The Future of People Services - What’s Next? The death of the office & Wellbeing and burnout

Check out this multimedia posting - 

"Welcome to this collaborative piece of research between the Disruptive Innovators Network and Campbell Tickell to explore how leaders in people and HR services have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic and what innovative approaches they are developing to help prepare their organisations for what comes next."

I was interviewed and quoted with my trade union hat on about outsourcing and "The death of the office"

"Even if the majority of workers don’t want to return to the office full time, some are wary that the end of the traditional office set-up could further entrench the use of outsourcing as a way for organisations to cut costs. John Gray, a member of public sector union UNISON’s National Executive Council, says the outsourcing trend is a cause of concern for his members.

“It is really tempting to close offices and get more people working from home. And outsourcing to companies who wouldn't treat their workers as well as traditional local authorities or large housing associations is always a threat when times are tough. But most outsourcing is entirely bogus.”

Gray adds: “The only way it works is because new entrants are taken on on inferior terms or conditions, and that worries me, but the change is dressed up as innovation. They say ‘we're going to move people to a more specialist employer’, but the real cause is cutting pay, cutting pensions and cutting conditions.”

and about "Wellbeing and burnout"

UNISON National Executive Council member John Gray says he has seen cases of workers “doing piles of stuff late at night, early starts, including weekends”, and warns managers to keep an eye out for signs of burnout.

“I would hope that employers do have the emotional intelligence to realise this is bad for the organisation. And when we do get people that are burnt out, they do tend to be people whose workloads have been horrendous. I’ve come across some really good managers, who will actually, in a professional, supportive way, push back on people who send them stuff at 10 o’clock on a Saturday evening.”

Gray adds that this requires leadership rather than just management from those at the top of organisations. “Some managers, you can give them all the mentoring, all the training and support, but they haven't got the ability to lead people. So I think that the pandemic has exposed weaknesses. And this particular new way of working, which is going to continue in part, requires I think some special skills.”

"The 12 employment law cases of 2015"

"Before 2015 is consigned to history and 2016 presents a new set of employment law challenges, it is timely to reflect on the year’s significant cases. We have identified 12 cases which developed the law and potentially changed HR policies and practices:

Working time and travel FSP del COO v Tyco Integrated Security/Fire & Security: The CJEU ruled that for certain workers who do not have a fixed or habitual place of work, travel between home and the first and last assignments of the day counts as working time. The ruling does not mean workers must be paid for travel time but shift arrangements may need to be changed to comply.
Redundancy consultation USDAW v Ethel Austin Ltd and others: The CJEU confirmed that the trigger for collective redundancy consultation should be the dismissal of at least 20 employees from an establishment within a period of 90 days, not 20 employees across the whole employer. The CJEU reiterated that an “establishment” is the entity to which the workers are assigned to carry out their duties and this will depend on the factual circumstances.   Read our briefing here
HR’s role in disciplinary proceedings Ramphal v Department for Transport: In this unfair dismissal case, the EAT ruled that in disciplinary proceedings an Investigating Officer is entitled to call for advice from HR; but HR should confine their advice to questions of law and procedure and avoid straying into areas of culpability or, except when addressing issues of consistency, what is the appropriate sanction. The decision has been appealed.
Whistleblowing and the public interest Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohammed: Despite changes made to the law in 2013, which added a “public interest” element, the EAT ruled that a worker’s complaint about a breach of his own contract of employment may still satisfy that requirement and qualify as a protected disclosure where the alleged breach also affects other workers. The Court of Appeal is due to hear an appeal against this decision in 2016.   Read our briefing
Associative indirect discrimination CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria: The CJEU ruled that the concept of so-called “associative” discrimination applies to indirect discrimination claims. This suggests that once it is established that those with a protected characteristic are particularly disadvantaged by a provision criterion or practice applied by an employer, anyone who suffers that same disadvantage can bring a claim of indirect discrimination even if they don’t share the same protected characteristic as the disadvantaged group.   Read our briefing
Indirect discrimination Home Office v Essop: This judgment could make it harder for some claimants to make out claims of indirect discrimination after the Court of Appeal stressed the need to consider the nature of and reason for the claimed disadvantage. This is because there will only be indirect discrimination if the disadvantage suffered by the claimant is the same as that experienced by other members of the disadvantaged group. The decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court.  Read our briefing
Employment Tribunal fees Unison v The Lord Chancellor: Unison's attempts to have the Employment Tribunal fees regime quashed suffered another setback, with the Court of Appeal rejecting the union’s claim that the fees regime is unlawful. Unison is now looking to take their case to the Supreme Court.  Read our briefing
Holiday pay Lock v British Gas: A Tribunal ruled that EU law can be read across into the Employment Rights Act 1996 so as to require employers to take into account commission payments when calculating pay for the basic four week holiday entitlement under the Working Time Regulations 1998. The EAT heard an appeal in December and its decision is awaited.  Read more about Lock
Carrying forward annual leave Plumb v Duncan Print Group Ltd: The EAT clarified that although workers on sick leave can carry forward up to four weeks’ untaken leave into a new holiday year (even if they are capable of taking annual leave during their sickness absence), such untaken leave will be lost if not taken within 18 months of the end of the leave year in which it arose.  Read our briefing
Pay during strikes Hartley v King Edward VI College: This case concerned how much pay can be withheld for a day's strike by salaried employees. The Court of Appeal accepted that the employer in this case was entitled to withhold 1/260 of the strikers’ annual salary, because they worked a regular five day week (5 days x 52 weeks = 260 working days). The case makes it easier for other employers to base deductions for strike time on the total working days per year, rather than calendar days, although in each case the contract of employment must be considered.  Read our briefing
TUPE: employees on long-term sick leave BT Managed Services v Edwards: Against a backdrop of prolonged sickness absence and exhaustion of phi cover, an employee was kept “on the books” for commercial reasons but with no expectation he would return. The EAT concluded the employee was no longer “assigned” to a relevant grouping for TUPE purposes. The case has now been appealed.  Read our briefing
Data protection and US safe harbor Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner: The CJEU ruled that the US Safe Harbor scheme does not provide adequate protection of personal data of EU citizens and is therefore not lawful. In the immediate aftermath, EU employers must either refrain from sending such data to US until an alternative solution is identified by the EU or do so with caution, where possible applying appropriate model clauses and internal or intra-group protections.  Read our briefing

Key
EAT Employment Appeal Tribunal
CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union

Employment law is very important but it is only at best a safety net (and has been watered down in recent years by this Government). The best protection at work is of course from joining a trade union (JG).

Hat tip Eversheds

World Mental Health Day sees increase in reported mental health problems (such as anxiety and depression) at work

Tomorrow (Saturday 10 October) is "World Mental Health Day" which is supported by the respected United Nations agency the World Health Organisation.

"World Mental Health Day is observed on 10 October every year, with the overall objective of raising awareness of mental health issues around the world and mobilising efforts in support of mental health. 

The Day provides an opportunity for all stakeholders working on mental health issues to talk about their work, and what more needs to be done to make mental health care a reality for people worldwide". 

While mental health issues at work are not at all solely related to work related stress it is clear that many of us are being made ill at work due to long hours and workers being treated inhumanly. This will also impact on the many at work who have pre-existing mental health issues. Often employers and individual managers (not all by any means) have very little or even no understanding of this problem. 

I am obviously horrified at the finding of the CIPD survey below but not surprised.  There is increasing economic and social inequality, low pay, zero hour contracts and reduced employment rights. If you have a workforce that is not unionised or has weak density, there is no one to "push back" and challenge senior management on long hours and uncaring attitudes. So no wonder we have such high and increasing reporting of mental health issues at work.

The CIPD (professional body for HR) is publishing a survey ahead of World Mental Health Day that shows " Over two-fifths (41%) of organisations have seen an increase in reported mental health problems (such as anxiety and depression) over the last twelve months.... In 2009, only 24% of organisations reported seeing an increase in mental health problems during that year; 2015 is now the sixth consecutive year that levels have been over 40%, showing the problem isn’t going away. Reported increases are most likely in large and medium-sized organisations, with 69% and 51% respectively showing rises. They’re also associated with long working hours and the extent to which operational demands take precedence over employee wellbeing.
 

“So what more can employers do? Manager training is crucial, as they are often employees’ first point of call for reporting an issue, but only 30% of organisations currently provide it.  There needs to be a lot more focus on this going forward, as well as tailored support for line managers from HR and signposting employees to appropriate support. Employers also need to look at how well their corporate culture supports good mental health and employee wellbeing.”

The report also found the private sector particularly lacking in managing and supporting employees with mental health problems, with 28% admitting they weren’t taking any action to support employees. Just 32% currently offer a counselling service, compared to 70% of public sector organisations. Similarly, only 21% said they were increasing awareness of mental health issues across the workforce as a whole, compared to over double that (47%) in the public sector"

Thank you, Good luck and Goodbye - to a Workers Champion

Picture from last night's leaving dinner for my branch outreach worker, Andy Robertson (2nd on
right).

Andy is a former UNISON Housing activist in Leeds who left to become a mature student at university to study a HR (Human Relations - what we use to call "Personnel") degree.

He passed with first class honours.

He has worked for the branch for the last 9 months on a temporary basis while we are restructuring the branch office. Andy is leaving to work with the Baptist Church in Wyoming, United States of America.

Andy is from the Christian Socialist tradition of the Labour Movement and as well as being a trade unionist is a part time Baptist preacher. It was great to meet his lovely wife who is a HR officer! They must have some interesting conversations about "how was work today?".

He will be working for the Labour Party as an organiser in the run up to the General election, which meant that his leaving do had to be brought forward to Friday at the last minute.

Many thanks to Andy for all his hard work during the past 9 months. During his time he helped build an effective steward structure in a number of key employers as well as some stunning successes  while representing members in disputes and hearings.

 

To try and get justice at work you will need lots & lots of money (or join a trade union)

XpertHR confirm here that this Tory led government has published an implementation date of 29 July 2013 on fees for employment tribunals and appeals.

If this is agreed by Parliament (hopefully it won't) on this day you will be expected to pay :-

"For level 1 claims, the issue fee will be £160 and the hearing fee will be £230. For level 2 claims, the issue fee will be £250 and the hearing fee will be £950. Different fee levels will apply to claims involving multiple claimants.  For lodging an appeal with the EAT, the appellant will pay an issue fee of £400 and a hearing fee of £1,200."

I believe that most cases heard will be level 2. So if you are unfairly dismissed at work you will have to fork out £1200 for a hearing and another £1600 for any appeal.

This is despicable and will deny justice for millions and millions of working people. Bad bosses will treat people with contempt since they know they will not be able to afford these fees. Most trade unions I am aware of will pay these fees for cases that have a reasonable chance of success. Another reason for joining a union.

Better still join an union because you are far, far more likely to have a decent employer in the first place if you have an union in the workplace and avoid needing to go to law! 

The recent small but welcome increase in union membership may mean that workers are beginning to understand (again) that they cannot rely on their employer for justice at work, nor can they rely on the law.

The only people who can really protect them are their fellow workers and their trade union!

HR admits to discriminating over mental health?

This press release from the professional HR “trade body” is worth a look for all trade unionists. What I found particularly notable is that a fifth of HR respondents admit to unlawful discrimination against those who disclose a mental health condition! I wonder what the CIPD/ Commission for Equality and Human Rights (and unions) are doing about this?

Good news about importance of pensions!

CIPD press release
Top 5 CIPD Poll Results, 2009

Every week the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) conduct a poll on its website asking members a topical question, attracting an average of 1,000 responses. Today the CIPD publishes the top 5 poll results of 2009:

21st September 2009
The ECJ has ruled workers taken ill on holiday can claim back sick leave. Will you:
Welcome ruling - 14%
Trust staff not to take advantage - 30%
Consider tightening sick pay policies - 56%

5th October 2009
Does your organisation hire applicants who have disclosed a mental health condition?
Yes - 79%
No - 21%

19th October 2009
Is there still a business case for offering a pension to your employees?
Yes - 88%
No - 6%
Sometimes - 6%

16th November 2009
What do you think of the Government's proposal to phase out tax relief on childcare vouchers from 2011?
Agree - 15%
Disagree - 85%

14th December 2009
How much 'absenteeism' happened/do you expect the day after workplace Christmas parties?
None, they are held on Fridays - 49%
A little - 31%
A lot - 5%
We don't have parties - 15%

Notes to Editors
• The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is Europe's largest HR and development professional body with over 135,000 members, supporting and developing those responsible for the management and development of people within organisations

“Dealing with trade unions when the gloves are off: trade secrets”

Is this what HR really think of us? Top trade union web portal unionreps had a very interesting post this week about a link to an article (here) first published in “Personnel Today” last year. This is the trade paper of the Chartered Institute of Personal and Development (CIPD).

The article was written by an Andy Cook who is ironically a former trade union official turned HR/employment law advisor. Some of the things he discusses aren’t that controversial and are fairly obvious such as the difficulty that unions have being attractive to “Thatcher’s Children” or employers actually communicating with their workforce. But is clear that he advocates using the law to block and frustrate any industrial action.

He advises “Retain a lawyer experienced in employee relations and industrial action law. Most employment lawyers have no relevant experience, even in the big firms”...Allow the union to use "check-off" (ie. members pay their subs through payroll), which gives you information on its membership- invaluable when challenging industrial action. ...Challenge robustly any industrial action - even if you don't go to court, a challenge may help to stop future action if the mistakes are repeated. ..Don’t be afraid to take technical points when challenging industrial action a misplaced word, or a missing number may be enough to get an injunction.

Some trade unionists nostalgically reminisce about a so-called "golden time" when HR (then called “Personnel”) were truly independent and saw their role as to advise management and unions without “fear or favour” to help bring about agreement. Now, while I am not personally convinced that this time ever really existed. I am surprised that there is such an article in the leading HR publication. Why is there no real mention of any alternative conflict resolution except the “courts”! What about arbitration, what about ACAS? Why does it perpetuate the myth that unions in pay negotiations will be fighting a “wider political agenda”? Why is there no recognition that it is actually perfectly legitimate for unions to try and prevent the pay of their members being cut? Unions are also perfectly aware that excessive pay awards can result in job losses and are prepared if necessary to make compromises in order to save jobs and good HR professionals know all this.

The only positive thing that I take away from this is that the author does accept that if the unions are organised and have the support of their members then they are in a strong bargaining position and the only way that employers can oppose them is by a “misplaced word or a missing number”. Also this article is more evidence that we need further reform of the trade union legislation to rebalance the relationship between employers and unions. It is clear that the balance is too far in favour of the employers. As is also entirely self-evident from this article the law is being “misused” in industrial disputes. This may be perfectly legal and I may be naive but I always thought that British law should be about Justice and Fairness for All not just the employers?

This is not just important for the unions but also for UK Plc.

We will never get a culture in place of constructive and positive industrial relations if employers believe that they can always just use the law instead to hammer the workforce into submission. I actually think that the overwhelming majority of HR would agree.

“Oversacking” Redundancy a false economy say CIPD

Shock horror! I am in agreement with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development! (CIPD - the HR professional body). I heard their Chief Economist, John Philpot, being interviewed on PM while driving home. The terminology, like nearly all modern day HR jargon is awful but John warned companies against what he called “Oversacking” of staff during the present crisis.

Not only is redundancy expensive (average of at least £16,300 per worker) but research has shown that in past recessions companies have panicked and unnecessarily made staff redundant then had to incur pointless costs to reemploy when the upturn comes along. Research has also found that redundancies increase staff turnover and reduce the productivity of the staff who are left.

“It is urging employers to plan for recovery by retaining their people, rather than downsizing and risking long-term damage to their business... Employers should hold their nerve and focus on retaining talent and investing in the skills of their people. It is these people with their commitment, productivity and ability to add value who will ultimately keep individual businesses and the whole of the UK competitive, and put us in a strong position to recover from the downturn quickly.”

I hope that those Housing associations which are laying off skilled development workers take note!

Check out the press release here (which does not include the “Oversacking” term for some strange reason).