Editors Blog

Women in their 30s are hit hardest by the gender pay gap.

The difference between men's and women's full-time earnings, according to a TUC report, rises from 3% when they are in their 20s to 11% in their 30s.

Women's pay stagnates when they are in their 30s and most people don't find that surprising - it's the so-called "motherhood penalty".

Regardless of whether women take six months' maternity leave, or leave their jobs altogether to raise a family, in their 30s they lose out in experience, prospects, and the annual increases to their established salaries.

Women's minister Harriet Harman has promised "tough measures" in the forthcoming Equality Bill to cut the pay gap further. But it is unlikely that the Bill will be radical enough.

Two business websites are calling for the introduction of new sexual harassment rules, due to come into force on 6 April, to be delayed.

These are the rules that will make employers duty bound to protect staff from being sexually harassed by customers or the public. The tabloids have helpfully noted that this means drinkers who call barmaids 'love' on a regular basis could land their local pub in a tribunal.

Now BusinessZone.co.uk and HRZone.co.uk have launched a petition on the Downing Street website calling on the government to delay the introduction of the changes until at least October to give businesses time to prepare.

The campaign is also being supported, of course, by a group on social networking site Facebook.

The petition currently boasts a whopping 37 signatures, including a Jenni Frost (didn't she used to be in Atomic Kitten?) and J Richards who worries he might be condoning bad behaviour.

Campaigners claim that the regulations were only laid down in Parliament two weeks ago and the changes have received little publicity. With the rules coming into force on Sunday, businesses have had a very limited time to prepare. The government has estimated it will cost small firms £10m to comply.

Another week, another body of evidence to show that women are getting a raw deal in the workplace.

News that anyone working flexibly ­- of which the vast majority are women ­- are still being passed over for promotion may not come as a great shock to HR professionals, but what are you actually doing about it in practice?

Yes, you've got the policies in place, I hear you say. And yes, you should congratulate yourselves on the progress that has been made so far. But isn't it time you revisited and reviewed how your organisation's policies are actually working?

Despite some advances, HR still has a massive job to do to maximise the use of women's skills at every level and remove the informal barriers to achieving equality. And a swift self examination should show whether your workplace is one that promotes equal opportunities for all its staff.

Local government HR directors working in London could be forgiven for quaking in their shoes with the news that controversial no-win no-fee lawyer Stefan Cross is heading southwards.

The MJ reports that the Newcastle-based solicitor has started advertising in the capital for equal pay cases to take on.

Cross has become somewhat of a hate figure among trade unionists in the local government sector because of his appetite to take on these kinds of claims and his pursuit of workers, mainly women, in signing up to his firm.

Publicity: it's a funny old game.

The Daily Mail, the Sun, the Mirror, the London Paper and Channel Four News all failed to credit Personnel Today with a story we wrote this week - while Equalities and Human Rights Commission chairman Trevor Phillips credited us with one we never did.

The two issues that seem to be preoccupying HR professionals at the moment are agency workers' rights and flexible working. Yes, it's the old red tape story. For a couple of decades employment regulations have kept HR in gainful employment and given the profession a useful lever to make line managers take them seriously. But cynics could say the red tape mind set reflects an us and them attitude: us being the management and the others being those pesky employees threatening to cost the organisation more money and take you to the cleaners at an employment tribunal.

On the other hand, you could turn this on its head and, instead of seeing temporary staffing and flexible working as a threat, try to see  them as strategic opportunities. This week a report by the CBI and the TUC called Talent not Tokenism showed how some firms are using flexible resourcing to their advantage. Hospitality company Botanic Inns provides employees with flexible working options and enhanced maternity and paternity pay resulting in lower staff turnover.  Even small firms (Beacon Foods, Oakwood Builders and Joinery, and mouse mat manufacturer Listawood) are taking into account the need for flexibility to look after children. 

Unfortunately the sad truth is that some HR manager's focus on the red tape reveals that they see the workforce as a liability? In other words it's the complete opposite of the HR cliche "People are our most valuable resort."

What another shocker. Not only is it now acceptable to lie on CVs, it's also advisable to bang on about how young you are in the hope that will win you a contract as Sir Alan's apprentice.

When The Apprentice candidate Lee McQueen lied about the length of time he'd spent at university on his CV - claiming he'd been there two years when, ahem, he dropped out after four months - he was apparently doing what many other job applicants have done and so should be forgiven.

You could see the sparkle in Sir Alan's eye when he found out poor Lee had no real education and couldn't spell. The business moguls that interviewed Lee told Sir Alan they too had lied on their CVs to get their first job - and that rather than showing dishonesty, it showed committment and a will to get on in the world.

But employment lawyers were inevitably unhappy about the act. Pinsent Masons employment partner Tom Flanagan said: "If the deceit had remained hidden and Lee went on to become the Apprentice, he could well have been in breach of his contract if it was uncovered at a later date."

Just weeks ago Patrick Imbardelli resigned from his position as chief executive, Asia Pacific Region at InterContinental Hotels Group last June, after it was discovered that he'd lied on his CV, Flanagan reminded us. 

Now in Lee's case you could see why he had lied about his education. He said so himself - he just wanted to keep up with the other candidates and he had proved his worth during the ten weeks he'd been on the show. Fine, but most candidates don't get ten weeks to prove they're good at a job.

Anyone who saw the recent Personnel Today story about the 'stagnating older workforce unable to retire' will be right behind Watson Wyatt pensions expert Gary Smith in his comments about older workers who have "peaked in terms of their productivity and value to their employer" and are causing pension and succession planning headaches. The only problem is that he does not go far enough. Why not make all over-50s redundant as a precaution? Another advantage of this is that these ageing 'STAGS' (an acronym which means something like 'stagnating old gits') won't build up any more severence entitlement so you've got the double savings of pensions and redundancy payouts. 

No doubt the politically correct lobby will say this is discriminatory and that demographics mean it is important to utilise people of all ages, never mind all that old rubbish about how it is up to HR to engage and motivate employees regardless of their age. Nonsense, I say. There's a terrific film starring the late Charlton Heston, Soylent Green, where older people are made into a form of protein to feed the rest of the population. Why aren't our politicians  and think tanks coming up with innovative ideas like that?    

On the other hand, perhaps we are mixing up two issues here - the pensions issue and the issue of talent and performance management. Perhaps it is a bit suspect to make assumptions about the work performance of broad groups on the basis of age or other criteria, like gender or race for example. Where is Smith's evidence that older workers are less capable than, say, Generation Y?

Ageism - there ought to be a law against it, eh?   

HR legal eagles will need to swap their summer read for some serious Equality Bill swotting, following the raft of controversial new measures announced last week.

The purpose of the Bill is to 'strengthen protection, advance equality and de-clutter the law'. However, far from being a definite move in the right direction, equality minister Harriet 'Harperson's' framework document has raised a few eyebrows - in particular with its moves to allow employers to give preferential treatment to female and ethnic minority candidates.

It lacks clarity as to how a business could positively discriminate in a lawful way and, by inconsistently referring to both 'equally suitable' and 'equally qualified' candidates in describing the positive discrimination test, it raises more questions than it answers.

The fallout from last month's unveiling of the Equality Bill continues apace. The suggestion that employers should, in effect, be paid to hire more women and black and minority ethnic (BME) workers will undoubtedly provoke controversy.

As this is a view expressed by the managing director of one of the leading names on the high street, does it truly indicate the way the wind is blowing in boardrooms across the UK?

The idea put forward by Boots' managing director Alex Gourlay suggests that top employers have yet to be fully convinced of the business case for diversity ­ if they were, surely there would be no need for financial incentives in the form of tax breaks to operate a more diverse workforce?

Compare paid paternity leave levels with other countries and you'll find the UK has some of the worst rights for new fathers in Europe.

The speech made last week by Nicola Brewer, Equalities and Human Rights Commission chief executive, highlighted the fact that the UK's parental rights currently support the idea that fathers are "optional seasoning" on children's lives, while mothers are the main carers ('Maternity leave could damage women's careers', Personneltoday.com, 14 July).

The government has published its response to the consultation it held before drafting the Equality Bill.

The document can be downloaded here. Be warned - it's a weighty piece of work (more than 200 pages long) but the executive summary is useful.

It succinctly covers the government's plans on a new equality duty, gender pay, positive action, gagging clauses in pay deals, extending tribunals' powers, union equality reps.

The government also said it would be working with the Tribunals Service, employment judges "and other relevant stakeholders", to identify other ways of ensuring that lessons are learnt from tribunal judgments.

The losers it seems are the Welsh and Indian workers of lower castes. The government said it did not intend to introduced specific protection against caste discrimination or discrimination of Welsh speakers.

Now that we've got discrimination laws against just about everything, I think it's time the protection offered by such legislation is extended to other often ignored groups who may suffer at the hands of discriminatory employers or colleagues.

Before you shout "what about the naturally idle," I think the case should be made for those burdened with stupid Christian - oops, sorry,  thought crime - I mean first names. For instance would you give someone called Number 16 Bus Shelter Matthews a job?  

The equal pay saga dominating the local government landscape continues to rumble on its destructive course. Equal pay is now not so much the elephant in the room but a stampeding herd of angry pachyderms.

Last week the Court of Appeal paved the way for tens of thousands of women to claim billions in compensation for unequal pay from the NHS and local authorities.

The ruling overturned a previous decision that two councils in north east England were essentially entitled to continue discriminating against female employees because they could not afford to bring them into line with the men.

Acas figures released last week also showed that the number of equal pay tribunal claims it dealt with last year more than doubled - it is now the most popular form of claim.

The Sunday Times ran a good piece last week on the Heyday retirement age challenge and its potential impact on older workers in the UK.

The article focused on Andrew Webster, a teacher at a West London school who was forced to retire at the age of 68, despite protests from staff and parents.

An estimated 25,000 people face default retirement in the UK every year, regardless of whether they want to continue working past the retirement age.

I was struck by comments from Neil Carberry, head of employment and pensions at the CBI, who said that getting rid of the mandatory retirement age would mean that the only way someone could be asked to leave was via a disciplinary process, which could mean "a very undignified end to some people's careers".

That's an interesting view and one I'm sure many in the HR community would have a view on.