers, secondary school teachers and care workers. In comparison, construction sector roles such as painters and decorators, roofers and bricklayers had decreased, which was thought to be in response to supply chain delays which is putting constraints on the building industry.

Industry experts feel the increase in job movement could be because many employees had been waiting to move due to uncertainty caused by the pandemic, whilst some over 50s had now decided that it is the time to retire - the Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey recently found that more older workers had left the workforce after being made redundant., whereas Jonathan Boys, Labour Market Economist at the CIPD put the number of older workers were taking early retirement or entering inactivity down to illness or disability.

He stated:

“Worryingly, there’s a trend of people leaving the labour market completely, transitioning from employment to a state of inactivity,”

Kate Palmer, HR Advice and Consultancy Director at Peninsula, said that recruitment managers “must proactively identify their target employees’ priorities and tailor their job advertisements to include these areas”.

Whereas some experts felt that these record number of vacancies just might give employees the better say in pay negotiations.

According to a new European study by global workplace creation experts Unispace, 67 per cent of UK and Irish office workers are reluctant to return to the office after the pandemic.

The detailed survey of 3,000 office workers, 2,750 employers in leadership roles at businesses employing over fifty persons - and interviews with global senior leaders in Real Estate, HR and Operations - also revealed that 71 per cent of business leaders themselves are reluctant to physically return to the workplace.

When questioned as to the reasons behind the reluctance to return to the office, commuting was shown to be their biggest concern - unsurprising after having experienced a period of saving money on travel expenses and gaining time not travelling to and from work. However, 75 per cent of respondents stated that if employers agreed to pay their travel costs, it would encourage them back to the workplace.

The research also revealed that 41 per cent of workers feel they were more productive in the workplace than at home; 93 per cent stated that they would like to see changes made to their current place of work to make it more appealing and 25 per cent said they would like to see more private spaces available. Others - 23 per cent - wanted a better layout, whilst 22 per cent would prefer more amenities.

The study disclosed that UK and Irish employers had taken various steps to attract employees back to the office, but these are not in line with what the employees want. Some respondents stated that a number of new measures have been introduced with 40 per cent citing safety protocols; 36 per cent offering flexible starting times and 32 per cent providing separate spaces for collaboration and quiet working.

Lawrence Mohiuddine - CEO EMEA at Unispace - stated:

“The UK and Ireland were two of the few countries polled across Europe where employers were more reluctant to return than their employees. While we can certainly see a clear trend in concerns around the commute for workers in these two locations, the mismatch between the incentives that businesses are implementing - and what employees really want to feel encouraged back to the workplace - does suggest some employers only understand their workforce at a surface-level.

With so many employees indicating a desire for workplace improvements, there is clearly a need to re-think workspaces across the UK and Ireland to encourage employees back.”

Following the success of the Hampton-Alexander Review, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy have announced that a new chair will be appointed to lead the FTSE Women Leaders Review, which aims to increase opportunities for women on boards of the UK’s top listed companies over the next 5 years.

In the UK in 2011, only 9% of women served on FTSE 350 boards. The Hampton-Alexander Review, which ran from 2015 to 2020, aimed to have women holding 33% of board positions by 2020. However, in its final report which was published earlier in 2021, it was revealed that this target had been exceeded, as 34.3% of FTSE 350 board positions were then held by women. Additionally, female representation was at 36.2 per cent in FTSE 100 companies and 33.2 per cent in FTSE 250 companies.

While it is not yet known the precise targets of the new review, some have suggested that it could focus on the roles women hold on FTSE boards and also aim to boost the number of Executive Director positions held by women.

Business minister Paul Scully has urged that:

“Companies shouldn’t take their foot off the gas. Evidence shows that more diverse businesses are more successful businesses – the case is too strong to ignore.”

The review is already welcoming submissions of gender diversity data from FTSE 350 companies, who can submit their gender diversity data via the FTSE Women Leaders Review online portal by 30th November 2021, and the next annual report is due to be published in February 2022.

A study from HR group CIPD has found that 49 per cent of the 1,502 professionals - from Ireland and the UK - who took part in The People Profession 2021 survey from CIPD in association with Workday, have had to upskill due to their workplace's response to the pandemic.

A further 11 per cent have had to learn entirely new HR skills in different areas of work to enable them to effectively respond to changes brought about by the crisis.

This contrasts dramatically with what HR professionals said last year - when 83 per cent of respondents to a survey believed they had the right skills to deal with any challenges.

Peter Cheese - CIPD Chief Executive - said:

“2020 was an exceptional year for our profession”

He added:

“The difficult external circumstances put great demand on all of us, and people professionals have been at the forefront of the organisational response, supporting people, implementing rapid changes, adapting and learning. It’s great to see so many colleagues recognising the need to strengthen their skills and ensure they have the right expertise to guide and make an impact in their organisations in an ever-changing world of work.”

After being asked about the contribution and impact people functions have on organisations, it was found that 52 per cent of respondents recognise links between HR practices and business outcomes that are agreed across their organisation; 58 per cent have a clear understanding of what success looks like in organisational outcomes and 73 per cent work collaboratively across business functions to meet organisational needs. A further 52 per cent feel they add financial value by supporting organisational effectiveness, with 40 per cent believing the standing of HR and people processionals has increased because of the work they have done during the pandemic.

Peter Cheese added:

“We’ve always been aware of the vital role our profession plays, but the pandemic has accelerated a focus to putting people much more front and centre in the business agenda and for our profession to step forward and demonstrate their skills and abilities. Now is the time to see people professionals build on the fantastic work they’ve done over the last year and continue driving change in their organisations as we continue to navigate the pandemic and the changing future of work and working practices.”

Mary Connaughton - Director of CIPD Ireland - highlighted one difference between responses from the UK and Ireland, saying:

"Among our UK colleagues, 41 per cent of respondents said that supporting line managers is a priority area for improvement across their HR capability, but the figure stands at just 29 per cent here. This is a source of concern as a lack of capability among line managers could form a barrier to the maximum contribution of HR practices to the organisation. We would encourage members and their employers to devote more energy towards supporting line managers with this part of their role".

Michael Douroux - Global Vice President, Northern Europe and South Africa at Workday - said:

"Those in the people profession have really risen to the moment in the last year, helping businesses and employees alike to overcome an incredibly challenging period. Amidst huge uncertainty and a fast-changing environment, leaders have helped people stay informed, engaged and supported. As we all strive to recover and make the world of work better, applying what we’ve learned over the last year, it’s clear that a data-driven agile culture is vital - leading to better-informed decisions and fewer surprises along the way."

According to new research from Legal & General Retail Retirement and the Centre for Economics and Business Research, 11 per cent of workers - approximately 20,000 - over 50 years of age, have disappeared from the workforce after being made redundant.

The report - which looks at the experiences of the over 50s - raises serious concerns about the impact of redundancy on the age diversity of the UK workforce. Among the over 50s experiencing redundancy in the past five years, 62 percent felt that their age was a contributing factor.

From 2007 to the second quarter of 2021, the average rate of redundancy among the over 50s has been nearly a fifth higher than for the under 50s, with the study showing that older workers - on average - have been 17 per cent more likely to face redundancy than their younger colleagues.

This has had serious consequences for retirement savings, with those affected saving £29,000 less into their pension pot, reducing the amount needed for a comfortable retirement lifestyle by 18 per cent or £1,900 annually.

Of those employees over 50 years, 9 per cent having experienced reduced hours; 7 per cent a salary cut; 12 per cent furlough and 8 per cent redundancy - it is estimated that they will suffer a reduction of £3,100.

However, despite the redundancy rate being higher, the unemployment rate for over 50-year-olds is inclined to be lower than that of the rest of the workforce. The Office for National Statistics Labour Force Survey finds the reason for this is because more older workers leave the workforce after being made redundant.

Andrew Kail - CEO, Legal & General Retail Retirement - stated:

“The disappearance of the older worker presents a serious challenge to employers. Not only are they the fastest growing employee population but they also have a wealth of experience that UK employers will miss out on if this trend continues. As we all adjust to new ways of working in the wake of Covid-19, where ‘retirement’ will be different for many people, it’s crucial that older workers are not forgotten.

The Government’s planned investment of additional funds to get over 50s back into work is a step in the right direction, but there is much more to be done to promote an age diverse workforce. We are living and working longer than ever before and the reality is, many of us will be relying on working longer to save for retirement. It’s therefore vital that older workers feel protected in the workplace, and not at greater risk of redundancy. As an industry, we also need to encourage people to prioritise saving throughout their working life, so finances have time to grow, enabling retirees to enjoy their desired standard of living.”

A spokesperson from the government stated that their statistics show that there are 250,000 more over 50s on the payroll than a year ago and added:

“Older workers are a huge asset to companies and there are currently almost nine million workers aged over 50 on employer payrolls – an increase of more than a quarter of a million compared to a year ago. Our recent £500m expansion to the Plan for Jobs is helping hundreds of thousands of older workers to retrain, build new skills and get back into work, including through our 50 Plus: Choices offer, the Sector-Based Work Academy Programme and our Job Entry Targeted Support scheme. The government is taking steps to help older workers to remain in work and we know that access to good quality flexible working can help older people to remain in work for longer."

Cendex - part of XpertHR - has found that 59 per cent of IT and telecom HR professionals are expecting that there will be an increase in resignations by employees over the next 12 months, as businesses move back to office working.

The top of employees’ priority has once again become their salary. During the lockdown periods, 44 per cent of IT and telecom staff accepted pay freezes - but this has changed now that restrictions have been removed and office working has returned.

In this sector, 56 per cent of HR professionals have discovered that not only do employees count pay as the most important job factor, but 28 per cent also found that their employees were requesting salary reviews on a monthly basis.

However, 36 per cent of IT and telecoms HR professionals say they only review pay packages once a year - with a further 36 per cent stating that they review quarterly. Following the pandemic, just 34 per cent of technology companies state that they have modified their salary structure.

As reported by 85 per cent of HR professions from UK businesses, competition has intensified notably during the last year, provoking what has become known as ‘the great resignation’. As turnover is predicted to be very high next year, the competition for talent will further intensify, making it vital that businesses use whatever power they can to not only attract new talent - but to retain their existing staff, who have remained loyal to them throughout the pandemic.

Scott Walker - Managing Director at Cendex - commented:

“Technology has always been a leading sector for staff perks, salary and setting the new standard for employee experience. However, the data suggests not enough is being done to meet pay expectations. In order to remain competitive HR professionals must benchmark their reward offerings against other firms, otherwise they run the risk of losing talent.”

To retain their top staff, employers need to recognise employee demand and strive to meet it. HR professionals need to review salary and benefit offerings on a much more regular basis, gauging market demands to remain competitive in the retention of staff and what workers expect from employers.

The impact of COVID-19 and the acceleration of digital in 2020 has brought into focus the UK’s digital skills gap – according to a report from Microsoft UK. Although organisations are attempting to respond, recover and reimagine operations.

Up-skilling employees was said to be the top priority in the next six months - by 32 per cent of C-level executives surveyed. In addition, 80 per cent of leaders stated that it is their belief that investment in digital skills will be important to the country’s economic recovery.  Employees who were also surveyed reportedly felt as though overcoming the digital skills gap is important for the future.

Of the respondents to the survey, 59 per cent said that developing their digital skills will be important to their employability after COVID-19 ends – with 70 per cent saying that they feel that access to digital skills is vital for economic and social inclusion.

Leaders identified the barriers to helping to remedy the skills gap as cost and lack of skills strategy - with the main barrier being cost, as stated by 37 per cent of respondents and secondly, skills strategy being named by 28 per cent.

Forty four per cent of UK leaders stated that they worry that the current lack of digital skills will impact negatively on next year’s success and 63 per cent of employees admit that they do not have the required digital skills needed in the new and emerging roles in their industry.

Simon Lambert - Chief Learning Officer at Microsoft UK - when speaking to HR magazine, said:

“Awareness is the first step to action. There is a sense of urgency to act now but what’s preventing them is, understandably, cost, the second obstacle is the lack of a skills investment strategy and the third is not knowing what skills initiatives to focus on.

It’s a new era of investment, collaboration, commitment from both employees and employers and the government alike. Especially as we continue to respond, recover and move on post-COVID.”

He added:

“Equipping all employees with strong digital skills is not just a commercial imperative but a societal one. A way to overcome barriers of inequality and regional imbalance while also fostering greater diversity, inclusion and economic growth.”

Peter Cheese - CEO of CIPD - was quoted in the report as saying:

“We under-invest in our people in the workplace and now need to strengthen alignment between education, employment and lifelong learning.”

To help address the need, Microsoft is launching a global skills initiative aimed at bringing more digital skills to 25 million people worldwide by the end of the year.

After surveying 1,500 small and medium business staff nationwide, the HR and people management platform - Employment Hero - found that since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a worrying lack of support for employees.  More than 31 per cent of respondents said they had not received adequate support from their employers since the onset of COVID-19.

Particularly in smaller organisations, the HR function has been under increasing pressure by the problems triggered by the pandemic.  The replies from those surveyed have indicated that 51.2 per cent of small business employees have little or no contact from their employers with regards to mental health issues and home-based health and safety.

A further 46.5 per cent of staff from British small and medium size enterprises did not receive any support on motivation and 55 per cent stated that they did not receive any financial guidance.

Of the furloughed staff surveyed, 50 per cent said they had not had any type of support from their HR teams during the pandemic and 43 per cent of furloughed staff also stated that they were pessimistic about receiving adequate support from HR in the future.

Of the employees who expressed doubts about getting the adequate support in the future, almost a third - 30 per cent - revealed that they did not expect their HR team to be equipped for their future personal requirements. HR resources are seen to be under pressure due to the pandemic and they have a stretched remit for employee care.

COVID-19 was also found to have changed the expectations of staff - with a greater number of them desiring remote and flexible working. Earlier in the year, Employment Hero conducted a Remote Work Survey and found that 92 per cent of employees would continue to work from home regularly if given the opportunity. 

However, a survey conducted by Mind, the mental health charity, found that more than half of adults, 60 per cent, and 68 per cent of young people said that their mental health got worse during lockdown - due to isolation which impacted on their work motivation.

Ben Thompson - CEO and co-founder of Employment Hero - said:

“This year has presented unique challenges for many SMEs. However, employers still have a duty of care to staff. The wellbeing of British workers can’t be overlooked by businesses in this difficult environment of job security concerns and isolation. As well as a need to prioritise employees’ mental health, 2020 has illuminated the need for a remote-first work future. The right cloud technology can empower small businesses to future-proof their HR processes and provide better support to their home working staff. This can transform the entire employee experience for your team, the biggest stakeholders in your company.”

New research has shown that there is more stability for employment expected this year, but three in ten employers are still planning redundancies.

According to the latest Labour Market Outlook report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and The Adecco Group, the pace of decline in UK job prospects is starting to slow this autumn.  This is due to modest improvements in planned recruitment activity and a slight decrease in employer’s redundancy intentions.

The survey, conducted in late September and involving more than 1000 employers covering all sectors of the economy, showed that the net employment intentions figure - which measures the difference between the proportion of employers who expect to increase staff levels and those who expect to decrease staff levels - has risen to –1 from a record low of –8 in July to September 2020.

The improvement is marked in the private sector where the negative balance is up -5, from -13 in the summer.

The intent to recruit has edged up for the second consecutive quarter, with 53 per cent of employers planning to recruit in the last three months of the year. This is up by four percentage points from the summer – but down 16 per cent on the same quarter last year.  Private sector intent to recruit has gone up from 44 per cent to 49 per cent since the last quarter.

The survey showed that 30 per cent of employers plan to make redundancies this quarter, as opposed to 33 per cent in the summer. However, despite the decrease 17 per cent stated that they could not say whether they would be making any redundancies during the next three months.

It was also noted that weaker employment growth has led to a noticeable increase in the number of applicants for vacancies over all skill levels, most apparently for low-skilled jobs - with an average of twenty five applicants for each vacancy, against twenty applicants in the summer. This compares to an increase from seven to ten applicants for the medium roles.

Gerwyn Davies - Senior Labour Market Adviser for the CIPD - stated:

“When it comes to the immediate jobs outlook, the best that can be said is that the situation is getting worse more slowly. Employment looks set to keep falling and the relatively weak demand for labour means that it is going to be a long and hard winter - affecting young jobseekers in particular. The survey evidence shows that while recruitment freezes, pay restraint or cuts in hours of work via government schemes have helped save many jobs that might otherwise have been lost; holding onto staff when order books are far from healthy eats into company profits. Despite the furlough scheme recently being extended, more employers might look to reassess staffing levels early in the new year as they plan for what their workforce will look like medium to long-term.  There is also a need to significantly increase bespoke, sector-based training and to increase investment in the National Retraining Scheme to equip workers who do lose their jobs with the skills to find work in parts of the economy that continue to grow.” 

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

“Despite the jobs market remaining uncertain, it’s positive to see a slowing of downward trends, with redundancy intentions decreasing modestly compared to the summer Labour Market Outlook report and more than half of UK employers planning to recruit in Q4. 

Employers have continued to adopt a variety of tactics in order to reduce redundancies, including the furlough scheme and redeployment. However, with a new month-long lockdown now in place, it’s more important than ever that as much support as possible continues to be provided by the Government and organisations to help minimise the jobs fallout.  

Providing upskilling and reskilling opportunities is a key way to do this, as it will not only help to boost redeployment efforts, but also help career starters who are looking to enter into the workforce for the first time against a backdrop of increased labour supply. 

There is also continued demand to maintain morale and engagement at this unprecedented time, so focus should remain on building positive workplace cultures and strengthening the resilience of companies and workforces alike.” 

Data from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) shows that despite the number of people accessing their pension as a flexible income increasing by 56% between April and September this year, the number of withdrawals of all types from pension pots still remained below 2019 levels.

The ABI found that whilst some held off from withdrawing money at the start of the year due to stock market volatility, “a combination of factors” - such as a change in circumstance - had led to savers returning to withdraw from their pensions.

During the period April to September 2020, the number of people withdrawing all of their pension pot rose by a huge 94%, compared to 51 per cent during the same period in 2019.

Additionally, this year number of people taking only a tax-free lump sum has increased by 55% and those buying a guaranteed income for life (annuity) increased by 41%.

Having said that, many savers are still resisting the urge to dip into their pension pots in the face of financial uncertainty brought about by the pandemic.

Rob Yuille, Head of Long-Term Savings at the ABI stated:

“Government restrictions, stock market volatility and employment prospects are just some of the factors weighing on pension savers’ minds when considering taking money out of their pension pot. Everyone is different and it is important to find the right solution for your circumstances. Getting financial advice or guidance can help provide options and clarity on what to do with your savings.”

He added:

“We welcome the Money and Pensions Service confirming that they will develop a later life checklist for over-50s, especially those facing redundancy or income reductions in light of Covid-19.”  

Mr. Justice Linden, during the deliverance of his judgement in the case of Farah v Abdullah & Others, made it abundantly clear that expert witnesses must expect their opinions to be closely scrutinised by the courts and be ready for a robust challenge.  Those experts who fail to survive that scrutiny can expect to be severely criticised.

The case in question was a personal injury action in which the claimant had been severely injured in an accident concerning two cars.  In the first instance, the claimant was knocked down by a car and thrown on to the bonnet of a second car.  He was then thrown of the bonnet of the second car and hit once again by the first car.  As a result of this, he suffered fractures and diffuse axonal injury.

The question of which injury had been suffered at which impact had to be resolved by the judge.

Two consultant neurosurgeons attended the court to assist with the diffuse axonal injury and before hearing the expert witness evidence, the judge stated that his assessment of the evidence given by the witnesses would include whether or not the evidence was given in good faith; whether the expert was responsible, competent and respectable i.e. not adopting an extreme position, able to make the necessary concessions and adhering to the spirit as well as the words of the duty to the court.  In addition, the expert evidence had to be tested against the whole of the evidence in the case.

One of the consultant neurosurgeons put forward a series of theories as to how the diffuse axonal injury could have been sustained, but in the view of the judge, none of those theories were sustainable when assessed against their own internal logic or against the rest of the evidence in the case. The judge also rejected that expert’s interpretation of the CCTV evidence and described his use of the literature and available studies as being superficial.  He added:

“I did not accept the evidence on the key issues in this case, not only because it did not accord with my view of the evidence and that of the other experts in the case, but also because I found him to be highly unreliable as a witness. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not in a position to comment on his qualities as a doctor and do not do so. But…..I found his approach as a witness to be careless and partisan in a way which was inconsistent with his role and duties as an expert.”

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off a personal injury lawyer who inflated costs; put false information before a court; misled her insurer and ‘wrecked lives’. 

The tribunal heard that Kirna Devi Madhas had been challenged by insurers at Leeds County Court after submitting costs claims for personal injury claims.

Her firm - formerly known as GSD Law Ltd and of which she was sole director - was found to have falsely represented hourly rates in bills of costs and falsely claimed for costs, on the basis that work was carried out by a senior fee earner. Under cross-examination, Ms Madhas admitted that a conditional fee agreement (CFA) she had submitted was forged.

Her misconduct in failing to inform clients of adverse costs orders was described by the tribunal as a ‘client’s worst nightmare’.  In one instance the client was not informed of the court hearing date or the outcome of her case.  One client was quoted as saying that she was treated like a ‘throw-away commodity’ and described the impact of having a charging order made on her house over unpaid costs as ‘devastating’.  She said the main ‘ripple’ in her life was ‘the delay in starting a family because of the financial impact of having a charging order on my home’.

The tribunal found that Ms Madhas’s motivation was a ‘nakedly financial one and greed was at the heart of this matter’. 

In December 2017, the Court of Appeal rejected a challenge by GSD Law Ltd, to a ruling by District Judge Neaves that the law firm had submitted a series of dishonest costs claims.  District Judge Neaves concluded that - far from being inadvertent or careless - these mistakes were deliberate and reflected Ms Madhas’ dishonesty.

GSD Law Ltd initially sought £225,000 in costs for fourteen successful personal injury claims. The formal bills that followed totalled just under £160,000 but were later reduced to £128,000.

In addition to admitting the forged CFA during cross-examination, Ms Madhas also admitted making false allegations to the Costs Lawyer Standards Board about the conduct of Allianz’s costs lawyer, Jon Williams of Williams Associates Costs Lawyers.  These were described by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal as ‘unfounded and malicious complaints’ against Mr Williams.   

They added:

“Many of her clients had suffered personal injuries and looked to her to help them obtain redress and they had not expected or deserved their vulnerabilities to be exploited by the respondent for her own gain and to find themselves in an even worse position.”

The tribunal were also informed that eleven complaints had been made about GSD Law Ltd to the Legal Ombudsman - but Ms Madhas failed to comply with any of the awards made to complainants.

Ms Madhas was not present at the disciplinary hearing and put forward no mitigation. She was struck off and ordered to pay costs of £40,000.

‘The Best Warning System: Whistleblowing during Covid-19’, a report by the whistleblowing charity Protect, has found that 20 per cent of employees who have gone to their bosses concerned over furlough fraud and breaches of Covid-19 safety rules have been sacked as a result. It also found that 41 per cent of employees with Covid-19 concerns were ignored by their employers – increasing from 31 per cent in 2019.

Between 23 March and 30 September 2020, Protect - which runs an Advice Line for whistleblowers and supports more than 3,000 whistleblowers each year - has been inundated with Covid-19 whistleblowing concerns.  It has examined 638 cases related to coronavirus, including 62 per cent of complaints about furlough fraud; 34 per cent lack of social distancing and personal protective equipment in the workplace and 4 per cent of other rights violations.

The report demonstrates the role whistleblowers can play in revealing where employers are fraudulently claiming public money.

Liz Gardiner - Protect Chief Executive - said:

“There is no excuse for employers to ignore whistleblowers, but during a global pandemic, it is a danger for us all when concerns are not acted on and the consequences could be a matter of life and death.”

She added:

“We all owe thanks to whistleblowers who do the right thing and speak out about wrongdoing in the workplace. But if employers continue to ignore their concerns – or worse – dismiss them for speaking up, we all need to be extremely concerned.”

Findings reported that managers were more likely to be dismissed for raising Covid-19 concerns - with 32 per cent of managers compared with 21 per cent of non-managers - losing their jobs. Furlough fraud was found to come mostly from very small organisations, with 76 per cent of callers describing their company size as between 1-49 employees.

Kate Palmer - Associate Director of HR advisory at Peninsula - stated that the report could be a prompt for the government to improve protections for whistleblowers.

She said:

“At the moment, though, the government has not released further guidance on how they wish to tackle this issue, if at all, with regards to the employers who ignore whistleblowers’ disclosures.”

She warned that employers who dismissed whistleblowers and were found guilty of unfair dismissal could face paying a significant amount in damages including a basic award of up to £16,140, as well as an uncapped compensatory award.  

The report recommends a legal standard on employers to have whistleblowing arrangements in place; a requirement to give whistleblowers feedback on the concerns raised and that a penalty regime where an organisation can be fined or sanctioned for breaching the whistleblowing standards should be introduced.  In addition, the institution of new legal standards on all regulators to ensure they deal effectively and promptly with whistleblowing concerns being raised to them and regulators doing much more to drive up standards of whistleblowing arrangements amongst entities they regulate. Legal aid and reform to whistleblowing law is also needed to ensure that whistleblowers who are treated badly, or dismissed, have an effective remedy.

Protect’s Liz Gardiner - added:

“We want lessons to be learned from our report which demonstrates real issues around fraud and public safety. Organisations have a duty of care to protect their staff. Whistleblowers are doing the right thing speaking up in a pandemic to keep themselves and others safe – employers need to keep their side of the deal and listen and act on the concerns they are hearing.”

Darren Jones MP - Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee – said: 

“Whistleblowing is a vital means for workers to raise concerns and shine a light on wrongdoing. Putting in place effective whistleblowing arrangements should be a key part of good governance, helping to ensure that people are encouraged to speak out and that their concerns are listened to and acted upon. During the coronavirus crisis, workers came forward with concerns about their workplace, on issues such as protective equipment or working practices, and it’s important employers play their part in ensuring effective whistleblowing arrangements are in place.”

According to new research by Randstad Risesmart UK - an outplacement firm - who polled eighty-five HR professionals working in firms employing approximately 50,000 people, the study found that every redundancy costs HR professionals seven and a quarter hours of work.

A quarter of HR professionals stated that the percentage of redundancies that are not simple processes - such as cases that are going to tribunal - is rising and at present, stands at 28 per cent of the total number of redundancies. These more complicated processes represent 140 hours work for an HR professional.

Simon Lyle - UK Managing Director of Randstad Risesmart - said:

“Every situation is unique and it's a different process for individuals compared to larger redundancy programmes. Typically, it’s a day’s worth of work per exit - a series of consultations plus the requisite prep over a two-week period. Problems arise if cases go to tribunal. Then the process is longer and more resource heavy for HR departments - four weeks’ work.”

Between 450,000 and 700,000 redundancies are forecast by the Institute for Employment Studies for the autumn of this year.  This will mean a huge rise in HR’s workload.

Simon Lyle - speaking to HR magazine - said that the months ahead will be a balancing act for people leaders and added:

"What HR teams lack, at the moment, is time. First, they've been run hot for a little while now. Second, the job now requires more work as HRDs seek to demonstrate their department's impact to the C-suite.  A chunk of their time is now spent on showing that they are hitting business metrics and that talent is affecting the bottom line. There's just less flex to deal with pandemic-level events like COVOID-19."

The research highlights that of the approximately 152,000 people that work full time in employment activities across the UK, 65 per cent are likely to be involved in the redundancy process - resulting in 168 hours’ worth of overtime per full time HR employee over the course of the second half of 2020.

Simon Lyle commented that due to the scale of potential job cuts, the need for a ‘human touch’ in HR is highlighted.  He went on to say that although the spending on HR technology has risen over the last decade and HR headcount spending has decreased - technology “can only do so much.”

He added:

“Technology cannot help HR teams with the very human and personal job of making large numbers of employees redundant. For that you need people - especially when cases go to tribunal.”

The government backed Hampton-Alexander review 2019 - just released - has found that 2019 was the most robust for women in senior leadership since 2011, when targets were set. The review is committed to achieving 33 per cent of women on boards and in leadership teams of FTSE 100 and 250 companies, by 2020.

Sir Philip Hampton - Chair of the Hampton-Alexander Review - stated:

“This is the penultimate Hampton-Alexander Report and we enter our final year with great momentum behind us. If this progress continues into 2020, our targets for Women on Boards will be met. Whilst this is a key indicator of change at the top, strengthening the number of women in executive positions is critical to achieving long-term gender balance. We are still a long way from reaching the target for women in senior leadership roles below board level. Unless half of all appointments made this year go to women – our target for 2020 is not going to be met.”

Eight years ago female representation on boards stood at 12.5 per cent for the hundred biggest UK-based companies. The percentage now is 32.4 per cent - meaning that the FTSE100 is likely to meet the target set by the review.

The latest report has also shown that women hold 29.6 per cent of all FTSE 250 board positions - witnessing a rise up from 24.9 per cent last year - meaning that the FTSE 250 can also meet the 33 per cent deadline provided sustained effort is made.

In the FTSE150 and 250 there are now only two all-male boards but still forty four all-male executive committees. However, there are still dozens of companies who have progressed to no further than a single woman on the board.

More concerning - according to the Mail on Sunday - there are only thirteen female CEOs at FTSE 250 level, with a few number of chairs.

Charlotte Valeur - Institute of Directors Chairperson - stated:

“Women must be trusted not just to be part of the discussion, but also to lead it.”

She added that big firms should....... “take a long hard look at their recruitment processes and ask what barriers are being put up that prevent women and ethnic minorities from advancing both in executive roles and to the board.”

Denise Wilson OBE- Chief Executive, Hampton-Alexander Review - said:

“There are over 900 women now serving on FTSE 350 boards, providing an ever-increasing pool of women with substantial board experience, yet only 25 women have been appointed into the Chair role, even fewer as women CEOs and showing little sign of change. Strong foundations have been laid and significant progress has been made since the journey began in earnest in 2011. The very senior jobs were always going to be the hardest of challenges, however a stronger focus is now required at every stage of the appointment process to address the reasons why top jobs aren’t going to women.”

Chris Cummings - Chief Executive of the Investment Association - said:

"Great progress is being made with Women on Boards, but it's time for us to aim higher. This pace of change now needs to extend beyond the board to senior executive leadership roles if businesses are to demonstrate their diversity at all levels. The research is clear - firms with diverse boards and management teams make better decisions, drive innovation and outperform their less diverse peers."

Three members of Congress, Rep. Rick Larsen (WA-02), Rep. Don Young (AK) and Rep. Angie Craig (MN-02) recently introduced bipartisan legislation to promote career opportunities in the transportation industry.

The Promoting Service in Transportation Act (H.R. 5118) will establish a series of U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) public service announcement campaigns to raise awareness about careers in transportation. $5 million in funding will be provided over the six fiscal years between 2021-2026, with $30 million allocated in total.

The campaigns will include digital and print media public service announcement campaigns to promote career opportunities for pilots, safety inspectors, mechanics and technicians, air traffic controllers (ATC), flight attendants and other road and rail professionals.

Selena Shilad - Executive Director of the Alliance for Aviation Across America - stated:

“Our country is facing a critical shortage of aviation professionals, with an estimated need of over 131,000 commercial pilots, 60,000 business aviation pilots, and 21,000 civil helicopter pilots in the coming years. For this reason it is credibly important that we foster enthusiasm in flying and ensure that the many talented, skilled workers across our country are aware of the vast opportunities that exist within the aviation industry.”

Rick Larsen - a senior member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - added:

“As demand continues to grow, it is important all Americans are aware of the career opportunities available in the transportation sector to grow the next generation workforce. I will continue working in Congress to make sure all Americans have access to good-paying jobs and more skills training to succeed.”

Additionally, the campaign is aimed at improving the issue of diversity in the workforce - for example over 90% of professional airline pilots and truck drivers are white males. Therefore it is hoped that the campaign will help the gender, race, ethnicity and socioeconomic status of the workforce in this sector to become more diverse.

On this issue, Angie Craig - a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee - said:

“The transportation industry faces workforce and diversity challenges that we must address now."

The bill is supported by many professional transportation Associations including - but not limited to - the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Association of Flight Attendants (AFA-CWA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA) and the Helicopter Association International (HAI).

New research from CV-Library, the UK’s leading independent job board, has revealed that 27.2 per cent of senior leaders in the UK admit to feeling lonely in the workplace.  

The research - which polled 300 senior members of staff across the UK - found that senior leaders are the most likely to feel lonely with 40.8 per cent claiming that other people’s attitudes towards them changed after they moved into their management role. 

Having little in common with their colleagues was cited by 42.7per cent of those questioned, working in an office on their own by 34.4 per cent and 24.4 per cent thought it was because their colleagues are much younger than them.

More than 50 per cent claim that their home life has suffered as a result of their work, with a further 54.7 per cent saying that it’s not worth it to be where they are now professionally. 

When asked what they think are the best ways for employers to prevent loneliness at work, 49.2 per cent of senior leaders suggested putting appropriate support in place; 34.5 per cent having more office socials; 32.9 per cent hiring a diverse team; 28.2 per cent constructing an open-plan office and 27 per cent improving the on-boarding process.

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

“Reaching the top is an attractive goal for many, but even the most senior employees need support in the workplace, particularly if you’re working long hours and shoulder huge levels of responsibility. Naturally, as a senior member of staff, you’ll have to remain neutral towards your teams, but this can result in feelings of exclusion. Moreover, you’ll have a responsibility to provide support to your employees, but don’t forget about yourself! Seek help from other senior members of staff, especially in the transition period after being promoted.”

He continued:

“As a senior employee, you may feel unable to talk about any feelings of loneliness because of your status in the company. To combat this, it’s important to prioritise your own wellbeing and work closely with other leaders. Whether you organise company socials to blow off some steam away from the workplace, or have regular catch ups with fellow manager, it will help you to forge stronger working relationships. In turn, this should encourage a more open and supportive atmosphere.”  

According to a new study from UK-based independent business operations consultancy firm Managementors, supervisors in the UK spend more than half their working day on meetings and admin - leaving little time to manage performance.

Data is based on an average working day of seven and a half hours and is taken from interviews with, and observations of the working practices of over 100 supervisors and managers in a range of UK businesses.

The largest amount of time was spent on meetings and doing unspecified tasks - almost three hours every day on average. Nearly one hour and a half was spent on email and admin and almost two hours each day on doing the tasks meant to be carried out by those that report to them. Fifty minutes each day was spent on passive management - dealing with issues that employees require help with.

The research shows how supervisors - across all industries - are spending their working day and how it impacts on productivity. It was found that supervisors spend less than half an hour each day on active management i.e. the planning, strategy and active direction of staff that is so important to productivity and achieving business goals.

David Beggs - Practice Director at Managementors - stated:

“The reality is that supervisors are doing very little active management of employees in the field, and even worse are spending a major portion of their working day on a variety of tasks which, potentially should be done elsewhere in the business. Such tasks do need to be done, but for supervisors to be doing them raises important questions about productivity and what constitutes leadership in modern business.”

When questioned about the time spent by the supervisors, it did not compare with what they actually thought they spent on the tasks. They believed they spent just under two hours and a quarter each day on active management - but stated that ideally they would like to spend 45 minutes longer than that.   In reality, they were found to spend only an average of 27 minutes.

The research also covered how management required time to be spent - more on active management and less on administrative tasks. It was felt that supervisors should be spending around 40 per cent of their time on active management each day.

David Beggs commented:

“There’s a clear disconnect between what people think they spend their working day doing and what they actually do. Productivity depends on many things, such as strong leadership and providing clear direction and training to employees, but this is not happening as much as it needs to. People are spending far too long on meetings which have little output, email, admin and even stepping down to carry out the work of the people they are meant to be managing and it’s time for UK businesses to have a hard look at how they operate. There’s a longstanding issue with UK productivity and while some of that can be put down to how productivity is measured, it’s also true that as a collective economy we need to improve our outputs. A good way of starting this process is to look at the role of business leaders and assess how their time can be more productively spent.”

As a result of a poll of 2,400 people in the UK - conducted by investment company Fidelity International - it was found that despite the fact that most people expect to retire at an average age of 66 years, 45 per cent expected to work past the age of 70 and nearly 9 per cent planned to keep working into their 80’s.

Maike Currie - Director for workplace investing at Fidelity International - said:

“With 60 now widely seen as ‘the new 40’, today’s so-called retirees are healthier, living longer, and retiring at different ages. So, it is unsurprising that people have no desire to retire and are defying traditional expectations. The economic power of those who were once considered ‘past it’ can now be felt everywhere. This will transform the jobs market as more people work into their late 60s or even early 70s and they will have a growing influence on consumer spending as pension reforms allow them to cash in their lifetime savings and spend the money as they wish.”

As over half of adults plan to carry on working in their retirement, experts highlight the importance of employers giving workers control over how they choose to retire.

Jill Miller - Diversity and Inclusion Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“Giving people choice about how they choose to work is important. Many people no longer want cliff-edge retirement where you just stop working one day. Instead, many are choosing phased retirement.”

She added that as - according to government findings - the employment rate for those aged between 50 and 64 has grown from 55 per cent to 70 per cent over the past 30 years, so employers must ensure they’re prepared for this ageing workforce, saying:

“With an ageing population, more people are working longer and employers need to ensure their people management approach fits the needs of a multi-generational workforce. Older workers bring with them a wealth of both job and life experience, but employers need to make people want to stay. For example, can people work flexibly to balance caring responsibilities with work?”

The research by Fidelity International also shows that those with the highest household incomes - more than £50,000 - are more likely to plan to work in their retirement than those on lower incomes. People with a household income of more than £50,000 expect to retire at 65 - whilst for those earning under £50,000 the retirement age increases to 67 years.

As the government is unlikely to consider any further increases to the state pension age, people may face some significant challenges to ensure their finances are stable for when they retire.

Steve Webb - former Pensions Minister and Director of Policy at Royal London - stated that those who are better off might find it easier to secure a part-time role; change to being self-employed or become a member of a board in later life. He added:

“For those who are in good health and who enjoy what they do, carrying on working, perhaps with reduced hours, can be fulfilling and rewarding. But it’s important not to forget the large numbers of people who expect to work on not because they want to, but because they have to. A growing number of people will reach retirement without enough pension saving for a comfortable retirement and they may have to go on working long past the point when they would have wanted to stop.”

New research by Portafina - pensions advice specialists - has revealed that 10 per cent of workers are not aware if they have a pension from a previous job, meaning that 34m could lose out on millions of pounds by not tracking their old pension pots.

With regard to old pensions, 76 per cent of UK workers state that they are unaware of their value today. If not checked, high charges and poor performance could drastically reduce the amount in the pot when retirement is reached. Only 25 per cent of workers surveyed realise that on moving jobs a new workplace pension will be set up by the new employer - but they are responsible for managing their own old pots.

The problem of pensions being forgotten is expected to worsen as a result of auto-enrolment - as since this was introduced more workers are enrolling in pensions schemes, but were not found to understand their pensions any better.

In the research, it was found that 47 per cent of employees do not know how auto-enrolment works - with 1 in 7 stating that they did not know what it means.

A third of those surveyed were not aware of how much they paid monthly into their pension pot and had underestimated how large a pension pot they would require to attain a wage of £15,269 at retirement.

It was found that 71 per cent of pension holders in defined contribution schemes do not know what charges they are paying, despite the fact that by reducing the annual charge by 1per cent a year now, could mean over £27,000 extra in the pot - and improving their pension performance by 2 per cent a year now could eventually mean £54,000 more in the pot.

Of workers questioned about seeking financial advice when it comes to moving or consolidating an old workplace pension, 90 per cent stated that they had not done so and 77 per cent stated that they unaware of the guarantees and benefits attached to a past pension.

Jamie Smith-Thompson - Managing Director at Portafina - said:

“Moving into the digital world is a big positive step forward for the pension industry. Initiatives like the Pensions Dashboard currently being developed by the government will go a huge way towards helping the nation to better manage and keep on top of their pension savings.

While it’s great that there are more online options emerging for moving or consolidating pensions, it can come with huge risk. If it feels too easy to move your pension, such as only taking a couple of clicks to complete the process, then it’s time to think twice about whether this is the right move for your hard-earned savings.

How your pension will be invested, the fees charged, and how your new scheme compares to the old one, are all questions you should confidently know the answers to before making any decisions to jump ship from your current provider.

The bottom line is, it’s best to seek expert help before making any final decisions. Having all your pensions in one place can be very convenient and sometimes saves on charges. But depending on the pensions that you are consolidating, if you are not careful you could end up paying more in charges, losing valuable benefits and guarantees, or seeing your investments placed in funds that are not suitable for your goals.

A regulated financial adviser will analyse every aspect of your pensions, giving you all the facts you need to make an informed decision, unlike most combine-and-go online platforms. With something as valuable as your retirement savings, it makes sense to be absolutely sure.

According to a report by the Resolution Foundation think tank (an independent think tank focused on improving living standards for those on low to middle incomes) - after research into illegal work practices - it was found that one in twenty workers does not get paid holidays and one in ten does not get a payslip.

The Resolution Foundation found that workers over the age of 65 are most likely to not have paid holidays, despite a legal entitlement to twenty eight days a year. Younger workers - those aged 25 and under - are most likely to be paid less than the minimum wage, which is illegal. It has been suggested that this is a trend which may have been caused by the growth of the gig economy.

In addition, the research showed that workers in small firms, i.e. employing fewer than twenty five personnel; workers on zero-hours and those on temporary contracts are most likely to not get payslips and paid leave.

Lindsay Judge - Senior Economic Analyst at the Resolution Foundation - welcomed the government's efforts to strengthen the resources of bodies such as HM Revenue & Customs.

She said:

"The UK has a multitude of rules to govern its labour market, from maximum hours to minimum pay, but these rules can only become a reality if they are properly enforced. Labour market violations remain far too common, with millions of workers missing out on basic entitlements to a payslip, holiday entitlement and the minimum wage. Our analysis suggests that, while violations take place across the labour market, the government should also prioritise investigations into sectors like hotels and restaurants, along with firms who make large use of atypical employment contracts, as that's where abuse is most prevalent."

Lindsay Judge went on to say that UK workers relied on the Employment Tribunal system to rectify any unfairness and to challenge illegal practices. However, the workers most in need of redress were, in fact, those least likely to employ the system - the younger workers were shown to make fewer Employment Tribunal applications than any other age group, whilst managerial staff - who are less likely to be subject to labour market abuse - are amongst those most likely to resort to tribunal claims.

Laura Pidcock - shadow Business Minister - stated that she recognised that many people worked in illegal conditions and said:

“Behind the statistics are many hours of stressful and exhausting work, people's home lives being made so much harder than they need to be, an unchecked class of bad bosses and legions of workers who feel like they have no choice but to accept illegal poor conditions."

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated:

"We are extending state enforcement to cover holiday pay for vulnerable workers, as part of the largest upgrade to workers' rights in a generation.”

At the recent 2018 Bond Solon Expert Witness Conference, the results of the Annual Expert Witness Survey in Collaboration with The Times were published. The total number of respondents - over a varied range of topics - was 607 and of those surveyed, 81% of the experts are mainly instructed in civil cases.

In answer to some questions posed in the survey –

• 10% of the experts surveyed indicated that they are mainly instructed in family cases and the steep decline in the use of experts in these cases may be attributed to the introduction of the Family Procedure Rules in January 2013.
• On the subject of legal aid cases, the expert witnesses who accept or do not accept legal aid cases were evenly split. Despite the ability of everyone to be able to resolve their legal issues as being vital to a just society, experts are not obliged to accept legal aid cases. There have been significant cuts to fees for legal aid work over the past few years.
• 80% of the experts surveyed do not think that many parts of their expert witness work could be done using Artificial Intelligence (AI) reducing the need for full reports as it exists now. AI-based technological solutions have been developed to assist with the e-disclosure process.

Lord Chief Justice says,

“The ability of computers to analyse vast quantities of material to enable accurate predictions in many areas of human activity is one of the most exciting developments of the age.”

The majority of the experts surveyed do not believe that the increased use of IT in courts will lead to the decline, or the end, of expert witnesses giving evidence.

• 43% of the experts surveyed indicated that they have come across an expert they consider to be a ‘hired gun’. Pressure from instructing parties will be one of the reasons that could lead an expert to be a hired gun. Lord Woolf made it clear in the Civil Procedure Rules 1999 that an expert’s duty is to the court not the side paying. In the last 12 months, 25% of the experts surveyed stated that they have been asked - or felt pressurised by an instructing party - to change their report in a way that damages their impartiality. 75% of the experts surveyed consider that professional bodies should play a more active role in situations where experts are incompetent or behave as a hired gun. Almost 50% of the experts surveyed have come across experts who profess expertise in an area in which they are not qualified or does not warrant expertise.
• 86% of the experts surveyed do not consider that fake news has affected the evidence experts give.
• 60% of the experts surveyed have concerns that courts find it hard to distinguish the truth between conflicting opinions. Experts already have to confirm in their reports that they are true and they have to swear under oath in court to tell the truth but difficulties arise when two experts have differing opinions.
• 65% of experts consider that courts struggle to understand the evidence of experts as it becomes more complex. The explanation needs to be in clear language that a non-expert can understand and act upon. Experts should make sure that their reports are clear and fit for purpose.
• Almost 50% of the experts surveyed indicated that the number of instructions received was at the same level, but 37% said they had increased.
• 80% of the respondents indicated that their rates remain the same as last year, with 32% of the experts stating that have considered stopping their work as an expert witness in the last 12 months. One of the main reasons mentioned by the experts is the expert’s fees.

An employee cited an HR professional's e-mail to raise concerns about his health as evidence of discrimination. A federal district court relied on the e-mail to let the claim move forward.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged in a lawsuit filed in New Orleans federal district court, that Mid-South Extrusion, Inc. - a plastics manufacturer based in Monroe, La. - violated federal law by firing an employee because of his perceived disability.

Keith Hill - Field Director for the EEOC's New Orleans office - stated:

"It is unlawful for an employer to discharge an employee with a disability because of his medical condition(s) if he is able to perform the essential functions of his job with or without any accommodation."

According to the EEOC's lawsuit, maintenance technician Jeffrey Wyant was discharged after he informed the company of his 50% lung capacity breathing restriction resulting from undiagnosed childhood tuberculosis. He was able to perform the essential functions of his job. The lawsuit also alleges that the company did not conduct any intensive individualized assessment of Mr Wyant - as required by law - to determine if his condition affected his ability to perform the essential functions of the position before discharging him.  

The EEOC sought a permanent injunction prohibiting the company from engaging in employment discrimination, as well as back pay, compensatory damages, pecuniary losses and punitive damages for Mr Wyant.

In September 2014, Mr Wyant was hired as a maintenance technician by Mid South and after accepting the job offer, he completed a post-offer medical history questionnaire. He divulged that he had a previous shoulder injury that limited his range of motion and overhead lifting ability but did not mention any other impairments or conditions.

Mr Wyant completed his 90-day probationary period and received a pay increase. However, soon after, his supervisor noticed performance issues and had concerns about his ability to safely work in the plant. Complaints were also received that he smelled strongly of alcohol. In addition to this, it was alleged that he delegated work to untrained employees and for these incidents he received verbal warnings.

In June 2015, Mr Wyatt began having breathing problems and was diagnosed as having reduced breathing capacity - due to breathing asbestos at a prior job - and undiagnosed tuberculosis as a child or young man, now dormant. It was decided that he needed a heart catheter and the procedure was arranged for Aug. 18, 2015.

Prior to this, he had a meeting with an HR manager and as a result of that meeting on Aug. 13, 2015, the HR manager e-mailed Mr Wyant’s supervisor writing that Mr Wyant "stated that his doctor says he doesn't need to be working in this environment with all the health problems he has" and he "should get out on disability." The HR manager went on to say that this "raised a red flag" for her and added that Mr Wyant’s issues originated from a previous job. She then wrote that this "really bothers" her.

Mr Wyant had the heart catheterization on Aug 18, 2015 and returned to work 3 days later but mid Sep 2015 he suffered a breathing difficulty, which he claimed cleared 10 minutes after the use of his inhaler.

He was scheduled to receive his annual review, at which he would have received a raise, 10 more sick days per year and 40 hours of paid vacation per year - but in an e-mail dated Sept. 21, 2015, his supervisor told the HR manager that Mr Wyant was being fired because he “was not qualified to be a maintenance technician.” Mr Wyant claimed that his supervisor told him that management wanted him gone.

A charge was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Mr Wyant, alleging that he was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The EEOC agreed and issued a letter of determination in favor of Mr Wyant and later brought a federal lawsuit. Mid South filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied.

Michelle Butler - Senior Trial Attorney for the New Orleans Field Office - said:

"Mr. Wyant was performing his duties without any restrictions, but once he informed the employer of his medical issues, he was discharged based on an unsubstantiated determination that he was not able to perform his duties. This is unlawful as well as unjust, and the EEOC is here to fight such discrimination."

A new research report named ‘It’s Time to Change’, from Punter Southall Aspire - a major investment and savings business - offers UK companies fresh look into how HR, pensions and benefits professionals can change their pensions communications.

Employee communication is an essential part of business and HR's role and valuable internal communication develops confidence within organisations, showing an important influence on employee productivity. However, research by CIPD implies that many employees feel they receive limited or very little information.

In compiling the report, Punter Southall surveyed over 2000 employees aged between16 and 65+, from across the UK. From that survey, they were able to pinpoint four major issues affecting pension savings.

• The research found that current finances are of more concern than looking to the future - the reason for this being that many have competing financial pressures - a loan or credit card debt. It was found that 30% regularly use an overdraft facility and 45% financially support dependants. Eighty eight per cent stated that they would prefer to have £400 now as opposed to £800 in the future and would be more likely to react to communications reflecting that.
• People are also failing to think about their future retirement. Nearly half say their biggest worry for the future is not having enough money in retirement, but almost a third confessed that retirement is not part of their current financial planning and 66% said they are unaware if their savings will prove sufficient for retirement. Seventy eight per cent of people are budgeting monthly and only 28% claim to stick to their budgets.
• The survey found that nearly one in five respondents aged 16 to 24 did not know if they have a pension and 30% did not think that a pension is important. Thirty two per cent surveyed were not aware of their contribution rate, stating that it was the amount set by their employer.
• A major discovery of the report is that employers need to do more to guide and support their workforce. It was found that 82% of those surveyed want their employers to steer them in a positive direction about pensions and 72% would welcome education in planning for the future - 68% want their employer to remind them to review their pension and take action, if necessary.

The research also found that only 38% of respondents stated that they would respond to scare tactics in pension communications but 76% would react to exciting messages. This drew attention to the need for companies to use positive and relevant messaging and emphasise the benefits of saving more. The research also showed that the people’s attention was drawn to powerful imagery, humour, moving words and colour in communications.

 Johanna Nelson - Associate Director of Punter Southall Aspire - stated:

“From a communications perspective, employers can tackle these issues and increase pension awareness with a constant ‘savings drumbeat’ – using regular positive messages that encourage better savings behaviour. People are more concerned with now rather than then, so companies can tap into this by providing financial education on issues that concern them such as debt management or budgeting. The positive benefits of pensions and auto-enrolment can be introduced as part of this conversation.”

She added:

“There is a real need for employers to improve their pension communications and this means getting proactive and stop relying on the material produced by pension providers. Arguably employers have a duty of care to help ensure employees have a positive retirement and are in a strong position to make this happen. Employees want financial education and guidance on current and future financial issues and by promoting positive communications and financial education they can encourage a savings culture."

According to a survey commissioned by Business in the Community - in partnership with Mercer - employees have been found to be struggling with work demands, insecurities and financial insecurity. This has contributed to poor mental health across the nation with employers being warned that work-related stress has now become an epidemic.

Over 4,000 people were surveyed - the results showing that two thirds of respondents said that their mental health and wellbeing is being affected by job security, the state of the economy and the cost of living.

New figures from the Health and Safety Executive have revealed that in 2017/2018 a total of 15.4 million working days were lost through the effects of work-related stress, depression or anxiety - affecting 595,000 workers. This was a huge increase on the previous year.

Partner/Workplace Health Consulting Leader for Mercer - Dr Wolfgang Seidl - said:

“The prevalence of mental health issues has now reached a crisis point. Half-hearted attempts to help those affected are no longer enough. Instead, employers need to urgently identify and collectively address the root causes of the problem.”

He added:

“Instead of enabling people to thrive at work – with reasonable demands being placed on them, control over their workload and supportive management in place – unhealthy working conditions are being allowed to fester. As this continues, disjointed wellbeing initiatives, such as standalone mindfulness seminars or one-off wellbeing days, will not even begin to address the current epidemic.” 

As a result of other research previously carried out by the CIPD, employers were being urged to ensure that line management were equipped to recognise signs of stress and mental ill-health, as they often represented the first port of call for struggling staff. The findings of the CIPD were supported by a study from the Mental Health Foundation, which showed that less than a sixth of staff felt comfortable talking to their line manager about their stress levels.

Rachel Suff - Senior Employment Relations Adviser at the CIPD - said:

“The HSE’s findings chime not just with recent CIPD research but also countless others out there. It’s of particular concern that the CIPD research also found that just 58 per cent of organisations carried out stress risk assessments, despite it being a statutory requirement. Stress risk assessments are hugely important preventative steps which organisations should be taking. The HSE provides several valuable tools to support employers with this.”

Business in the Community is asking companies to do more to encourage conversations between staff and their line managers about all aspects of wellbeing - including financial. They state that other staff, line managers and H.R. should suggest that free help and guidance be sought from organisations such as the Money Advice Service (for general money issues) and the Pensions Advisory Service for advice on specific pension issues.

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

“There is a two-way causal relationship between financial wellbeing and mental health, but very few employers support employees experiencing financial difficulties. Employers have a role in educating employees in financial literacy and signposting to appropriate sources of professional support. There is huge financial pressure on employees, with stagnant wages and living costs which continue to rise, so employers have an important role in educating employees in financial literacy and signposting them to appropriate sources of professional support.”

TUC general secretary - Frances O’Grady - said:

“Work-related stress is a growing epidemic. It’s time employers and the government took it more seriously. Warm words are not going to fix this problem. Managers need to do far more to reduce the causes of stress and support employees struggling to cope.”  

According to Netquote - an insurance lead provider for insurance agents - who commissioned a survey of 800 professionals in charge of hiring, there are quite a few similar issues that take the attention of the hirers and assure that the applicants will get noticed - or otherwise.

The respondents to the survey stated that their opinion of the applicant began when they received the resume which, if it was accompanied by a photograph, 42% stated was a poor start. Following that, 36% of the hiring managers do not like a nontraditional resume - whilst 35% do. Twenty nine per cent had no preference at all. Three pages of resume were considered to be in excess by 51% of the respondents and just under 25% thought that two pages was too long.

In the actual interview, 32% of managers selected the ability to communicate well with a team as being essential; 30% of hiring managers said time management was important in potential applicants; 21% stated they like to hear about honesty in their candidates and 20% of managers opted for determination.

Rita Murphy of Netquote - stated:

“Compared to some other strengths problem solving can feel like a more concrete skill that yields immediate benefits.                                                               Communication encompasses not only speaking skills, but also your ability to lead, critique, and ask for help. Being adept in various communication methods also shows emotional intelligence.                                                                        

Time management is more than just completing tasks on time. An employer cares about how you spend the time leading up to a deadline as well.”

She added:

“Hiring managers want to know that you will be trustworthy in your position. It can be difficult to maintain a workplace that fosters integrity, especially in heavily competitive industries. If the person is going to be in a management role, it is even more important to have demonstrable honest skills.”

The top questions that interviewers put the most store by, were:

• Sixty-nine per cent asked how the applicant managed a conflict
• Sixty-eight per cent asked how they learnt from a mistake
• Sixty-five per cent wished to know when the applicant left their previous employment
• Sixty-four per cent asked about their biggest strength
• Fifty-six per cent asked them what type of learner they were

However, it would appear that when making their selection, the view of every H.R. professional is dissimilar.

During a survey commissioned by Hawk Incentives - a leader in corporate benefit and reward solutions - together with Sapio Research, it was found that HR professionals in large UK organisations tend to overvalue the satisfaction felt by employees with regard to rewards and benefits received.

The survey was conducted on 103 HR professionals and 500 employees to compare perceptions between HR departments and the general workforce.

It was found that just over half of employees - 52% - stated that they are satisfied with the benefits offered by their company, but at the same time 77% of the average HR professional asserted that their workforce was noticeably happier with its benefits package. When asked to rank on a ‘happiness scale’ they maintained that the ranking was 7 or above on a scale from 1 to 10.

The extensive report - ‘Pulling the benefits lever, closing the gap between HR expectations and employee satisfaction’ - revealed the challenges that HR departments confront in making certain that the benefits and incentives that they offer are appropriate to a varied workforce.

Almost half of employees surveyed agreed with the statement that their organisation does not appreciate the real needs and wishes of its employees, whilst 62% of employees said their employers’ rewards and incentives schemes are not applicable to them. Fifty nine per cent of employees stated that their company did not regularly surprise them with new incentives and benefits programmes, as had been claimed.

When the influence of specific benefits on employee acquisition was researched, 69% of HR professionals said they still felt that classic benefits such as private healthcare would be an attraction to potential workers, but only 49% of employees stated that it would be a strong enough reason to influence their decision to work for a company. However, 52% of employees and 57% of HR leaders stated that prepaid shopping cards have a strong impact - which validates the finding that 77% of employees of all ages and grades wanted benefits that assist in cutting the cost of living.

Heather Rogers - Senior Sales and Marketing Director at Hawk Incentives - said:

“What this research shows is that HR leaders’ are now actively deploying their rewards and incentives programme to help them achieve their business goals. But simply offering a range of rewards is not enough – we know that the real results come from fine tuning your packages to reflect the current needs and wishes of your people, as they progress in their careers and personal lives.”

Only 24% of employers in the private sector say they are under pressure - to any degree - from the majority of their workforce to raise wages, whilst almost four in ten private sector firms say they face no pressure at all.   These are findings of the latest quarterly CIPD/The Adecco Group Labour Market Outlook survey conducted on more than 1,000 HR professional and decision makers.    

However, a slightly higher proportion of private sector employers state that, particularly among high and middle-skilled jobs, there is either some or significant pay pressure to raise wages for certain roles.  23% of private sector employers stated that the reason for the lack of pressure to raise wages is the fact that workers recognise that the business cannot afford more generous pay increases - which underlines the productivity challenge facing many firms.       

In the public sector almost three-fifths of the organisations state that they are under pressure, to some extent, to raise wages for the majority of their employees - which may partly reflect the recent debate about scrapping the public sector pay cap.  In addition, 25% of public sector organisations say that they are under some or significant pressure to raise wages for certain roles. 

The survey also suggested that a noteworthy majority of employers do not face any significant difficulty accessing the skills they require.  Only 13% of all current private sector vacancies are skill-shortage vacancies and only 29% of all employers with a vacancy report that it is from skills shortages.  This suggests that any pay pressure is not likely to come from a lack of skills in the current labour market. 

Employers report that average basic pay increases are expected to reach 2%, which is higher than the previous quarter’s figure of 1% - but is still in line with official data that shows wage growth as being between 1.8 and 2.2% over the past six months. 

The survey also shows that - consistent with the trend over recent years, the average basic pay increase expectations are higher in the private sector (2%) than in the public (1%) and voluntary (1.5%) sectors.  However, whilst overall pay pressure is quiet in the private sector, some parts are under more pressure - for example, 38% of construction employers say they are under some or significant pressure to increase earnings for the majority of the workers.

Gerwyn Davies, CIPD Senior Labour Market Analyst, states, “This survey provides further evidence that productivity has a far more significant bearing on pay growth than the tightness of the labour market. Over time we might expect low unemployment levels to lead to increased pressure on pay, as the Bank of England has predicted. However, it’s the UK’s ongoing poor productivity growth that’s currently preventing employers from paying more, not their inability to find or retain staff. This is why the Chancellor in this month’s Budget has to prioritise investments that will support workplace productivity improvements - for example, investing in support for small firms and skills development initiatives that can help to drive productivity gains over time.

In terms of employment, despite the evident optimism in this quarter’s survey, it remains likely that the sharp increase in the number of people in work over the past year will ease during the course of 2018. This is due in part to the impact of continued slower economic growth, the uncertainties associated with Brexit and the prospect of further interest rate rises. However, employment prospects for the manufacturing sector look bright, perhaps buoyed by the benefit of a weaker currency and the strength of global demand.”

Travel specialists Opodo recently conducted new independent research which reveals that British employees are trailing behind those from other countries across Europe and the USA when it comes to flexible working hours and taking a sabbatical.

Although 65% of British employees said that they would consider taking a sabbatical, it appeared that they would not actually take the extended break - risking burn-out in the process.

The research showed that, despite UK employees being amongst the Europeans most likely to be allowed the extended leave by their companies, more than half stated that it would be hard to return to work after taking a sabbatical.  One in five of those polled in the UK feel that it would harm their career prospects with their current employer, compared to almost two-thirds of people in Spain who believe that taking extended leave will help them in the future in terms of employability.   More than half of the people in Germany said the same, whilst 49 per cent of people working in France also believe sabbaticals can help with future employment.

The major factors that influence interest in sabbaticals include stress in the workplace, which was cited by 50% of those polled; mental health - 43% and physical health - 32%. 

The research suggests that an extended break from work would actually be useful for many, despite the British employees being least likely of all the nations surveyed to return refreshed from their summer holiday. 

A spokesperson for Opodo stated:

“It is all too easy to become overwhelmed by the stress of working life, particularly now we are working longer hours until later in life. 

Given the advancements in modern technology, many now also have their work emails and calendar synced to their phone, meaning we’re no longer simply working 9-5 but are clocked on 24/7.

Taking a sabbatical can be a great release valve for this stress and offer the opportunity to do something you’ve always wanted, whether that’s going travelling, learning a new language or skill or just taking some time off to focus on yourself.”

Worldwide, it seems that reducing stress and improving health are the main factors behind employees needing to have a sabbatical. British employees are the most likely to want to go it alone and are only half as likely as those in the rest of the world to use their leave as an opportunity to learn a new language.

The study shows that just 30% of British workers feel they have a good work/life balance - less than the worldwide average of more than 34% of people surveyed. The countries that rated themselves with having the best ratio of work and personal life are Portugal with 43% and the USA with 41%.   Germany has the least with 27%. 

Although UK employers were rated among the most generous of the nations polled when it comes to leave - with more employees here saying they had a generous holiday allowance - the nation that offers the most flexible working options is Spain, followed by the USA and Germany.  And, when it comes to other forms of flexible working benefits that can help to improve employee welfare, the study reveals that British companies are lagging behind businesses in other countries.

The Ninth Circuit has upheld a district court’s denial of Glassdoor, Inc.’s motion to quash a grand jury subpoena requiring it to disclose identifying information about eight anonymous reviewers.  Rejecting Glassdoor’s First Amendment challenge, the appeals court found that the company failed to allege - or to provide evidence - that the government’s investigation of the employer for fraud was conducted in bad faith.

Glassdoor operates a website where employers promote their companies to potential employees.   Employees post reviews of what it is like to work at their companies and in these reviews - which are anonymous - employees rate employers in a variety of categories.  These categories include interviewing practices, salaries and workplace environment.  

An employment attorney - Jadzia Butler of Covington and Burling in Washington D.C. - has stated that a recent court order requiring Glassdoor to reveal the identities of eight users of the website, may have an effect on internet free speech.  She says that it is “particularly concerning” if a subpoena can compromise the anonymity of the internet users and added, “Some employees use the platform to report managers' or co-workers' problematic behavior. Without their identities being kept confidential, they may be less likely to do so. That's bad for the employer, who could have been made aware of things it did not know were happening.”

Although the reviews are anonymous, users have to provide their email addresses to Glassdoor in order to post on the website and they are warned that such information may have to be disclosed if required to do so by law.  Glassdoor warns that they “will disclose data if we believe in good faith that such disclosure is necessary . . . to comply with relevant laws or to respond to subpoenas or warrants or legal process served on us.” 

Their Terms of Use state that Glassdoor reserve the right “….to take appropriate action to protect the anonymity of users against the enforcement of subpoenas or other information requests”. 

Glassdoor was attempting to do that, despite an on-going federal criminal investigation where anonymous reviews were posted about an unspecified federal contractor.  These reviews criticized the company's management and business practices – with one anonymous review stating that the company "manipulates the system to make money unethically off of veterans/VA.”

Glassdoor raised First Amendment concerns and the government agreed to limit its request for reviewer details to just eight example reviews, in order to “contact those reviewers as third party witnesses to certain business practices relevant to the investigation.” 

However, the court stated that, "The speakers whose identities the government seeks may well be witnesses to this criminal activity, perhaps even participants in it.”

Jadzia Butler said that the employees are not implicated in a crime and are mere witnesses. She stated, "They did not ask to be dragged into this legal process. Now they and those who hear about their story will think twice about expressing themselves in this way."

Mark Kluger, an attorney with Kluger Healey in Florham Park, N.J. said, "Since most employees who post on Glassdoor probably don't work for criminal enterprises or those that are targets of FBI investigations, the average contributor likely has nothing to worry about."

An attorney with Foley & Lardner in Miami - Mark Neuberger - agreed, "This subpoena is not and should not be the end of sites like Glassdoor or other ones where people can comment about their doctors, restaurants or anything else."

However, Charles Krugel - an attorney in Chicago - stated that, "This decision should make employees think twice about using Glassdoor when employees accuse their employer of serious criminal misconduct."

In a statement Glassdoor said, "We are disappointed in the 9th Circuit's decision to deny our appeal to protect the identities of eight Glassdoor users whose contact information was being sought in connection to a federal criminal investigation linked to alleged fraud, waste and abuse of federal funds."

It added, "Glassdoor vigorously fights our users' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, including sharing opinions online about their workplaces anonymously."

Generation Z - those born from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s - are now entering the workforce and according to a new poll, they will be difficult to manage, hard to communicate with and will not have a particularly strong work ethic. 

APPrise Mobile, a mobile employee communications and engagement solution,  has released a national survey of workplace managers (which relied on a Google Consumer Survey) showing that more than a third believe that managing employees from Generation Z will prove more difficult than the management of previous generations. So far, Generation Z has not impressed their more experienced co-workers according to APPrise Mobile.

More than a quarter of workplace managers anticipate having major communications and training-related challenges.  Twenty six percent believe that it will be more difficult to communicate with employees from Generation Z; 29 percent expect it will be more difficult to train them compared to older generations and 1 in 10 managers (16 percent) also expect Generation Z to negatively impact their company culture. 

Two percent of respondents feel that phone calls will be an effective way to communicate with Generation Z - however, the authors of the report wrote that ‘connecting over the phone could become a thing of the past’.

Jeff Corbin, founder and CEO of APPrise Mobile said, "To the extent Millennials are associated with 'entitlement,' there probably is a level of fear that Generation Z will turn out worse.  The farther away in age, the greater the likelihood that they (the managers) believe they won't be able to relate to Generation Z."   He went on to say that as most of Generation Z grew up with a mobile device in their hands, "there is a tendency and expectation of instantaneous gratification. They want the answers now. They are all about tweets and short responses. As a result, many Generation Zers are going to be too quick to respond rather than deliberate and thoughtful……the concept of professionalism, formality and quality in communications may be a foreign one to many in Generation Z, which could be problematic to older generations."

Bruce Tulgan, founder of New Haven, Connecticut based consultancy Rainmaker Thinking, agreed that fears about Generation Z may not be unfounded.  He said that his own research shows that managers’ biggest worry is that Generation Z will view jobs as short-term transactional relationships and that they will demand a great deal of flexibility and responsibility early in their working lives. 

He stated, "It may be attributable to being raised by helicopter parents who have provided more guidance, direction, support and coaching to young people than any generation in history. Thus, these young people often have unrealistic expectations about where they stand in relation to others and what they can hope to achieve and receive in the first years of employment. They aren't going to want to take it slowly, get a feel for the place, learn who's who and what's what before starting to add value.  They want to be set up for success, and they want to start proving themselves on day one."

The poll found that 44 percent of managers believe that the reliance that Generation Z have on technology will be an advantage – but then not all companies will have the technological tools expected by Generation Z.

Jeff Corbin stated, "Companies aren't necessarily on board with mobile as a business strategy. Yes, they recognize that it's important - but what about the ways they are doing business that hasn’t changed - even though the people they are dealing with and their ways of living have changed considerably?"

He cited that many companies still spend considerable resources creating lengthy newsletters which are distributed as print, intranet and email.

Generation Z has always lived in world of internet connection, smartphones and tablets.  Managers responding to the survey saw this as a positive and 42 percent said that they plan on introducing more technology tools. 

“Most Millennials remember a time when fax machines and landline phones were commonly used and AOL dial-up was the only way to access the internet, but their incoming Generation Z colleagues only know of these things from history books and movies. Bottom line – this new generation of workers expects technology to touch every facet of their life and companies should embrace this sooner than later,” said Jeff Corbin, CEO of APPrise Mobile.

The National Labor Relations Board originally heard a complaint from an employee, Mr Navarro, against Banner Health System – an organization that had adopted a confidentiality agreement covering the sharing between employees of private employee information concerning pay rates and disciplinary actions. Banner was told by the court that policies cannot stop workers from talking about pay.

Banner Health is a large healthcare system in Phoenix, AZ. James Navarro worked at Banner, sterilizing surgical equipment. On February 19th 2011 Navarro could not use the autoclave which is a large, pressurized steam sterilizer normally used for sterilizing reusable medical instruments.  This was because the hospital's steam pipe was broken.

He was instructed to use hot water from the coffee machine for the first step in the cleaning process and then to use a low-temperature sterilizer with hydrogen peroxide.

Mr Navarro was concerned that those procedures violated the established protocol, which caused him to raise questions with various supervisors and do some quick research – none of which allayed his concerns.

After confirming there were adequate clean instruments available for the day's scheduled surgeries and deliveries, Mr Navarro did not sterilize any additional instruments.  He spoke to several other workers at the facility about the problems, and was disciplined for it.

A couple of days later, Mr Navarro visited Banner's human resources consultant, reported his discomfort with the prescribed procedures and expressed concern for his job. That same afternoon, Mr Navarro's supervisor gave him a “non-disciplinary coaching” and - a few days later - a negative yearly evaluation.

The main evidence supporting the claim was the confidentiality agreement and an interview of complainant form – referred to by the human resources consultant – which was the primary evidence in support of the charge that Banner maintained an over-broad investigative non-disclosure policy.  The introduction included the wording, “I ask you not to discuss this with your co-workers while this investigation is going on, for this reason - when people are talking it is difficult to do a fair investigation and separate facts from rumors.”  However, the HR consultant stated that she did not request non-disclosure from Mr Navarro and he did not testify that he was asked to keep the matter confidential – nor his interview with HR.

It was held that Banner's confidentiality agreement violated the National Labor Relations Act but that its investigative non-disclosure policy and treatment of Mr Navarro did not.

On later appeal by Banner, it was found that Banner’s policies could discourage discussions about working conditions - a right guaranteed under labor law, the court said.

This ruling impacts on all employers and shows that even non-union businesses must watch speech restrictions.

British Airways (BA) recently announced that a consultation exercise would shortly commence regarding the proposals to close its New Airways Pension Scheme (NAPS). A significant and growing funding deficit was cited as the reason for the closure. 

Because of this, thousands of British Airways employees’ retirements have been plunged into uncertainty. 

British Airways stated that the NAPS scheme’s deficit reached £3.7bn in March of this year, making it the largest of all UK company pension black holes relative to the firm’s overall value. The airline said it had paid £3.5bn into the scheme since 2003.  They also stated that in 2015 they had committed to pay between £300m-£450m a year into the NAPS scheme until 2027 and this was regardless of whether new contributions from employees are stopped.

If NAPS remained open to accrual, the cost of providing future benefits could rise to 45% of individuals’ pensionable pay in 2018 – more than four times the typical employer contribution for UK airlines.

The trade unions Unite and GMB slated the move and conveyed their dismay and disappointment at proposals from the airline to shut NAPS to future contributions from its existing 17,000 members. 

It is understood that discussions between the airline and the unions had focused on ways to make the scheme sustainable and the possibility of it closing had not been brought up, until the statement by British Airways.  

In a joint statement, the two unions said, “Our team of financial analysts has worked tirelessly with the airline over the last few months to explore ways to keep the pension scheme open and secure it for the future.”  They added, “This announcement sadly confirms that our advice has gone unheeded and that we have been unable to convince British Airways that keeping the scheme open is the right thing to do, for both the company and its employees.”

British Airways have stated that members would still receive what they were due in their retirement – meaning payments from the Scheme would likely continue for decades. NAPS was created in 1984 and offered members lower benefits in return for a lower contribution rate than its predecessor, The Airways Pension Scheme (APS).

British Airways lost a High Court battle against the Trustees of APS in May after they pushed through a £12m discretionary payment in 2011 to make up for a change in the inflation link.

A challenging period lies ahead for BA, with the company likely to face strong opposition from members, unions and the Trustee Board. However, having regard to the level of NAPS’ deficit and the trend for final scheme closures generally, it should perhaps come as no surprise that BA wishes to close to accrual.

Many defined benefit pension schemes are under pressure due to increased life expectancy of the members and record low interest rates. Pension schemes invest greatly in Government bonds – whose yields have fallen to historic lows in recent years – meaning that the money earned from these investments fails to cover the liabilities that the schemes face.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the way in which organizations innovate and communicate their processes, products and services. Practical strategies for employing artificial intelligence are available to data and analytics leaders now.

This is according to a report by Gartner Inc. - based in Stamford, Connecticut - which has predicted that within the next four years jobs will be eliminated by artificial intelligence.  However, that will only be in the initial stages, as more jobs will then be created.

According to the Gartner’s ‘Top Strategic Predictions for 2018 and Beyond....’ employees will turn to chatbots to replace apps to complete their work – forcing HR to adapt how it manages the way its employees’ interact with the new technologies.

The report states that "….today, chatbots are the face of AI and will impact all areas where there is communication between humans. Bots will take over some of the functions of apps and change the way users interact with technology. Bots will also increase employee engagement and automate tasks faster."

Daryl Plummer, vice president and Gartner Fellow, Distinguished Companies, states,

 "Technology-based innovation is arriving faster than most organizations can keep up with. Before one innovation is implemented, two others arrive. Companies will be required to develop a discipline around how pace can be achieved..….Speed of change will require variability of skills and capabilities to address rising challenges."

Gartner report forecasts that by 2020, artificial intelligence will have eliminated 1.8 million - but created 2.3 million jobs.  The report states that in 2019 more jobs will be eliminated than created, but it is believed that the number of jobs created by artificial intelligence in 2020 will overcome the shortfall.  The report carries on to say that the elimination of jobs will vary considerably industry by industry, with some - such as healthcare and education - not being affected.  Of the organizations with artificial intelligence already in operation, 77 percent have reported that they have more job gains than losses.

Gartner forecasts that by 2021, 40 percent of IT staff will hold "multiple roles, most of which will be business, rather than technology-related." They predict that by 2019, IT technical specialist jobs will fall by more than 5 percent as digital business initiatives require increasing numbers of IT employees to be more versatile (in 2017, IT specialists represent about 42 percent of the entire IT workforce).

In future, employees will constantly need to keep their skills upgraded and permanent learning will be vital to keep pace with all the technological changes in the workplace. Regulations will need to change to ensure that companies are keeping data safe and as more devices connect to the Internet, HR professionals will need to make certain that all devices connecting their organizations to the web are safe.

This past September, President elect Donald Trump revealed a plan to guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave for new mothers after childbirth, excluding new fathers, adoptive parents and those who have children via a surrogacy.

Furthermore, a document obtained on the Trump campaign website explains same-sex couples would also receive the six weeks of paid leave under the policy if and only if the marriage is “recognized under state law.” 

The United States is the only nation without some form of national paid parental leave for employees with newborns, per a survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.  In over 10 countries, paid parental leave extends beyond 12 months.  Unfortunately, in the US less than 15 percent of employers offer paid leave.

Human resource experts explain one of the measurable outcomes of paid parental leave is the effect it has on infant health and development.  There are also psychological benefits for the parents, especially when it is considered that in nearly half of US households both parents work full-time jobs. 

Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor, has actively promoted paid family leave legislation through his Lead on Leave campaign.  Unfortunately, legislation that would accomplish most of the paid parental or family leave goals have been stalled in Congress.

Although national paid parental leave law is stalled, some states have adopted paid family leave on their own.

The benefits world seems to be upping their game these days.  Hotel Engine, a company that provides hotel booking solutions for business, officially launched in the employee benefits space last month.

People can now use Hotel Engine for their own personal travel as a benefit, with zero cost to the employee or the employer.  People can take advantage of discounted hotel prices that mirror corporate rates for leisure travel.

Sonia Reid, vice president of marketing and communications at Hotel Engine, said the product is already receiving lots of positive feedback. 

“It’s one of the benefits that more and more employees are looking for, and so being able to offer them these deeply discounted rates to use when they have vacation is huge,” Reid said.

Hotel Engine also helps outs on the implementation and marketing side of things to make sure a new rollout goes smoothly for the employer.  Taking things one step further, Hotel Engine offers employees traveling for leisure the same level of customer service as they do for business travel clients. The only caveat is you have to work at a business which offers this as a benefit.

Hotel Engine saw a hole in the market and filled it up.  It will therefore be interesting to see how many employers adopt something like this in the future.

A new CIPD survey reveals employers aren’t giving line managers the necessary tools they need to manage workplace absence effectively.

The 2016 CIPD/Simplyhealth Absence Management survey found that now more than ever employers are giving line managers the responsibility of managing short-term absence.  25% of surveyed employers said giving line managers information about absence rates, causes and trends was one of the most effective ways to manage short-term absence.  Unfortunately, the number of employers giving managers the tools they need to manage absence has decreased over the last year.  Less than half of employers in the survey trained managers to handle short-term absence.  Additionally, only 38% said managers were even trained to manage long-term absence.

The survey also uncovered decreases in the provision of tailored support for line managers.  Although these employees play an essential role in businesses, training and support for these managers to make sure they are efficient and effective is lacking.  Line managers, according to HR experts, are usually the employees making day-to-day decisions about work allocation and staffing arrangements and therefore it is imperative they are equipped with the necessary knowledge and feel confident. 

The survey did reveal the current average level of staff absence is 6.3 days per year, slightly down from 2015.  The most common reasons for short-term absence were minor illnesses and stress.

The Court of Appeal decided that the trustees of Barnado’s pension scheme cannot switch from the Retail Prices Index, or RPI, to the Consumer Prices Index, or CPI, just for revaluation and indexation purposes.

Some HR experts feel this particular ruling comes in the form of a blow to employers with multiple pension schemes, with inflation protection wording similar to this case.  If the judgement was in favour of the change, according to some human resource experts, this type of employer could have seen a way forward in reducing scheme deficits.  Now, since the statutory power cannot be overridden, this will all depend on the wording of each scheme’s rules.

In the aforementioned case, the Court of Appeal ruled the scheme’s deed doesn’t necessarily afford the trustees the ability to select the index by which increases are measured.  However, there is still a lot of uncertainty about how this will work even for schemes that have clear built-in discretions to switch to another index.  

The State of the State report suggests that over 850,000 public sector jobs could be lost to automation by the end of the next decade.

The research, conducted by Deloitte and the University of Oxford, insinuates a side effect of automation could be a reduction in the taxpayer funded wage bill by as much as £17bn.

The report even breaks down which sectors would be most affected. It is predicted that just 4,000 local government administrative positions will remain in 2030. This prediction is based on the fact that these types of roles already seem to be diminishing. Additionally, over half of care workers and home care jobs are predicted to disappear over the course of the 15 years leading up to 2030.

The report also outlines what will replace all of these workers. It is predicted that robots will replace people in data input roles, since robotic process automation already provides a software alternative. In the analysis, the report found that this level of predicted automation could significantly reduce costs and boost productivity.

The report does make the point that automation will not replace human beings completely or overnight. This type of impact to the workforce is something that will be gradual, but social and political resistance should be expected along the way. The report also claims that while automation displaces certain jobs, new and higher skilled and better-paying jobs could be created as a result.

After much consideration, a fairly extensive programme and engagement with many different kinds of human resource experts, the government decided not to move forward with any plans that would introduce a secondary annuities market.

The primary reason for this decision is that the consumer protections required could undermine the market’s development. Ultimately, creating conditions to allow a competitive market to emerge with numerous buyers and sellers of annuities couldn’t be balanced with enough protection. Although many firms have come forward and said they are willing to allow customers to sell their annuities, the government has made their voice heard.

One of the government’s top priorities is consumer protection and the government is just not willing to create circumstances that could produce poor outcomes for some people. Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Simon Kirby, said that the decision to allow consumers to sell their annuities always depended on balancing “the creation of an effective market with making sure consumers are properly protected.” He continued to say that this is not something the government can guarantee.

HR experts also point out that the government has long been preaching that for the majority of people, keeping their annuity income would be their best option.

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) said employers’ leave policies are often reinforcing gender role stereotypes by providing more leave for mothers.

According to the Paid Leave in the Workplace Survey, women on average receive 41 days of paid maternity leave, while men receive 22 days. This particular imbalance, according to SHRM’s director of workforce analytics, proves that employers still expect women to take on a majority of the care for a new child. This type of gender inequality could discourage fathers from taking a similar amount of days off to help with a new baby.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission chimed in with the fact that these type of policies are not discriminatory, but implementation is key. Employers should really distinguish between types of leave. “Leave related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions can be limited to women affected by those conditions,” the commission says in its Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues.

SHRM found through its survey that these kind of differences in paid paternal leave benefits could easily be questioned by employees of both sexes on the grounds of gender equality and equality between same-sex couples. SHRM is warning workers to expect their employers to start pushing back on these policies.

Human resource experts revealed at the CIPD annual conference that while apprentices and graduates are showing an increased amount of loyalty to their career, they are not showing the same loyalty to their companies.

Graduate recruitment and development manager at L’Oreal UK&I, Negin Cooper, said that while company loyalty might be decreasing this isn’t a reason to “get lazy” with talent programmes. Cooper explained that there has been a total shift in graduate behaviour over the course of the last year. Young people are taking their time to consider their options, so schemes really have to be worth their time. L’Oreal, for example, said that it is relying on the new blood in the labour market to “challenge the status quo”.

For L’Oreal, the goal is to gain another one billion customers by year 2020. Graduates are at the forefront of the L’Oreal audience, so the company would be doing itself a disservice if they weren’t taking advantage of this new workforce that will double as a built-in focus group.

Other companies aren’t as lucky though. UK missiles manufacturer, MBDA has had a skills shortage forcing the organisation to take on apprentices every year for 20 years. HR director for MBDA, Aileen Randhawa, said the average age of an employee at MBDA is 45 years and the average tenure is 27 years. At this point in time, approximately three quarters of the MBDA workforce is retiring in the next 15 years, making it imperative that the company invest in apprentice programmes. The MBDA apprenticeship scheme is four years long but includes extensive training packages and full employment from the start.

For companies like MBDA it is more important to foster the relationship between the company and a new employee, so they are motivated to stay.

Both L’Oreal and MBDA agree that it is quite hard to attract new recruits. L’Oreal tries to combat the struggle by holding “lock-ins” where representatives visit universities and host a session on skills.

While both companies work very hard to maintain their employees, data still shows that one in four young people leave a company after the end of a scheme. This leaves many HR experts wondering if it is really worth the time and money companies are pumping into these recruitment and training programmes.

Men and women are both being offered the chance to increase their state pension by £25 a week, which will give them guaranteed extra income for life.

Men who are 65 and upwards and women 63 and older are able to take place in a scheme that will remain open for 18 months from 12th October. Any person who fits the age requirement will be able to buy additional state pension worth up to £1,300 a year.

Human resource and pensions experts explain that this is a great opportunity for people to increase their guaranteed retirement income with a boost that will be index linked. This means that there will be a level of protection for pensioners and their spouses against inflation. In many cases, surviving spouses and partners will be able to inherit, hopefully, at least 50% of the extra pension.

Minister for Pensions Baroness Altmann said that this is an opportunity for those who are also already retired to boost their income later in life.

Ultimately, the cost of a state pension top up is based on the age of the person and takes average life expectancy into account. For instance, an extra £10 of pension a week will cost a 65-year-old man approximately £8,900. The contribution rate for the same amount of pensions for a 75-year-old man, however, is less at £6,740.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can be a tricky thing, even when a company proves that an employee is abusing the policy.

Lucy Fitterer worked for the State Washington Employment Security Department and was granted intermittent FMLA leave at different points throughout her employment, in order to help her deal with migraines.

In January 2011, Fitterer requested two weeks of FMLA leave. Unfortunately for her, Fitterer’s step father mentioned to one of her co-workers that she and her husband were planning on using her FMLA leave to take a vacation on a two week cruise.

HR heard about this through the employee grapevine and decided to reach out to the listed doctor to verify her need for the leave. The doctor told Fitterer’s HR department that she was not incapable of working during the time she would be on leave and also indicated she would not be receiving treatment during the cruise.

When Fitterer returned to work, she was welcomed back with the news that she had been terminated due to a violation of the company’s leave policy.

After finding out about her termination, Fitterer sued the company claiming FMLA interference. The only reason Fitterer’s claim could have worked is because failing to get the employee’s permission to contact a listed doctor is grounds for suit. The court, however, ruled that her termination should uphold. The court said Fitterer had zero evidence that she was incapacitated during her two weeks of leave and ruled that a two week cruise was unnecessary to deal with her reported medical condition.

Human resource experts explain that this is great news for employers everywhere but also an extremely important lesson. This employer was very lucky that the termination was upheld, even though it technically broke the rules. It is highly important for human resource professionals to follow rules and procedures even when foul play is suspected.

Full-time hiring in the fourth quarter is expected to be the most robust since 2006. CareerBuilder’s recent research also revealed that seasonal hiring is also slated to outpace last year’s projection.

Harris Poll conducted the national survey online for CareerBuilder. It included a sample size of 2,326 hiring managers and HR professional across different industries and different company sizes.

Data has historically outlined that there are a substantial number of working employees who say they are actively looking to change jobs. This remained true despite reporting to be happy and content with their current workplace and position.

In Q4, 34% of United State’s employers plan to hire full-time, permanent staff, and almost the same amount of seasonal staff. Luckily, seasonal workers will most likely be able to reap the benefits of the recent minimum wage increase. Many companies claimed they were prepared to increase pay for seasonal staff.

It’s not just retail companies that are looking to hire for these positions either. This wave of employment stretches across multiple industries like customer service, technology, marketing and inventory management.

The 10^th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a black employee was unable to successfully prove that alleged discrimination by his supervisor is what led to the termination of his employment.

Karry L. Thomas worked at Berry Plastics Corp. (BPC) as a printing operator and then as a printing technician from 2003 - 2010. During this employment period, Thomas was subject to 13 disciplinary actions and as a result, his employment was terminated.

Jason Morton became Thomas’ immediate supervisor in 2009. While Morton did not have the authority level to personally terminate Thomas, he had been involved in some of the disciplinary actions that led to Thomas’ termination. A little while before his termination, Thomas alleged that he was subject to racial discrimination. Just a few months later, Thomas received a disciplinary report for a print-quality issue that occurred in September 2010.

Since Thomas challenged his termination, he was given the opportunity to sit in front of a BPC termination review panel, which was comprised of two independent BPC managers who received his full disciplinary history. Thomas, at this point, was able to make a statement in his own defense. The panel still decided that the decision to terminate Thomas was just and it was upheld.

At this point, Thomas filed suit against BPC under a “cat’s paw” theory of liability. He alleged that Morton took disciplinary action against him because of his race.

The Kansas District Court ruled in favor of BPC as well as the 10^th Circuit. The appeals court felt as though Thomas was unsuccessful at proving Morton had retaliated against him based on race. Additionally, Morton didn’t have the authority to make any kind of human resource termination decision on his own.

Human resource experts and professionals feel that this particular case highlights the extreme importance of an independent review of employee discharges. These panels become even more important in cases revolving around claims of retaliation and racism as they can help a company disprove these kinds of claims.

Every industry can become victim to scams and the pensions world is not excluded.  The Pensions Regulator released a warning to savers to remain aware of the on-going threat of scams while explaining the details of a recent £13.7m pensions theft.

Three trustees were acting on third party instruction from David Austin and were all deemed by TPR to have misappropriated scheme funds.  TPR also explained how these trustees exercised extremely poor trustee governance.

Austin was described in the report as acting “as a shadow trustee in control of the funds paid into a number of pensions schemes.”  Upon investigation, TPR believes there was foul play to the tune of £13.7m, which has mysteriously disappeared.  This lump sum of money belonged to approximately 242 members.  The £13.7m includes fees and commission payments.

The regulators’ Determinations Panel appointed an independent trustee to administer 17 pension schemes in order to prevent any more loss and to help claim back some of the funds.

Human resource experts are urging savers to be cognizant of warning signs that could indicate a potential scam.  The list includes things like mass marketing techniques, suspicious activity like fund transfers, incentives for lump sum payments or incentives for transfer completions and lack of documentation.

While the case of this scam and its details are certainly devastating for those involved, HR experts hope that it can serve as an example and a reminder as to why vigilance and attention to savings is so important.   

Digital skills charity Go ON UK, is reporting that about 12.6 million people in the United Kingdom lack at least one of five digital skills it deems as important in their Basic Digital Skills UK report, 2015.

The charity defines these skills as managing information, communicating, transacting, problem solving and creating basic digital content.

The report proves that the digital world is really a millennial’s playground with basic digital skills starting to decline in the 45 to 54 year-old age range. One of the most important pieces of data, however, is the one that shows that less than 50% of the people observed in the 65-year-old age bracket demonstrated all five of the skills mention above.  This particular callout is important because workforce reports show that people are starting to work well past the age of 65.  In order to stay relevant and valuable, they will need to catch up.

Go ON UK is also reporting that substandard digital skills are causing recruitment problems because almost all jobs are advertised online only, and are applied for online only.  If a person lacks the skills necessary to even search for a job, he or she will certainly never be a candidate.  HR experts are trying to convey to organisations that, although these skills are more prevalent now than they used to be, these skills are not as common as we think.

The good news is that almost 90% of currently employed people in the UK exhibit these five skills.  Greater London has the highest levels of people with all five skills, while Wales has the lowest.  Unsurprisingly, students and people in school have the highest levels of digital skills.

The findings from the report have been incorporated into the charity’s Digital Exclusion Heatmap, an easy to digest representation that illustrates the level of digital skills across the entire United Kingdom.

Despite employers contributing £75bn to schemes, pension liabilities of UK plc have doubled in six years, with deficits rising by approximately £120bn.

The data was released by Hymans Robertson and found that over the past six years, asset performance has been failing to keep pace with the growth in liabilities.  When you look at the amount of money that has been funded for pension schemes, it still was not enough to mend the gap. 

HR experts believe that the data sends a strong message to organisations and pension trustees to place a greater emphasis on managing the risks in pension schemes.

Figures released by the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and The Pensions Regulator (TPR) show that de-risking has come to a screeching halt. The numbers show that even the FTSE 350, despite paying in cash contributions, ended up in a worse position than in the year previous.

Human resource experts explain that all of this data underlines why pension scheme trustees and sponsoring companies should take more of a slow approach to funding pensions.  They should take the time to carefully consider what the risk truly is, to help reduce the possibility of deficits becoming worse over time.

A new survey revealed many telling truths about the current situation in the workforce, including the fact that most workers still prefer to be managed by an older leader.

Kelton, a leader global insights firm, conducted the survey.  The results were released by Addison Group and helped to further explain various generation preferences, the importance of the managerial role and Millennials’ appetite for leadership.  The survey was commissioned to gain more insight, which is exactly what it did.

HR experts feel that the more managers can understand about what Boomers, Generation X and Millennials want and need in the workplace, the more they can accommodate their workers to increase their retention rates.

Millennials will ultimately make up a majority of the workforce by 2015, and it appears that this age group is quickly promoted into management roles.  Seventy percent of workers prefer to oversee someone younger than himself or herself.  Often times, when a Millennial is promoted, this doesn’t happen.        

The data showed that managers who foster growth and wellbeing are preferred over those that have more authoritarian characteristics.

Millennials, out of all of the different age groups, seem to have the most focus on interoffice relationships.  This group was twice as likely to hope that they are perceived as their direct report’s best friend.  All age groups, however, agreed that honest feedback, trust and experience are some of the top characteristics they look for in a manager.

The survey also found that in order to attract new candidates while retaining top talent, a work environment needs to be created that fosters and encourages career development and collaboration. 

A major survey found that 9 out of 10 employers who have not reached their staging date want the process delayed until pending regulation on greater pension flexibility has been completed.

The survey polled firms with 249 employees or fewer.  The staging date referred to in this survey is defined as the date by which employers must auto-enroll their eligible employees into a workplace pension.  The survey also looked to find whether the auto-enrolment of employees working in ¾ million micro employers should go ahead as planned without changes to the auto-enrolment trigger.

According to the data, 62% of employers with 10 or more employees now completely understand their timeline for auto-enrolment.  This number does continue to rise, but experts feel that this percentage is still too low.

In regards to employers that have already auto-enrolled their employees, non-joiners and new entrants have mainly been enrolled into multiemployer arrangements, including NEST.

The average opt-out percentage of employees from auto-enrolment came in at 11-15%.  The main reasons provided for the opt-out percentage were employees preferred to spend their income in other places and they simply could not afford the pension contribution.

Some other key findings from the survey included the fact that employers are still opting for face-to-face meetings over other web-based tools as a means to providing guidance to employees.  In an age of technology, this was something that caught the data analysts off guard.