Editors Blog

The government's attempts to outlaw religious discrimination in the workplace turned into farce last week when a draft code of practice was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The code aims to help employers interpret the Equality Bill, but eyebrows were raised in the HR community at the revelation that not only will established religions be covered but also vegans, members of Cults and people with no beliefs at all.
The government tried to distance itself with a statement that opinions based on scientific or political theories were not akin to religious or philosophical beliefs and therefore not covered.
But in practice both employers and tribunals may find it difficult to judge what is an opinion and what is a belief.  This was the case in November 2009 when a former manager at residential landlord group Grainger was given the go-ahead to take his employer to a tribunal for allegedly making him redundant because of his views on climate change.
The draft code says atheists will be covered by the Bill. But what if an atheist believes only things that can be scientifically proven? As such opinions are not covered atheists presumably will be protected from discrimination only when their beliefs are based on blind ignorance of the facts. 
The serious concern is that extending the law to cover groups such as vegans will damage the hard-won credibility of workplace equality among employers. The Bill will be debated in the House of Lords on 23 March. Let us hope they can inject some common sense before it is too late. 

With the Football World Cup less than 100 days away, what plans has your organisation put in place to allow employees follow their national team?

Take part in our poll and it will link you to the latest IRS survey which investigates the steps that organisations can take to integrate this and other major sporting events with day-to-day running of their businesses.

Taking part in the complete IRS survey guarantees that you will receive a complimentary copy of the report once it is completed.

The long-term consequences to the anti-bullying movement of Christine Pratt's decision to go public with claims that Downing Street staff had contacted the National Bullying Helpline will be hard to quantify.

Pratt says she spoke out after denials by ministers that bullying took place, and that no employer should issue such a denial until investigating the allegations. Experts have been quick to warn that her actions in breaching the confidentiality of callers could have a serious knock-on effect on the usage of bullying helplines or employee assistance programmes.

It's now incumbent on HR to act quickly to reassure employees they can raise concerns about unacceptable behaviour at work in a safe environment.

Pratt clearly trades off the fact she is a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development - the CIPD's name is plastered all over the charity's website and promotes services to employers run by chartered members.

The Charity Commission is probing practices at the helpline - now is the time for the CIPD to investigate Pratt's behaviour.

The institute's code of professional conduct states members are required to exercise "appropriate behaviour in all their business, professional and related personal activities". Clause 4.1.7 goes on to say members "must respect legitimate needs and requirements for confidentiality".

The silence from institute bosses on this whole debacle has been deafening so far. The CIPD claims to care about professional standards in HR but - for some reason - doesn't see its role as upholding them. It should think again.

Dealing with forthcoming spending cuts is the big challenge facing public sector HR professionals over coming years. But are they up to it? The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) doesn't think so; its report warned of a 'people management crisis' that threatened effective public service delivery as we move into more austere times.

The report states: "There are serious question marks over the public sector's people management capability to emulate the best of the private sector response to adversity.  While there are excellent managers and examples of great performance in the public sector... [it] is in urgent need of improvement."

Continue reading "Public sector HR at a tipping point" »

The proposals on gender pay reporting by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) received a decidedly mixed welcome from some HR directors and employers' groups.
 
The commission's promise of two-year immunity from investigation for those firms that go public with their pay gaps, designed to make the tough medicine a little sweeter, is also likely to make little difference. The CBI has already said the proposals risk backfiring and has withdrawn its support for them.

The new regulations will undoubtedly be felt hardest by firms in the financial services sector, where the watchdog's own figures have shown women in some organisations receiving up to 80% less in performance-related pay than their male colleagues. But, as one employment lawyer warned last week, transparency on pay is an admirable concept, but elusive to achieve in practice.

Publishing pay statistics might indeed grant employers immunity from investigation, but that data will be poured over by employees, job applicants, as well as competitors - and may lead to some particularly negative publicity. Legal experts have even raised the possibility of female staff being targeted by no win, no fee lawyers looking to encourage them to bring equal pay and/or sex discrimination claims.
 
Underpinning this is the reserve power contained in the Equality Bill which could lead to mandatory reporting of pay gaps by 2013. So it seems the case that when weighing up the risks of volunteering this information, many employers will feel damned if they do and damned if they don't.
 

The big freeze continues to dominate the headlines, with snow and ice causing havoc for employers and their staff across the UK.

Our story on the Personnel Today website gives a snapshot of how some HR directors in the worst affected areas coped with the extreme conditions. Once again it demonstrates the resourcefulness and quick-thinking of HR teams to keep organisations up and running and provide services for some of the most vulnerable in society.

From one freeze to another; the CIPD's call for a freeze in the national minimum wage for young workers. The institute argues that the recession has had a far greater impact on young people than other age groups - the unemployment figures bear this out - and it is important to avoid making this group of workers less attractive to employers.

Continue reading "Cold snap continues for HR and national minimum wage" »

Learning and development professionals should embrace Facebook, blogging and Web 2.0 technologies as powerful tools within their organisations, according to Nick Shackleton-Jones of the BBC Academy.

Delegates at the CIPD's annual conference in Manchester, as in Harrogate last year, always seem keen to expose themselves to as much Web 2.0-related content and this afternoon's well-attended session, "Harnessing the Power of Social Media in the Workplace", was no exception.

Nick's presentation was an interesting one. It wasn't technical in any way. It relied more on his training as a psychologist than as some kind of iPhone-toting, blogging geek, something he could not be described as.

"It's not all about technology," he explained "It's about a window into that personal dimension."

His message was simple. People learn better from one another, and social media can facilitate that in ways previous technologies could not.

The BBC Academy's philosophy: "It's not about getting the info across; it's about making people care enough to change their behaviour"

His presentation covered topics as diverse as successful internal communication through blogging, to employees uploading videos of key learning that can then be discussed an consumed by others. Key to it all is enabling authentic communication. Blogging allows that.

He cited as an example the poorly-read internal comms emails that director-general Mark Thompson used to send out, compared to a well-read blog penned by another (excellently paid, of course) BBC exec. The latter had an authenticity that the first could not, partly by allowing comments back.

We don't remember and engage with data unless it is somehow encased in emotion, was another aspect of his presentation.

In e-learning he decribed how the BBC encouraged its staff to share their ideas and learning through video clips posted to a forum. Participation was encouraged through a competition prize to get a programme made on BBC3 (I thought they only showed that "Two pints..." show!).

He explained how social media can break down heirarchies, refering to a "reverse mentoring" programme at Nokia where more senior, Gen X and baby boomer executives could learn from Gen Y staff.

Similarly blogs can be used by thought leaders (regardless of seniority) to communicate and 300-400 blogs at the BBC - "an open organisation" demonstrated this.

He gave an example of an HR Director delivering bad news about a car policy and how that would be more effective as a blog than an impersonal email. It's authentic, includes emotional content about how it was difficult decision and it allows comments.

But he warned organisations to take care: "If you try to [just] introduce a social network to your organisation it will fail," he explained. "You have to drive it artificially in the first stages... People lurk, they don't post."

The organisation has to demonstrate its legitimacy to avoid the employee thinking: "Will I be thanked or spanked?" Until employees see that part of their role is to spread learning, they're going to see it as illegitimate.

L&D professionals, concluded Nick, need to stop thinking of themselves as experts and instead curators who pool good content. An extremely interesting presentation, delivering a very human side to a topic some might discuss as geeky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The ruling that an individual's view on climate change is capable of being a philosophical belief akin to religion is most unwelcome for employers.

Unfortunately this was a mess waiting to happen following the poorly drafted 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations. The ambiguity in the law means that employers don't know who - or what - is protected from discrimination.

This ruling opens the door for abuse of the law and, regardless of whether the tribunal case is won or lost, raises the spectre of 'greenism' in the workplace.

Can an employee with strongly-held eco-beliefs refuse to fly on business, refuse to operate energy-guzzling equipment and expect abundant recycling facilities at work? And if the employer is not meeting his expectations does that amount to discrimination? It's one thing to ask not to be persecuted for your views, but quite another to rush to court when you feel they are not being taken seriously enough.

Taken to its fullest conclusion, the ruling may also mean that firms now have to think about environmental issues and sustainability in a different way, as to not risk 'upsetting' certain individuals. That would be a backward step.

And where does it stop? As one commentator pointed out, people live their lives in all kinds of ways that, at a push, could be argued to be a 'philosophical belief'. How long before we see claims for veganism, pacifism or socialism?

The weight of discrimination law is already a heavy burden on employers, this latest ruling makes that burden increasingly intolerable.

BBC People director Lucy Adams has used the Guardian's Organ Grinder blog to respond to criticism about the corporation's plans to cut the pay bill of senior managers.

She was responding to a piece by former Channel 5 boss David Elstein, who argued the sums didn't add up.

It's interesting that the BBC responded so publicly to Elstein's comments, so quickly, and through its HR director. Adams has been in the job for about six months so I wonder if this signals the first attempts at raising her profile?

The Guardian is mostly BBC-friendly and Auntie is on safe ground here. Doubt we would have seen the notorious BBC-hater Daily Mail run such a comment piece. Apparently, the paper has two journalists dedicated to digging up negative stories on the BBC.

You can read Lucy Adams' piece here.

The government's call for evidence on the future of the default retirement age (DRA) ahead of its review next year is an opportunity for HR to make its voice heard and influence future policy.

Over the next three months ministers want employers and business groups to submit evidence on, among other things, the operation of the DRA in practice and - more importantly - the experiences of organisations that have ditched a fixed retirement age.

This is a chance for HR teams at many top employers that have gone down this route to highlight the real benefits that ditching it can bring to a business. The CIPD must also come out strongly in favour of ditching the DRA.

When the government introduced a DRA of 65 as part of the 2006 age regulations its argument was that it did so on the basis of evidence which showed that it was necessary. It's important that the decision made next year is again made on robust evidence and not in anyway influenced by politics ahead of the general election.

As far as it's obvious, three options on the DRA lay open to the government: scrap it; keep it; or extend it. The judge in the Heyday case made clear that a DRA of 65 would probably not stand up legally now. Some have argued that it could be extended to age 70.

But what would be the point of that? Let's just do away with this arbitrary and archaic limit which allows the enforced retirement of people simply because of their age.