Although there is no specific mention in the Budget as to when it will be increased, a quick phone call to the powers that be has led me to believe that the rise in statutory redundancy pay will come into effect in October.
I completely agree with your points. Our theme for April on HRZone.co.uk is health and wellbeing at work, so this is the first of many articles looking at the different aspects of this important topic. Later this month, we will cover both stress and mental health in the workplace, so please look out for these!
I don't think we should wait until a recession to consider the wellbeing of staff and that is certainly not the point I was making in my article - employee wellbeing is of course of paramount importance whether we are in a downturn or a growth economy, and healthy staff can mean a healthy bottom line in any market.
But, seeing as employees may be more anxious and stressed at the moment, due to redundancies (and therefore higher workloads, longer hours etc, for those employees who remain) it is now really important to ensure those wellbeing initiatives that were in place before the downturn, remain in place throughout these challenging times; and that if it wasn't at the top of the business agenda before, then it really should be now.
The system of providing references is inadequate and exposed to risk. Before I begin, I should point out that the vast majority of employers are excellent and the vast majority of employees are hard working and diligent.
The trouble with the system is that whilst former employers enjoy the benefit that they can act maliciously in the knowledge that they have to be proven to have done so to face any consequences, a wronged employee has to face the consequences immediately by becoming unemployed. Without the financial clout, it is also very unlikely an employee can rely upon litigation, as even at an employment tribunal a lawyer is important. This imbalance needs to be addressed and potential employers need to be wary of the fact that there is no more reason why a potential employee would be dishonest than a former employer. They should think carefully about who they trust more, because as the current financial crisis shows, there are some truly horrendous executives out there.
I have some experience of this. My former employer threatened not to provide a reference in retaliation to my resignation. This is an example of bad corporate governance, not this company's strength by any stretch of the imagination. Fortunately, they are not taken very seriously by the industry (my current employer jokingly said words to the effect that a reference from them would be less useful than a reference from Burger King) and I easily got a job without their reference (and that's the last time money will be the only factor in me taking a job with someone!) Others however may not be so lucky.
I would argue that it is in everyone's interests for the system to be changed so that the balance is not heavily weighted in favour of employer vs employee but instead in a way that considers good vs bad. So, how can this be done?
1) Cap costs at an employment tribunal so employees are not financially vulnerable in litigation. Provide legal aid and don't expose employees to employer costs. To avoid excessive litigation, install a claims office that acts like the CPS, accepting or rejecting cases.
2) Potential employers should ask for at least three references, if they are available, which will highlight whether a bad reference is fair or not.
3) Evidence that employers have persistently given poor references and lost tribunal cases should be permissable in court.
4) Employers should also be forced to state in their annual report how many good and how many bad references they have given. If they make negative references, they should be forced to be transparent about it.
Hi Jill, I will add you to the list, no problem. If you are new to the Twitter/Web 2.0 thing, then look out for an article going live on HRZone tomorrow (Thursday) morning, which looks at how HR can harness the power of Web 2.0 and use it to their advantage.
The ability to obtain skills quickly and flexibly through freelancers or temporary agency workers will be vital when the upturn starts and businesses need to get more skills on-board fast in order to expand: this is when flexible forms of labour will come into their own.
For the time being, it is vital to be clear about what kind of worker you want and why you want them. You may need to cover short-term items of work that are not guaranteed to endure, or have to implement a change management programme: freelancers or other flexible workers will be ideal then. But be wary of taking on flexible workers as a supposedly cheap substitute for employees: if they are doing the same type of work as employees, in the same manner, they will probably be able to claim employment rights from you, even if they have their own limited company. So if you’re going to engage non-employees, be sure to do it on a proper business-to-business commercial basis. John Kell, Professional Contractors Group
This application is extremely useful for building business processes in such a way as to illustrate all activities from start to end. This helps considerabley in assessing who does what, when and how etc so one can identify bottlenecks in workflows, inefficiencies and ownerships.
my wife works 4 days per week mon to thurs 5 hours per day. Her office is shut on a bank/public holiday, she is credited for 4hrs 3mins for this day. if a bank holiday falls on a friday she is credited with 3hrs 47mins. She is expected to make up the difference for the days she would normally work. As the office is closed and full timers get a normal days pay ie no debit or credit, could this be classed as a lock out or a detriment under the part time working regs. The organisation works a 5 day week 37 hours
My answers
Hi Louise
Although there is no specific mention in the Budget as to when it will be increased, a quick phone call to the powers that be has led me to believe that the rise in statutory redundancy pay will come into effect in October.
Kind regards
Lucie Mitchell
Editor
Was there a date given for the raise in the redundancy paymet to £380?
Hi Derek
I completely agree with your points. Our theme for April on HRZone.co.uk is health and wellbeing at work, so this is the first of many articles looking at the different aspects of this important topic. Later this month, we will cover both stress and mental health in the workplace, so please look out for these!
Kind regards
Lucie Mitchell
Editor
Hi Peter
I don't think we should wait until a recession to consider the wellbeing of staff and that is certainly not the point I was making in my article - employee wellbeing is of course of paramount importance whether we are in a downturn or a growth economy, and healthy staff can mean a healthy bottom line in any market.
But, seeing as employees may be more anxious and stressed at the moment, due to redundancies (and therefore higher workloads, longer hours etc, for those employees who remain) it is now really important to ensure those wellbeing initiatives that were in place before the downturn, remain in place throughout these challenging times; and that if it wasn't at the top of the business agenda before, then it really should be now.
Kind regards
Lucie
The system of providing references is inadequate and exposed to risk. Before I begin, I should point out that the vast majority of employers are excellent and the vast majority of employees are hard working and diligent.
The trouble with the system is that whilst former employers enjoy the benefit that they can act maliciously in the knowledge that they have to be proven to have done so to face any consequences, a wronged employee has to face the consequences immediately by becoming unemployed. Without the financial clout, it is also very unlikely an employee can rely upon litigation, as even at an employment tribunal a lawyer is important. This imbalance needs to be addressed and potential employers need to be wary of the fact that there is no more reason why a potential employee would be dishonest than a former employer. They should think carefully about who they trust more, because as the current financial crisis shows, there are some truly horrendous executives out there.
I have some experience of this. My former employer threatened not to provide a reference in retaliation to my resignation. This is an example of bad corporate governance, not this company's strength by any stretch of the imagination. Fortunately, they are not taken very seriously by the industry (my current employer jokingly said words to the effect that a reference from them would be less useful than a reference from Burger King) and I easily got a job without their reference (and that's the last time money will be the only factor in me taking a job with someone!) Others however may not be so lucky.
I would argue that it is in everyone's interests for the system to be changed so that the balance is not heavily weighted in favour of employer vs employee but instead in a way that considers good vs bad. So, how can this be done?
1) Cap costs at an employment tribunal so employees are not financially vulnerable in litigation. Provide legal aid and don't expose employees to employer costs. To avoid excessive litigation, install a claims office that acts like the CPS, accepting or rejecting cases.
2) Potential employers should ask for at least three references, if they are available, which will highlight whether a bad reference is fair or not.
3) Evidence that employers have persistently given poor references and lost tribunal cases should be permissable in court.
4) Employers should also be forced to state in their annual report how many good and how many bad references they have given. If they make negative references, they should be forced to be transparent about it.
Hi Jill, I will add you to the list, no problem. If you are new to the Twitter/Web 2.0 thing, then look out for an article going live on HRZone tomorrow (Thursday) morning, which looks at how HR can harness the power of Web 2.0 and use it to their advantage.
Kind regards
Lucie Mitchell
Editor
The ability to obtain skills quickly and flexibly through freelancers or temporary agency workers will be vital when the upturn starts and businesses need to get more skills on-board fast in order to expand: this is when flexible forms of labour will come into their own.
For the time being, it is vital to be clear about what kind of worker you want and why you want them. You may need to cover short-term items of work that are not guaranteed to endure, or have to implement a change management programme: freelancers or other flexible workers will be ideal then. But be wary of taking on flexible workers as a supposedly cheap substitute for employees: if they are doing the same type of work as employees, in the same manner, they will probably be able to claim employment rights from you, even if they have their own limited company. So if you’re going to
engage non-employees, be sure to do it on a proper business-to-business commercial basis.
John Kell, Professional Contractors Group
This application is extremely useful for building business processes in such a way as to illustrate all activities from start to end. This helps considerabley in assessing who does what, when and how etc so one can identify bottlenecks in workflows, inefficiencies and ownerships.
my wife works 4 days per week mon to thurs 5 hours per day. Her office is shut on a bank/public holiday, she is credited for 4hrs 3mins for this day. if a bank holiday falls on a friday she is credited with 3hrs 47mins. She is expected to make up the difference for the days she would normally work. As the office is closed and full timers get a normal days pay ie no debit or credit, could this be classed as a lock out or a detriment under the part time working regs. The organisation works a 5 day week 37 hours
Her Majesty graciously allowed Camilla to be in the picture on condition they sat on her