Category Archives: Work Related Posts

Posts on work topics that aren’t specifically HR related – they may be on economics, world events or something in the news at the time!

Come on In, The Water’s Lovely!

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , • 4 Comments

Yesterday I attended the Social HR Conference run by the CIPD in Manchester. There were lots of great learning points but one thing that struck me repeatedly were the reasons put forward by (often frustrated) HR people as to why their companies wouldn’t embrace “social media”, as they are often the reasons some of my clients also state. So I thought I’d challenge a few.

“People will do stupid things on it and we’ll end up sacking them”

Yes, some employees do stupid things sometimes – they always have done and always will do. Some of them will do it on a social media forum. But if someone doing something daft on social media leads to a disciplinary problem, then, to quote Pets At Home HR Director Ryan Cheyne, you have a problem with an employee – not with social media.

“People will just waste time on it”

Some people waste time at work no matter what. They might take overlong fag or tea breaks, wander around telling jokes to colleagues or discussing last night’s Eastenders. Again, if someone isn’t achieving their work targets, tackle it as a performance problem like any other. But…

…the time you think they are wasting might be being spent finding out the answer to a problem quickly and cheaply, getting some useful ideas on good practice from their contacts, or even finding out some information or knowledge on a competitor or a new opportunity.

“It might be ok for professionals and techies, but we employ manual workers/truck drivers/cleaners”

And you think that your manual workers don’t have Smartphones or Facebook accounts? Even if they don’t use them in work it doesn’t mean they can’t or don’t have them. Some companies adopt technology earlier than others but in the end we all do. One interesting learning point for me yesterday was that there is a huge online community of people who discuss knitting and crochet, and (while I accept this is a total stereotype) you wouldn’t normally associate people with those hobbies with the cutting edge of technology

“People might get a bad impression of the company”

People have always moaned about their employer and things they don’t like. But if you’re perceived as a poor employer, word always gets round. Social media just gets it round faster. And with the onset of sites like Glassdoor, it’s going to happen whether you “forbid” it or not.

Look at Friends Reunited and Myspace – they were just passing fads

Individual sites may come and go (there are some suggestions that Facebook may soon fall out of favour, while the end of LinkedIn has been prophesied regularly) but the means of communicating via internet or mobile technology will be around for a long while.

What’s its ROI?

As Mervyn Dinnen pointed out at yesterday’s conference, this is the “killer” argument used by those who just don’t want to do something. After all, how many companies measure the ROI of talking (and listening) to their employees, making new business connections or of providing mobile phones?

For a small organisation, the benefits of using social media more seem overwhelming – a cheap and easy way to promote your business and services, a chance to get immediate customer and employee feedback and an opportunity to “punch above your weight” against bigger competitors. In the same way that we now expect a company to have a website and an email address, there’ll be an expectation from your employees and customers in the future that you’re in social in some way. Thinking it will go away or ignoring it is not the right strategy.

When Love Breaks Down

Posted on by • Posted in HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

Listeners to radio soap The Archers (of which I am one) have been following for the last few weeks the ongoing affair between Elizabeth Pargetter, owner of Lower Loxley, a stately home now used as a Conference venue, and her general manager, Roy Tucker. In true soap opera fashion, Roy’s wife Hayley also works at Lower Loxley, as nanny/childminder to Elizabeth’s children. The affair ended with Elizabeth – much to Roy’s dismay – not only finishing their relationship but suggesting that Roy find another job.

Workplace relationships are an area that can be fraught for any employer, but particularly small ones where key staff can blur the boundaries between the professional and the personal. It’s not that they are uncommon either – it’s estimated that a significant proportion of personal relationships start in work (some even say a majority). Handling the breakdown of a relationship, especially between a “boss” and a “subordinate” can create many problems for a business.

Could Elizabeth sack Roy? Although she was very careful to say initially that she was not doing so, she might well have legitimate grounds for dismissal, under what is known as “some other substantial reason”. By giving Roy a period of paid leave of absence – often known as gardening leave – she’s making it clear that they can no longer work together. However, her subsequent actions of offering Roy’s job to his temporary replacement before finalising matters with him, and failing to follow any sort of process, have given him grounds for a claim of unfair dismissal (leaving aside the issue of whether he could afford to bring a claim). In practice, this is exactly the sort of situation that an employer and employee should try to resolve via a Settlement Agreement – a confidential and legally binding agreement to end an employment relationship – thus avoiding both embarrassing publicity for the business and personal information being made public.

But what about Hayley? Would Elizabeth and she be able to maintain a working relationship, especially as Hayley has now discovered the true reason for Roy’s late nights at the office? Again, Elizabeth might be able to use the “some other substantial reason” argument for dismissing her, but I suspect her case would be much weaker unless Hayley started behaving in an inappropriate manner. Hayley herself has quite understandably stated that she doesn’t really want to work with Elizabeth in the future. Here once again, a settlement agreement might be the logical way forward, unless Hayley resigns in a fit of pique.

Whatever happens – and at the time of writing it remains an unresolved issue – it will be an expensive fling for all concerned. And while The Archers is fiction, the consequences are likely to be the same if something like this happened in your business. It’s a worthwhile reminder of what the “Human” in Human Resources really means.

The Monstrous Regiment of (Childbearing Age) Women

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , • 3 Comments

A few weeks ago, the NZLEAD Twitter chat was about the role and position of women in the workforce. Some of the debate I found quite odd, since it seemed to be focussing on issues that I personally thought were almost dead and buried in the UK – whether men had a problem with women in the workforce, or if women were “debarred” from working in certain occupations. Sadly, it seems I’ve been viewing the world of work through somewhat rose tinted glasses.

Earlier this week, a report was published which attracted a good deal of press attention, suggesting among other things that 40% of UK employers would have reservations about employing a woman of “childbearing age” and that a third of managers would hire a man in their 20s/30s rather than a woman of similar age, due to fears about maternity leave.

Originally, I was going to write a blog about the dubious use of statistics – the research was commissioned by a firm of lawyers who specialise in employment and discrimination claims and who are no doubt suffering a loss of business currently – and it’s interesting that the data itself is not easily available (the source of all the media stories seems to be this press release, which doesn’t provide any evidence to substantiate the claims). And even accepting the data at face value, it’s quite easy to turn the headline into “60% of employers always aim for the best talent, while an overwhelming majority operate non-discriminatory recruitment practices” should you wish to spin the story a different way.

However, it’s not the data but some of the reaction to the news stories that made me re-think my own views. Commenting on the story, Employment Minister Jo Swinson and TUC Leader Frances O’Grady both described businesses who have this attitude to younger women as “dinosaurs”. As a political soundbite that’s probably ok (if a rather lazy and clichéd image), though personally I’d sooner find out why such a high percentage apparently still hold these views rather than attack them for it (I suspect that much of it is based on a misunderstanding of  employment rules, something I blogged about here).

But the reaction to Swinson’s comments – most notably here – were of such a vile and personal nature that it made me realise that perhaps I have too positive a view. How very dare she express an opinion, especially as a young woman who (shock horror) had a baby and took maternity leave from her ministerial post. Doesn’t she know that British business is collapsing all around her because women are taking maternity time off?

Clearly the debate hasn’t progressed as much as I thought or hoped.

Risky Business

Posted on by • Posted in HR Thoughts, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , • Leave a comment

HR has a reputation for being “risk-averse”.  It’s a reputation the profession often deserves, with  “no” frequently being the standard response to a managerial request, usually followed by 57 reasons why it can’t be done. (If you doubt this, take a look at some of the HR debates on LinkedIn, where it sometimes seems there’s a competition to be most negative about an idea).

But since any business (whether for profit or not) operates on a degree of risk or uncertainty, why is it that HR can’t operate in the same way? We talk a lot about “learning from failure” but frequently don’t practice what we preach.

Of course, no-one is suggesting that HR people should act like the banks in the run up to the financial crisis, taking foolhardy and dangerous chances that are unlikely to come off. But a calculated approach to risk recognises that there are times when doing something different is the right option.

So, how do you know when and how to take a risk? Sometimes, it’s simply the benefit of experience, but if you want to start taking a more calculated approach then one way is to test out your idea using the Palchinsky Principles, developed by a Russian Engineer and popularised by Tim Harford in his book “Adapt”.

In a nutshell, these are:

  • Actively seek out new ideas and ways of doing things (and expect that some of them will fail)
  • Try them out on a scale where failure is survivable
  • Get feedback and learn from your mistakes.

In many respects there’s nothing radical about the first and the third. But it’s the second one that can help turn you from risk-averse to a calculated risk taker. Use pilot projects, try things on a small scale at first, or make changes that can easily be unravelled if they don’t achieve the desired results. Ask yourself, in the manner of Dr Pepper: “what’s the worst that could happen?” – but don’t use this as an excuse not to do something, rather as a way of gauging how to test it.

 

Brussels backs Brits on Fatties

Posted on by • Posted in HR Tips for Business and Charities, Work Related Posts • Tagged , , , , , , • Leave a comment

I’ve blogged before about the nonsense that tabloid (and sometimes more “reputable”) newspapers publish about employment law – for example here and here. So it didn’t surprise me when they cottoned on to the “obesity as a disability” story, particularly as it also allowed them to indulge in their other favourite pastime of bashing “Europe”. The Daily Star took the story to new heights of fantasy with this piece.

Of course, it’s no wonder that many small businesses have concerns about employment law when they read stories like this one. And it provides fuel for those with a political axe to grind. So let’s look at the facts in this case, rather than the fiction.

The reports reflect an opinion expressed by the Advocate General of the EU. Although this is merely an expert legal opinion, his view is usually – but not always – adopted by the European court when it makes a judgment. Updated 18 December 2014 – the European Court decision, which can be found here, does, as expected, broadly follow this, although it removes the reference to Body Mass Index below.

What the Advocate General said was that anyone who is “morbidly obese” (with a Body Mass Index of 40 or more) is not disabled. However there may be certain circumstances where the consequences of this obesity are that the person cannot fully participate in work. In such a situation the individual might be (but isn’t automatically) disabled and therefore governed by equality legislation.

This viewpoint is consistent with current UK case law, which states that obesity is not in itself a disability but it may lead people to suffer from conditions which are a disability.

In this respect, it places obesity on a similar footing to drug or alcohol addiction. Simply being dependent on drugs or alcohol is not a disability. But if someone develops a condition which is a disability (for example becoming HIV positive) as a consequence of their addiction they will be classed as disabled under the Equality Act.

Even if they are disabled, your duty as an employer is to make “reasonable adjustments”. What is reasonable for a small company in rented accommodation is vastly different to what is reasonable in a large employer with their own premises. You’re not necessarily obliged to strengthen floors, provide extra wide chairs or any of the other things that reports have mentioned.

So, as always, don’t panic when you read stories like this. Remember that newspapers are interested in juicy headlines, not the cold facts or the detail.

(Thanks are due to Equality & Diversity consultant Anne Tynan, who tweeted about the Daily Star story and Employment Barrister Daniel Barnett whose Employment Law bulletins provide a readable and accurate summary of the Advocate General’s opinion).

(I’m fully aware that the European Court is based in Strasbourg. But the alliterative headline is a tabloid staple, accurate or not)