You say you want a revolution? Well…

Everywhere I look, there are articles about the “future of work” once the Covid-19 pandemic is as fully controlled as it can be – the latest one (of many) being here. My post before this one, written a few days before the UK lockdown, now seems both overly optimistic and naïve.

I’m less convinced that work will look radically different post Covid. What the pandemic may do is accelerate certain changes that were happening anyway, but many of the issues that have been highlighted require longer term structural changes – and the political will to make these changes – before anything can be implemented.

Why do I say this? The last major pandemic to affect western economies in such a serious way was the now almost forgotten ‘Asian Flu’ pandemic of 1957-58. Despite finding many articles on the macro-economic, policy planning and health issues of that pandemic, I’ve yet to find any research on how work and working practices changed. Did the workplace look radically different in 1960 to 1957? I suspect not. There may be a reason why ‘pandemics’ didn’t feature in Tim Harford’s ‘50 Things that made the Modern Economy’ (now 100 things with the publication of its sequel!) – because they didn’t.

And if you want some contemporary anecdotal evidence, look at the pictures of people flooding to beaches, returning to work on public transport, or queueing for a drive through burger. Many are happy to return to the ‘old normal’, or – in the case of public transport – don’t have an option.

So with maybe a slightly less rose-tinted crystal ball, work in 5 years’ time will probably look not dissimilar to today. More people will be working from home but unless firms take a deliberate decision to invest in ‘home offices’ for their staff, we will be dealing with claims and issues from people who either don’t have or can’t access the right tech; are suffering back problems from balancing laptops on their knees because there’s nowhere else to sit; or will have increasing mental health challenges.

Similarly, while some of the more egregious abuses of the gig economy may be outlawed, we will still see plenty of people working in an insecure environment to deliver our packages and takeaways.

One thing’s for sure – HR people will need to adapt their skills to an evolving set of problems, but the fundamentals of the profession will stay the same.

pexels-photo-3962212

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

 

Wanted for Recruitment Crimes

Recently, I’ve done a couple of recruitment projects for clients. As a consequence, I’ve spent some time reviewing job adverts and recruitment processes. And I have to say, it amazes me how some organisations ever attract staff when a substantial number of adverts commit one or more of these recruitment “crimes”

  1. We’re not going to tell you who you’re applying to or where we are.

Why do recruiters think that putting out a vacancy for, say, a “manufacturing company in the North West” (or even, as I once saw, for “Anonymous Recruiter”) is likely to attract candidates?

Why wouldn’t you say who you are? Especially as we expect candidates these days to have done extensive research on the organisation if they come for interview. Who would consider buying or renting somewhere that was advertised as vaguely as “spacious property located in a large city”?

There’s a more serious point – you are potentially wasting candidates’ time. If I live in Macclesfield and find later on in the process that your company is based in Carlisle, (both in the “North West”) chances are that I’ll withdraw rather than face a 5 hour daily commute or the hassle of relocation.

  1. We won’t say how much we’re going to pay you.

Instead, we’ll put in a meaningless phrase like “£ competitive” or “attractive salary plus benefits”

You may think that your £30000 salary is ‘competitive’. The candidate you shortlist who is currently on £35000 won’t think so. If you want to be able to negotiate salary with the successful person that’s fine, but you should at least put in an indicative range so that again, you are not wasting people’s time.

  1. “We reserve the right to close the process early if we have sufficient applications”

What this says to candidates is “we’re so desperate to fill the role that we’ll take anyone who vaguely meets our criteria, so long as they apply quickly”. Your ideal candidate might not be actively job hunting; or away and not see your advert for a period; or may have missed your advert initially. If you’ve set a closing date, stick to it.

In my experience, most applications that come in on day 1 or 2 of an advert tend to be from people who haven’t thought about your role or don’t meet the specification anyway. Good candidates often want to take some time to prepare their CV and application.

  1. We have a never-ending list of ‘essential characteristics’

Having a person specification is vital to allow you to sift and shortlist candidates. Each criterion that you have will eliminate some applicants. So, the longer your list, the fewer people are likely to get through. If it’s more than 5 or 6, then chances are that no-one will meet your specification. I’ve seen job adverts with around 15 or more essential characteristics, which have led me to conclude that the person the employer wants doesn’t exist, or if they do, is probably the person who has recently quit the job.

Sadly, a lot of these practices seem prevalent in today’s recruitment market (and you’ll often see more than one in a single job advert). I’d love to hear the justification in recruitment or business terms for them, because I’m struggling to see one.

 

That’s my philosophy!

There have been two recent high-profile Employment Tribunal cases that have dealt with the issue of what is a “Philosophical Belief” under the Equality Act, which would entitle the individual to the protection against discrimination.

In the first case, Forstater v CGD Europe, Ms Forstater lost her argument that her Gender Critical Beliefs were a Philosophical Belief.

In the second, Casamitjana v League Against Cruel Sports, Mr Casamitjana won his argument that Ethical Veganism was a Philosophical Belief.

At the outset, it’s worth making the following points, especially as they have been frequently misrepresented in media reports

  1. An Employment Tribunal decision does not set any kind of legal precedent. It applies only to the specific case in question. However, both cases do illustrate the approach a tribunal is likely to take to any dispute, so it’s worth employers understanding how the decision has been reached.
  2. The fact that something is a Philosophical Belief does not mean it is the ‘same’ as a religion – simply that the law protects those who have deeply held values in the same way as it protects people with religious beliefs.

What both tribunals asked was whether the belief in question met the 5 tests set down by the Courts. These are:

  • It must be genuinely held
  • It must be a belief, not an opinion based on currently available information
  • It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
  • It must have attain a level of cogency, seriousness and cohesion
  • It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be incompatible with human dignity or in conflict with the fundamental rights of others

Forstater lost her case on the final point – her views were seen to be in conflict with the fundamental rights of a group of other people (transgender individuals). (It’s almost certain that this case will go to appeal, so we may have a series of rulings on this particular issue over next few years).

There have been a lot of over-excited comments about this whole topic, including some from HR people who ought to know better. So to clarify

  • Support for a particular football team is not a philosophical belief
  • The decisions do not mean that ‘women are treated as being below animals’
  • People are not protected because of the food they eat (or don’t eat)
  • There are no onerous new “restrictions” placed on employers.

For a small business, there are three key ‘take-aways’ from these cases

  • These are issues that people have strong views about. But in the same way that saying you don’t believe the speed limit should be 30mph is no defence against speeding, your personal views of the issue are irrelevant to what the law says
  • There is no ‘hierarchy of equalities’ – the fact you have one protected characteristic doesn’t justify discriminatory behaviour against a different protected characteristic
  • Make your employment decisions – be they recruitment, promotion, dismissal etc – for clear business reasons, not because of someone’s personal characteristics.

Plato_by_Raphael

“OK Boomer!” Is it Harassment?

For the last few years, we’ve been inundated by articles and conference speakers talking about “Generational Differences in the workplace”. A minority of the HR profession (me included, for example in this post I wrote over 6 years ago) pointed out that this was meaningless stereotyping and used the hashtag #GenerationBlah to mock those who persisted in promoting themselves and their products on the back of ‘why Millennials need different recruitment solutions’.

Just so we are all clear, there is no reliable evidence of ‘generational differences’, as this piece of research shows.

It did seem that this fad was dying away, overtaken by other flavours of the month. But it’s burst back into life with the current prevalence of the phrase “OK Boomer” as a generalised insult for older people – so much so that it’s now even entered political debate.

Why’s this an issue for employers? Well, depending on the context, it could constitute harassment under the Equality Act.

Harassment is defined as one person (say a young employee) engaging in unwanted conduct related to a protected characteristic of an another person (say an older employee) which has the effect of violating the second person’s dignity or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them.

While most employers would be aware that race, sex, disability or religious belief are protected characteristics, it’s worth remembering that age is too.

Whether someone is harassed depends on their perception, not the intention of the person making the comment (so “I only meant it as a joke” is not a defence). If an employee complains, you as an employer need to investigate it and consider what has been said, the context it was being said and any other circumstances. Failure to do so leaves your organisation potentially liable.

Remember too that it works both ways – so an older worker calling a younger one a “snowflake” could equally be harassment in similar circumstances.

With a bit of luck, the “OK Boomer” trend could soon become as dated as 1960s hippies calling older people “squares”. But until then, watch out for it in the workplace!

This piece was inspired by a US article called “Okay, Boomer, in the workplace could get you fired” by Suzanne Lucas who tweets as @RealEvilHRLady. It’s an interesting read especially if you want to compare UK and US employment laws!

Bart

The Magic of a Kind Word?

 

Recent reports have suggested that the Government is considering proposals to make it a legal requirement for an employer to provide a reference for a current or past employee. The rationale appears to be that some employers have used the threat of not providing a reference to ‘silence’ complaints of harassment, especially by women. The proposal has been welcomed by some and criticised in other quarters.

But the question that we should really be asking is why on earth we still, in 2019, expect references anyway?

References were historically designed to allow upper class Victorians to assess the honesty of potential servants. Many a Victorian novel features the ultimate threat of dismissing a servant without a reference – meaning that they would be unemployable in the future. They date back to a world in which employers could operate a closed shop and exclude those who were undesirable – not necessarily dishonest. Given that diversity and inclusion are something the HR profession is supposedly promoting, is persisting with an outdated nineteenth century domestic service practice really a good idea?

And even if you don’t accept that argument, what do references tell us anyway? If I write a glowing reference for Employee X, who worked in my small, flexible organisation, how does that help a new employer  – which is far larger, with a much more bureaucratic and ‘command and control’ culture, assess whether she can do a different job in that company? How does knowing that Employee Y had 10 days off sick in the last year help you manage their attendance in a new company?

The problem is that too many employers use references as an easy get out for their own poor recruitment decisions. “Why did we take him on?” is a frequent question after an employee has left or been dismissed. “Well, his references were good” is an equally frequent reply (usually from HR). It’s as if a reference conveys some sort of magic guarantee of good performance, in the same way that some ancient peoples believed that the hooting of an owl before sowing seeds would guarantee a good crop.

I’m aware that there are some sectors where legally a reference is required (schools, financial organisations etc). But for everyone else, surely the time would be better spent on a more thorough recruitment process, rather than simply generating meaningless paperwork to justify our own decision-making inadequacies. (And as an additional benefit, it couldn’t be used as a threat against employees who do make legitimate complaints)

Image result for victorian servant image copyright free