After writing yesterday’s post about worker insecurity being at a 20 year high, I then found this article, via Jo Plumstead’s rather good The Grumpy Daily,  in which she linked to Will Hutton’s article in last Sunday’s Observer about how technology is making most human jobs redundant: Driverless cars, pilotless planes … will there be jobs left for human beings?

Hutton is writing about The Great Reset,

“a cull of broadly middle-class jobs with middle-class incomes that is apparent across the west, but with little current sign of what industries and activities will replace them. … The world has lost millions of jobs before – on the land or in the old horse-powered economy – but they were soon replaced by jobs in the car industry or the new service industries. What worries many economists and computer scientists is that today’s technologies are going to remove people from economic activity completely. Some argue that a dystopian world is emerging in which good jobs and full-time employment will become the preserve of an educated, computer-literate elite. For example Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Google are plainly riding the new wave, but they are not mass employers like Tesco, Ford or General Motors.“

If the prospect of being made redundant by a robot depresses, I’m with you. Maybe, unconsciously, this is what is causing employees to be unhappy. Hutton’s article makes sober reading, although peering into the future is always a risky business, and his words may be held up to ridicule in fifty (twenty?) years time.  For instance, with the advent of the railways there was fear that if a train went more than ten miles per hour the occupants would suffocate and didn’t post war transport planners think that by 2000 we would all be flying around in our own personal helicopters and railways would be a thing of the past?

Even if you think Hutton’s analysis is unduly pessimistic, his predictions may cheer you.   He believes that we’ll all be in micro-industries, or “human wellbeing” (not just caring but advising, mentoring, doctoring, coaching etc) as well as exploiting digital data or flying off to exploit minerals on other planets. Personally, I think many people will end up having more than one job, the so-called “portfolio career”, in order to make ends meet. I think that reality is much nearer to us than most would like to acknowledge.

Finally, if Hutton is right, how long before human lawyers will be advising robots on their employment rights? Then we will truly have been reset.

The Great Reset originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 21/05/2013.

That was a rather depressing headline in the Financial Times over the weekend. According to the 2012 Skills and Employment Survey “Britain’s employees are feeling more insecure and under pressure at work than any time in the past 20 years”.  Public sector workers are also more worried than those in the private sector about losing their jobs and status.

The reason for this is is a combination of recession and low growth, as well as “work intensification” i.e. working harder and with less autonomy over how to do the work. However, for some the restrictions on individual employment rights was an issue,

Almost a third of staff were anxious about unfair treatment at work, including being dismissed without good reason, discriminated against or victimised by management.

This fear of unfair treatment is a particular issue in the public sector, although no particular explanation seems to have been provided as to why that should be.  Common sense suggests that employees who are worried about their security at work are unlikely to spend money and thus consumer spending is unlikely to increase, thus prolonging our situation of recession and minimal growth. Restricting employment rights so that employees feel they have no legal redress in the event that they are treated badly or dismissed unfairly is not going to assist the economic recovery.  It may be unreasonable to blame this purely on the issue of employment law reform as clearly there are other major economic factors at work, but in its desire to create a flexible labour market the government ought to consider whether it is not inadvertently scuppering its own plans to boost the economy.

Talk of employee happiness may seem rather frivolous.  However there is a serious side to this. As the short video in the article discusses, a happy employee is one who is likely to be more productive and to stay with the business. Unhappy employees will move on if they can and if they can’t will be a drag on the business.  Stress at work levels are said to be increasing and although that may be due to work intensification caused by technological change, a workforce that has little autonomy in how it performs the tasks assigned to it and is not consulted or allowed to participate in decision-making processes,  is not likely to be a healthy place.  In my experience of acting for employees with occupational illness claims, overwork is often not the crucial factor: what can create an illness situation is where diligent and loyal employees feel they are being badly treated because they feel undervalued and ignored.

In short, a happy workforce might make for a more productive economy. Maybe it is in that area that the government should be turning its attention rather than cutting back on employment rights?

Worker Insecurity at 20 Year High originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 20/05/2013.

The Queen’s Speech is to be given any minute now and most employment lawyers will probably be watching the speech with a mixture of interest and trepidation.

The Institute of Directors (IOD) weighed in saying that today was the last chance for the Government to save the economy by “unleashing business”.  A survey of IOD members showed that 65% of them thought the economic conditions were having a negative effect on their business and 45% blamed too much regulation. The press release said;

“While there are no quick fixes for our economic situation, there are three Bills which could be introduced in the next session of Parliament to address the problem of over-regulation and tackle the damaging effects of increasing trade union militancy”

The three bills they call for include a “Midas” Bill, to strip (in particular) the Agency Workers Directive and Working Time Directive of their “gold plating”.  A “Beyond Beecroft” bill to deregulate the employment market by bringing in “Compensated No Fault Dismissal” (CMFD), a three month notice period for employees who do not wish to return from maternity leave and, finally, a “Too big to strike” bill, which would give the Competition Commission power to investigate Union mergers and require that only strikes backed by a majority of a union’s members (rather than just the active members who bother to vote) would be allowed.

I must admit to rather liking the last proposal as Unions in certain industries, such as the railways and fire service can cause massive disruption if they call a strike, especially when the weather is good or there is a big sporting event on. But as for “unleashing business”, the IOD seems to have overlooked the Department of Business Innovation and Skills’ report on “The Employer Perceptions and Impact of Employment Regulation” report published in March, which I wrote about here 

Perhaps the IOD could spend its time more fruitfully on educating its members in employment law?  The best way for any business to protect itself is to approach regulation pro-actively, rather than reactively when a claim arises.

More Reform Ahead? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 08/05/2013.

Sponsored Post

This infographic by Stephens Scown Exeter has highlighted the fact that employment in the UK continues to be driven by small and medium enterprises [SMEs]

Employment – The Jobs, The Money, The Issues [Infographic] originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 03/05/2013.

Guest Post

 Under new government plans, injured workers will have to fight harder to get the compensation they deserve. Making employees prove the company’s negligence favours insurance businesses over the average taxpayers.

Compensation will be reduced for injured employees to reduce the need for companies to bulletproof their health and safety system. It’s believed that this will increase the number of courtroom battles, even if the amount of claims are reduced, thanks to a new clause in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform bill.

What Does This Mean for Employees?

This legislation strips companies of their responsibilities towards their workers, making them no longer strictly liable for their welfare. Instead, the onus is on the employee to prove that it the business was at fault. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) is up in arms over this new reform.

The latest clause was slipped in to the reform to counteract what the government is calling a ‘claims culture’ and ‘too much red tape.’ The Conservative minister, Matthew Hancock, went as far as to call health and safety a ‘burden.’ Their aim is to reassure employers, arguably neglecting workers in the process, who’re the most vulnerable party.

The government has succeeded in overwriting welfare legislation that has been in place since the 1970s. Claimants will have the cases they can pursue restricted and will be guaranteed less compensation for their injuries, even if that money is necessary to pay for medical attention or lost wages.

According to the reform document, it’s unfair to penalise businesses, when they’ve taken every reasonable precaution to protect their staff.

Is This a Reasonable Reform?

For many, this means putting all the power back into the hands of massive corporations, making it exceptionally difficult for victims to prove negligence. Very rarely is it possible to provide concrete evidence – all of the relevant information will be in the hands of the defence, to do with what they like. Many see this  as a step back when victims could be lying in the hospital for weeks, while the evidence is eradicated.

Does this reform make any sense? Contact Surrey solicitors if you’ve been injured at work to see if you can still claim the damages you deserve.

Instead of receiving compensation from the company at fault, injured victims will have to rely on state support, through the NHS and other publically funded benefits. Basically, the taxpayer picks up the bill, while the victim’s quality of life depletes. Yeah, let’s just get the taxpayers to pay for yet another government reform that benefits businesses and the wildly rich, while the poor struggle to feed their children.

Of course, insurance companies welcome the reforms, as they are set to profit considerably from this legislative change. The current system is being called ‘over-compliance to health and safety.’ As if businesses are taking too much care of their employees…

The TUC is calling this reform what it is: ‘a disgrace.’ Many injured workers will now find it impossible to claim compensation for life-affecting injuries which weren’t their fault.

The Changing Face of the Employer & Employee Claims Market originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 23/04/2013.

Guest Post by Linder Myers

The government has made a number of employment law changes in April 2013 that employers need to know about.

Through having a clear understanding of the alterations and amendments usually made in April and October every year, employers can make sure that their policies and procedures reflect any changes, which can serve to protect them from falling into pitfalls that could result in Employment Tribunal claims being brought against their business.

Redundancy procedure

In a collective redundancy procedure, the consultation period will be reduced from 100 to 45 days. It has also been made clear that employees on fixed term contracts don’t have to be included. New ACAS guidelines have also been introduced to support both employers and workers during the consultation period.

Statutory pay increase

Statutory pay goes up every year, but it has been limited to a one percent rise for the next three years. This includes statutory sick pay along with statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay.  Meanwhile, there will also be an increase in parental leave, where workers can take a maximum of 18 weeks rather than 13.

National minimum wage boost

While the national minimum wage is due to increase in October 2013, the government is set to publish clearer regulations in April. This will reduce the 17 currently in place into one clear set of rules to provide employers with a greater understanding of how to apply them correctly.

Dismissal claim changes

Those dismissed as a result of political reasons or opinions won’t need to have completed two year’s service in order to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. However, the employee will still need to prove that the dismissal was unfair, and each claim will be judged on its own circumstances and facts. The claimant will also still have access to the standard compensation levels.

Amendments to the Equality Act

The government has made the decision to remove provisions surrounding third party harassment, where an employee claims against his employer when they are subject to harassment from such persons as a customer or supplier on three separate occasions, and the employer fails to take appropriate action.

The discrimination questionnaire procedure will also be removed, where a worker could send their employer a list questions, and use the answers to determine whether they should pursue a discrimination claim.

Of course, if you need further information about the April 2013 changes, you can enlist the help of specialist employment law solicitors who can provide you with further insight into the alterations. An expert legal team can also make sure that your policies, procedures and documents all adhere to the changes, helping you and your workers to avoid any currently unforeseen problems.

April 2013 employment law changes explained originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 21/04/2013.

Employment lawyers can get very excited about clients resigning from employment.  How much notice has to be given or why the person is resigning are often key questions; legal claims may be envisaged as a consequence of resigning. For instance, when an employment relationship has gone seriously pear shaped, careful consideration may be given to resigning immediately and claiming constructive dismissal.  In most cases then the discussion is about timing, or the reason for leaving.

Rarely is much thought given to how the fateful message is to be delivered, although plucking up the courage to do so can be testing. How will the message be received?  What will be worse?  Your boss calling you a Judas, or  (maybe worse?) him/her stifling an urge to jump for joy and declare a half-day holiday for the whole company in celebration?

If you do  a Google search you will find any amount of articles on what the letter should say or how you should say it.Try this site, which I picked at random, for example. It’s all about mood and context and avoiding the temptation to say what you really feel about your soon to be ex-colleagues.

There is a long tradition of amusing, spiteful or bitingly honest resignation letters, as the Telegraph reported on 1st March last. My favourite is here, although I doubt it is genuine.

Nowhere will you find anyone suggesting that you write your resignation letter on a cake and deliver it to your boss.  That, though, is what Chris Holmes, an employee of the Border Agency at Stansted Airport did on Tuesday. The cake served a dual purpose: not only did it communicate his desire to leave the soon to be disbanded, discredited government agency it also proved to be a smart marketing move as Mr Cake,  as he henceforth wishes to be known, will no doubt be deluged with orders from all the publicity.

Mr Holmes isn’t the first person to give his employer the shove in this way though. In 2009 Neil Berritt in San Francisco delivered his resignation epistle on a cake, declaring with tongue firmly in cheek (assuming that his mouth wasn’t already full of cake) that “during the past three years, my tenure at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard has been nothing short of pure excitement, joy and whim”.

So, whatever next? If I were the boss of a disgruntled worker  I would  think twice before eating a cake he or she had baked; who knows what might have gone into it? And what if the employee had decided instead of leaving the corporate world for a life of artisan bakery  to go into a less tasteful line of business and they decided to promote their new business with an example of their work?  Hopefully budding rodent controllers wouldn’t decide to attach their farewell to a dead rat.

 Click here for a Podcast  with Mr Cake.

How to Resign originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 18/04/2013.

Guest Post

A new survey carried out by research company OnePoll suggests that pregnant women and new mothers could be being discriminated against by employers looking to lay off staff.

One thousand women were questioned as part of the research, and their answers reveal a problem that appears to be escalating. Pre-recession, it was estimated that 30,000 women per year were losing their job unfairly as a direct result of their pregnancy. It is thought that this figure is likely to be much higher now.

The responses revealed that:

• One in seven women was removed from their job while on maternity leave
• Forty per cent said their role had changed when they returned to work
• Half were made to accept reduced hours or demotion
• Over one in ten were replaced by the person who covered their maternity leave

Furthermore, of the respondents who were allowed to return to work, nearly a third felt as though they no longer fitted in, while 20 per cent cited a lack of understanding from their employer on the difficulties of juggling motherhood and work.

Two in five indicated they were not supported by their employer, while one in ten saw the problem spread to their home life through subsequent tension with their partner.

The case for discrimination at work

With the true extent of the situation revealed, what is perhaps even more alarming is that only three per cent said they sought discrimination at work advice from employment solicitors, while just ten per cent consulted their Human Resources department.

A spokeswoman for Slater & Gordon, the firm who commissioned the research, suggested that some employers are wrongly seeing women who take maternity leave as less committed to their job than others, and are subsequently looked upon less favourably if a firm needs to make cutbacks.

She further posed the idea that many women may simply accept this as a fact of life, rather than trying to fight against it. Companies that do face such claims make a big effort to settle out of court, always including a confidentiality clause in any agreement.

It’s important that women who feel they have been discriminated against because of their pregnancy take action, as this is a criminal offence on the part of their employer. This does not just apply to redundancy; it can be any act already mentioned above that unfairly discriminates against you in favour of someone else.

While settling out of court invariably serves to keep the company’s reputation intact, at the very least by investing in the service of skilled, experienced employment law solicitors you can be sure that the amount you receive is suitable compensation for the distress and loss of earnings you have suffered.

Redundancy for New Mothers on the Rise? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 17/04/2013.

If you are worried about your health and safety in your workplace, Roberts Jackson explores the regulations an employer must implement to protect you from harm.

Both employers and employees should be aware of the health and safety regulations that must be adhered to in an office environment.

A business should use good management and common sense to perform a risk assessment and implement sensible measures to combat potential hazards to workers. Meanwhile, employees should adhere to policies put in place to protect themselves and others from harm.

Is your workplace safe enough?

If you are worried that your office environment is impacting on your health, or putting your safety at risk, speak with your employer so they can take steps to establish a safer working environment. There are a number of common issues that can arise that businesses have a legal duty to control, including:

Repetitive Strain Injuries – office workers often sit at their desk for a lengthy period of time. If you are required to type while your limbs are unsupported, this can put muscles and tendons under strain, resulting in a repetitive strain injury.

Your employer should analyse your workstation, ensuring that the arrangement of the screen, keyboard and equipment is flexible and adjustable, while a routine of regular breaks should be introduced. If your employer fails to put safety measures in place despite you expressing your concern, which causes a repetitive strain injury to develop or worsen, specialist RSI claims solicitors can help you claim compensation for their negligence.

Back Injuries – an uncomfortable, inappropriate chair and desk can cause a cumulative back injury, especially if you sit in an unnatural position. It is important to inform your employer of any pre-existing back problems so they can put certain measures in place to ensure the condition is not exacerbated in any way. You may also be able to request special back supports that can be applied to office chairs and foot rests to reduce the chance of overreaching when using things on your desk.

Fire hazards – your office must be fitted with fire alarms, with a clear escape route planned out. You should have been provided with fire safety training, including fire drills so that you are aware of how to escape safely should an incident occur. Employers also have to check electrical equipment to reduce the risk of an electrical spark, and ensure that fire exits remain clear. Any portable appliances that are 12 months old or more must undergo regular Portable Appliance Testing (PAT).

Trips and falls – trips can be caused by poor housekeeping, or wet and contaminated workspaces. In an office environment, employers should look for trip hazards such as electrical leads and uneven flooring, take action to reduce the potential for harm and implement an ongoing strategy to monitor possible new risks.

Of course, there are a number of other health and safety regulations your employer must comply with, including issues such as ventilation, temperature and lighting. They should also provide you with information on the hazards in your office environment, while guiding you through the safety measures they have put in place and offering appropriate training to keep harm at bay.

When an employer lives up to their duty of care and creates a safe working environment, you are less likely to sustain an occupational injury or illness. However, if they fail to conduct the required risk assessment and introduce relevant measures, you are put at a higher risk of harm. Should you then suffer as a result of their negligence, you have the option to claim compensation for any medical and financial hardship caused.

Therefore, it is often in the best interest of both parties that employers understand and follow relevant health and safety regulations within their office.

Concerned About Health and Safety in the Office? originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 16/04/2013.

Guest Post

March 14 saw the announcement of the introduction of new rules regarding employment tribunals, with the government attempting to streamline the process.

Employment Relations Minister Jo Swinson made the announcement, bringing to an end a long running review which began in November 2011. Employment tribunals had previously been a lengthy process, surrounded by a great deal of complicated legislation. The changes announced by Swinson are designed to make the process easier for both employees and employers alike, helping to ensure a swifter resolution to any workplace issues. The proposals are expected to come into place during the summer of 2013.

Speaking on the proposed changes, Jo Swinson commented: “We are committed to finding ways to resolve workplace disputes so they don’t end up with two sides in front of a tribunal”. Amongst the numerous changes made, some of the most significant include:

• Reduction in the amount of paperwork needed to withdraw or dismiss a claim.
• Guidance from Employment Tribunal Presidents to ensure that cases are dealt with in a consistent manner.
• New powers to ensure that weak or frivolous cases are quickly dismissed and do not proceed to a full tribunal.
• Preliminary hearings which will combine pre-hearing reviews and case management discussions. This will reduce the overall number of tribunals which take place, leading to more efficient completion of cases, which will reduce the cost and time required for all those involved.

These are the key elements of the review to the tribunal process, however there are also a number of smaller changes which will come into place to ensure the smooth running of employment tribunals. As well as considering these changes to the employment tribunal process, it is also essential that you are fully aware of the legal representation permitted at a tribunal.

Legal representation at tribunal

Legal representation at a tribunal is highly recommended, for both sides, as the consequences of losing a tribunal are significant. If an employee is successful at a tribunal hearing, it can cost the business involved a significant compensation payout. This means it is essential that employment law and dismissal procedures   are closely followed by employers.

Peninsula can provide support and guidance on dismissal procedures

By ensuring that your business is aware of employment law, along with these new regulations from the government, the time consuming and costly process of the employment tribunal should become a thing of the past to be replaced by a modern and efficient process designed with the best interests of all those involved in mind.

Proposed Changes to Employment Tribunals originally appeared on Jobsworth by Michael Scutt on 29/03/2013.