It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world?

At the start of 2020 (when a new virus affecting people in parts of China was hardly being covered in the news) I published a blog post on the issues of philosophical belief and how employers should consider issues relating to it, in the light of two high profile cases. on veganism and gender-critical beliefs.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled today on the appeal in the gender-critical case. That case originally failed on the grounds that the claimant’s gender-critical beliefs could not count as a philosophical belief on the basis that they failed the 5th legal test, that a belief “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”

The EAT overturned this view, stating that a belief would only fail the 5th test if it was ‘akin to Nazism or totalitarianism’ or espousing violence and hatred ‘in the gravest of forms’; a belief that simply was ‘offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others…would not be excluded from the protection’.

This is a subject which results in much heated and vitriolic debate, particularly on social media platforms. The purpose of this post is not to discuss the merits of these views (or the decision itself) but to highlight to employers a key part of the judgement. The EAT was very clear and explicit that:

a. This judgment does not mean that the EAT has expressed any view on the merits of either side of the transgender debate and nothing in it should be regarded as so doing.


b. This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment that apply to everyone else. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of {Equality Act] EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.


c. This judgment does not mean that trans persons do not have the protections against discrimination and harassment conferred by the EqA. They do. Although the protected characteristic of gender reassignment under s.7, EqA would be likely to apply only to a proportion of trans persons, there are other protected characteristics that could potentially be relied upon in the face of such conduct.


d. This judgment does not mean that employers and service providers will not be able to provide a safe environment for trans persons. Employers would continue to be liable (subject to any defence under s.109(4), EqA) for acts of harassment and discrimination against trans persons committed in the course of employment.

The above points are taken directly from the judgement (which you can find here if you want to read it in full) – they are also evidence that court judgements aren’t always in impenetrable legalese! They are however a very useful reminder that discrimination, bullying or harassment are something which an employer is liable for regardless of whether the alleged harasser claims they are only doing so because they have a particular religious or philosophical belief.

A solution to the Sick Pay conundrum?

There’s been much in the press over the last few months about the fact that the UK’s Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) scheme – of around £95 per week – is one of the lowest in the developed world, and as a result acts as a disincentive for individuals to self-isolate during the current pandemic. More recently, there have been suggestions that the Government is considering paying a £500 grant to individuals to encourage them to self-isolate when required to do so (although latest reports claim the government has decided against this approach).

In addition, SSP is only payable to employees – not the self-employed or contractors – and only if they earn more than £120 per week. As a result, the lowest paid are also excluded.

Some of the concern about a change to the rules is from the Treasury around costs. But it needs to be remembered that:

  • Employers currently bear the cost of SSP (there are some temporary exceptions for Covid)
  • The minimum earnings figure dates back to when employers could claim some of the cost of SSP back. This was abolished several years ago and consequently is a meaningless anachronism.
  • There are several other cumbersome and pointless rules around SSP that again, date back to the days it was subsidised by central government. (if you are interested, google concepts such as “waiting days” and “linked periods”)

So, here’s a suggestion of how the government could improve SSP generally, encourage people to self-isolate and limit the long-term costs (though there would be a short term increase).

1. Set the SSP rate to £327 (a 37.5 hour week at the current minimum wage of £8.72 per hour), or 80% of weekly wages if normal salary is less than £327 – 80% being the furlough rate the government seem happy to pay. This could rise annually in line with minimum wage rates or simply be reviewed periodically.

2. Employers still pay the £95 per week contribution, which would rise on an annual basis as it currently does.

3. The scheme would cover all employees, regardless of earnings – no minimum level – and people classed as “workers”.

4. If costs were an issue, the length of time SSP would be paid could be reduced from the current 28 weeks to say 20 weeks.

5. The self-employed would be able to claim an equivalent payment from the DWP/HMRC based on evidence of their earnings.

6. The same rules on evidence (self-certificate for up to 7 days, doctor’s note thereafter) would still apply.

People earning £400 per week or more would obviously see a fall when off sick, but considerably less than currently. And it needs to be remembered that many employers offer more generous sick pay schemes anyway, which would not be affected.

Am interested to know any potential downsides that employers, HR professionals or policy makers can spot – either as short-term response to Covid or as a longer-term solution (I accept that I’ve picked £327 as an illustration and the rate could be higher – or lower).

Handling Redundancies during Covid

ACAS – the independent employment advisory service, the employer’s organisation (CBI) and trade unions (TUC) have issued a joint statement today about handling redundancies during the COVID pandemic, especially with the UK’s furlough scheme set to end in October and what, if anything, will replace it still to be announced.

The full statement is here https://www.acas.org.uk/joint-statement-acas-cbi-tuc

The key principles it outlines are something which I would always recommend to employers, no matter how big or small:

  • Be open about why you need to make redundancies
  • Give people as much information as they need to be able to respond properly
  • Consult genuinely – listen to what people have to say and give it proper consideration
  • Do it fairly – legally correctly and in a way that is ‘felt fair’ by everyone in the business
  • Handle it with dignity – a person is losing their job through no fault of their own. They aren’t just a ‘human resource’ to be disposed of.

If you need help or guidance with handling redundancies both legally, and with professionalism and integrity, please don’t hesitate to get in touch

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.