Quick Job Search
Contact us
News
Please select a news article headline below to read more information.
A boost or barrier?
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Businesses will have to pay up to £1,000 when sponsoring someone to enter the UK for work.
New government fees have been announced by the Home Office that will leave small businesses paying £300 per person sponsored, and larger companies paying £1,000.
Foreign workers will have to pay more for their work permits too, with those wanting to get on the highly skilled migrant programme paying £600, up from £400. The cost of a long-term visa for someone working outside the UK will also increase, from £200 to £600.
Employers can expect on-the-spot fines if they do not ensure their workers are in the UK legally.
Government says the moves will help ensure only workers with skills that will benefit the economy would be allowed to work in the UK. These fee changes precede the new points-based immigration system that begins this March.
"There's been little progress in developing better employer support, but the Government has still imposed further cost increases," said the CBI's deputy director-general, John Cridland. "It risks putting up a barrier to firms hiring people with the skills they need to grow and create jobs for the good of the whole economy."
Source: HR Weekly
New government fees have been announced by the Home Office that will leave small businesses paying £300 per person sponsored, and larger companies paying £1,000.
Foreign workers will have to pay more for their work permits too, with those wanting to get on the highly skilled migrant programme paying £600, up from £400. The cost of a long-term visa for someone working outside the UK will also increase, from £200 to £600.
Employers can expect on-the-spot fines if they do not ensure their workers are in the UK legally.
Government says the moves will help ensure only workers with skills that will benefit the economy would be allowed to work in the UK. These fee changes precede the new points-based immigration system that begins this March.
"There's been little progress in developing better employer support, but the Government has still imposed further cost increases," said the CBI's deputy director-general, John Cridland. "It risks putting up a barrier to firms hiring people with the skills they need to grow and create jobs for the good of the whole economy."
Source: HR Weekly
An increase in apprenticeships
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Government has announced further plans to boost the take-up of apprenticeships in Britain.
It hopes to encourage companies to introduce the schemes by making it easier for them to set up more relevant apprenticeships. Under new plans, there will be a pilot wage subsidy programme for small businesses, to make it more attractive for firms to offer places. The public sector will be especially targeted.
The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills predicts that 20% of all young people will be undertaking an apprenticeship with the next decade. While the TUC commends government strategy, it does believe that the issue of pay is being overlooked.
"Although the poorest paid apprentices are now protected from the worst ravages of exploitation by an £80 wage floor, this has not increased since August 2005. Rising prices mean this is effectively a pay cut," says TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber. "The Government could further boost the quality of apprenticeships, make them more attractive to young people and improve completion rates by increasing the wage floor to £110. This would bring apprenticeship pay broadly into line with the minimum wage for 16-17 year olds."
Source: HR Weekly
It hopes to encourage companies to introduce the schemes by making it easier for them to set up more relevant apprenticeships. Under new plans, there will be a pilot wage subsidy programme for small businesses, to make it more attractive for firms to offer places. The public sector will be especially targeted.
The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills predicts that 20% of all young people will be undertaking an apprenticeship with the next decade. While the TUC commends government strategy, it does believe that the issue of pay is being overlooked.
"Although the poorest paid apprentices are now protected from the worst ravages of exploitation by an £80 wage floor, this has not increased since August 2005. Rising prices mean this is effectively a pay cut," says TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber. "The Government could further boost the quality of apprenticeships, make them more attractive to young people and improve completion rates by increasing the wage floor to £110. This would bring apprenticeship pay broadly into line with the minimum wage for 16-17 year olds."
Source: HR Weekly
Calling time on overtime
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
British workers could lose their right to work more than 48 hours a week and have to forfeit lucrative overtime because of the EU Reform Treaty which Gordon Brown is due to sign this month.
In a report on the treaty a parliamentary committee says it is "quite possible" that the UK's special deal on working hours could be successfully challenged in the European Court of Justice. This is likely to infuriate business leaders who believe that Britain's "opt out" from the European Working Time Directive is a key reason for the competitiveness of the UK economy.
It will also increase demands for the British people to be granted a referendum on the Treaty, which The Daily Telegraph has called for.
The warning that Britain's exemption from EU employment rules could face legal challenges has been raised by the House of Commons European scrutiny committee, which examines European documents before they become law.
Its view is supported by eminent European lawyers who insist that Mr Brown's so-called "red lines" for protecting UK sovereignty in the treaty are largely worthless. The MPs says that the problem lies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which is part of the treaty – and which says: "Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave."
Source The Telegraph
In a report on the treaty a parliamentary committee says it is "quite possible" that the UK's special deal on working hours could be successfully challenged in the European Court of Justice. This is likely to infuriate business leaders who believe that Britain's "opt out" from the European Working Time Directive is a key reason for the competitiveness of the UK economy.
It will also increase demands for the British people to be granted a referendum on the Treaty, which The Daily Telegraph has called for.
The warning that Britain's exemption from EU employment rules could face legal challenges has been raised by the House of Commons European scrutiny committee, which examines European documents before they become law.
Its view is supported by eminent European lawyers who insist that Mr Brown's so-called "red lines" for protecting UK sovereignty in the treaty are largely worthless. The MPs says that the problem lies with the Charter of Fundamental Rights – which is part of the treaty – and which says: "Every worker has the right to limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave."
Source The Telegraph
Managing poor performers
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Managers need more help from their employers when motivating poor performing members of staff.
This is according to the new Global Strategic Rewards study by Watson Wyatt. It found that top performers are far more likely than poor performers to say their line manager is good at communicating organisational and performance management issues.
Two thirds of underperformers said that their immediate manager does not adequately establish goals that are linked to business objectives, or provide satisfactory feedback on performance.
"Managers find it easy to manage top-performing employees but are not so adept when it comes to improving poorer performers," said Carole Hathaway, a senior consultant at Watson Wyatt. "Some of the greatest opportunities for improved organisational performance lie in helping managers raise the bar for moderate and poorer performers, but it appears that few employers are doing this."
Source: HR Weekly
This is according to the new Global Strategic Rewards study by Watson Wyatt. It found that top performers are far more likely than poor performers to say their line manager is good at communicating organisational and performance management issues.
Two thirds of underperformers said that their immediate manager does not adequately establish goals that are linked to business objectives, or provide satisfactory feedback on performance.
"Managers find it easy to manage top-performing employees but are not so adept when it comes to improving poorer performers," said Carole Hathaway, a senior consultant at Watson Wyatt. "Some of the greatest opportunities for improved organisational performance lie in helping managers raise the bar for moderate and poorer performers, but it appears that few employers are doing this."
Source: HR Weekly
Moonlighting
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Bosses are still in the dark over the extent to which employees are moonlighting to make a little extra money on the side. But is it a case of what you don't know can't hurt you?
With Christmas looming around the corner, many people will be tempted into taking on extra jobs to finance parties and presents. For the most-part, less Scrooge-like bosses probably wouldn't begrudge you earning a few extra quid to keep staff sweet – it's when you haven't admitted what you're up to that it will become a season to be far from jolly.
Moonlighting opens up a huge crater of problems for bosses and employees alike. Of course, there are the legal consequences of what furtive employees are up to, but it also begs the question of why staff feel the need to do it in the first place. And despite what you might think, it doesn't always boil down to cash.
More than a third of people in Britain have additional jobs to their main employment, according to personal finance website Fool.co.uk, with 70 per cent of moonlighters putting in the extra hours in secret, mainly because it is forbidden in their firms. However, around one in five admitted to moonlighting to broaden their horizons, while a quarter do it because they feel their talents aren't recognised in their regular job.
Findings such as these are forcing companies to look beyond pay packets to stop employees straying from the fold. "It comes down to working out what motivates your staff, responding to that and making sure the job is interesting and engaging, as well as what it delivers in terms of wages," says Anne Fairweather, head of public policy at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.
Basically, it's a classic case of getting your retention strategies right. However, she adds that having two jobs isn't automatically detrimental to the company. In fact, it can actually be an advantage. "It may not have a negative impact on the job, but support the fact that employees have other interests beyond the workplace," says Fairweather.
"It may be more beneficial than trying to crack down on it, if someone was taking a second job to earn more money, to stay in their main job during the week if they have a short-term financial need."
For example, Andy, who works for a major financial firm during the day and also works shifts in a call centre in the evening, is saving up for deposit on a flat nearer to his city job, something he says would be currently impossible on the wages from his main job alone. "I don't want to leave my main job as there are really good career prospects," he adds. "The problem at the moment is that my wages cover the rent and bills on my current place but I am also paying out a small fortune in transport costs. There isn't a lot left over at the end of the month so the extra shifts are really helping."
Shedding light on the law
What to consider:
The problems arise when there is a clear conflict of interests such as an employee working for a direct competitor or flouting clauses in the contract of employment. "Most contracts will prescribe that employees can't have second jobs at all or certainly without notifying their employer," explains Graham Paul, partner at law firm Dundas and Wilson. "If someone is moonlighting, cash-in-hand, in a job that inherently competes with their employer, it is a breach of contract with potential for gross misconduct and dismissal."
If there is nothing in the employee contract or in the policies outlining the rules on moonlighting it could be a different story, which is why Paul recommends literally spelling it out.
Some of the factors to be considered by the employer are whether the other job is in genuine competition or in the same line of business but relatively insignificant to what the firm is doing; if the employee is using confidential company information or equipment to carry out the other job, or whether the extra workload is impacting productivity because the employee is too tired to do the job, which could also make them a health and safety risk. "All these are factors towards gross misconduct rather than a rap across the knuckles," says Paul.
The chances of workers getting caught out are higher if payroll is contacted regarding the employee's tax code once he or she has taken on another role.
If payment isn't put through the books, however, there is the added risk of breaching PAYE and National Insurance regulations – the penalties for which are harsh. Cash-in-hand employees are also vulnerable if they have an accident in the undeclared workplace as they won't be covered by the employer's liability and insurance policies, that would otherwise protect them, because they will not be classed as an employee.
"It is difficult to control," Fairweather admits. "Workers should notify the company if they are working outside of hours during the week and companies should make employees aware of their working time rights.
But, ultimately, if the employer has provided this and the employees choose to ignore that, there is little you can do in the long run." A common scenario in Paul's line of work are where an employee is absent from work on sick leave, only to be discovered working somewhere else. "In most cases, working on sick leave constitutes gross misconduct, especially if they are receiving company sick pay, because they are claiming it fraudulently," he adds.
"Tribunals hate it and are usually receptive to the argument it is misconduct if there is an unfair dismissal claim." There is also the chance employers might want to reclaim the payments they have made through the courts.
But Paul also backs up Fairweather's beliefs that having two jobs isn't the main issue if employees are open about it and work within the perimeters of the law. "Providing the employee is doing his job, quite frankly what he or she is doing in the evening or weekend isn't such a problem," he says. "The problem is working when they are not meant to be."
Andy agrees. "I make sure that the work in my main role doesn't suffer because I really want to be there. The call centre company is in a slightly different field to the one I am working in during the day," he says. "The plus is the knowledge I already have comes in handy when talking to customers. It also means I have seen certain financial problems from the other side of the fence, even though I won't be working two jobs forever."
Source HR Zone
With Christmas looming around the corner, many people will be tempted into taking on extra jobs to finance parties and presents. For the most-part, less Scrooge-like bosses probably wouldn't begrudge you earning a few extra quid to keep staff sweet – it's when you haven't admitted what you're up to that it will become a season to be far from jolly.
Moonlighting opens up a huge crater of problems for bosses and employees alike. Of course, there are the legal consequences of what furtive employees are up to, but it also begs the question of why staff feel the need to do it in the first place. And despite what you might think, it doesn't always boil down to cash.
More than a third of people in Britain have additional jobs to their main employment, according to personal finance website Fool.co.uk, with 70 per cent of moonlighters putting in the extra hours in secret, mainly because it is forbidden in their firms. However, around one in five admitted to moonlighting to broaden their horizons, while a quarter do it because they feel their talents aren't recognised in their regular job.
Findings such as these are forcing companies to look beyond pay packets to stop employees straying from the fold. "It comes down to working out what motivates your staff, responding to that and making sure the job is interesting and engaging, as well as what it delivers in terms of wages," says Anne Fairweather, head of public policy at the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.
Basically, it's a classic case of getting your retention strategies right. However, she adds that having two jobs isn't automatically detrimental to the company. In fact, it can actually be an advantage. "It may not have a negative impact on the job, but support the fact that employees have other interests beyond the workplace," says Fairweather.
"It may be more beneficial than trying to crack down on it, if someone was taking a second job to earn more money, to stay in their main job during the week if they have a short-term financial need."
For example, Andy, who works for a major financial firm during the day and also works shifts in a call centre in the evening, is saving up for deposit on a flat nearer to his city job, something he says would be currently impossible on the wages from his main job alone. "I don't want to leave my main job as there are really good career prospects," he adds. "The problem at the moment is that my wages cover the rent and bills on my current place but I am also paying out a small fortune in transport costs. There isn't a lot left over at the end of the month so the extra shifts are really helping."
Shedding light on the law
What to consider:
- Is moonlighting addressed in the employee contract?
- Are employees aware of HR policies on moonlighting?
- Is the other job in competition with your company?
- Is the employee using confidential company information or equipment to carry out the other job?
- Is the extra workload impacting productivity?
- Is the employee a health and safety risk because of it?
The problems arise when there is a clear conflict of interests such as an employee working for a direct competitor or flouting clauses in the contract of employment. "Most contracts will prescribe that employees can't have second jobs at all or certainly without notifying their employer," explains Graham Paul, partner at law firm Dundas and Wilson. "If someone is moonlighting, cash-in-hand, in a job that inherently competes with their employer, it is a breach of contract with potential for gross misconduct and dismissal."
If there is nothing in the employee contract or in the policies outlining the rules on moonlighting it could be a different story, which is why Paul recommends literally spelling it out.
Some of the factors to be considered by the employer are whether the other job is in genuine competition or in the same line of business but relatively insignificant to what the firm is doing; if the employee is using confidential company information or equipment to carry out the other job, or whether the extra workload is impacting productivity because the employee is too tired to do the job, which could also make them a health and safety risk. "All these are factors towards gross misconduct rather than a rap across the knuckles," says Paul.
The chances of workers getting caught out are higher if payroll is contacted regarding the employee's tax code once he or she has taken on another role.
If payment isn't put through the books, however, there is the added risk of breaching PAYE and National Insurance regulations – the penalties for which are harsh. Cash-in-hand employees are also vulnerable if they have an accident in the undeclared workplace as they won't be covered by the employer's liability and insurance policies, that would otherwise protect them, because they will not be classed as an employee.
"It is difficult to control," Fairweather admits. "Workers should notify the company if they are working outside of hours during the week and companies should make employees aware of their working time rights.
But, ultimately, if the employer has provided this and the employees choose to ignore that, there is little you can do in the long run." A common scenario in Paul's line of work are where an employee is absent from work on sick leave, only to be discovered working somewhere else. "In most cases, working on sick leave constitutes gross misconduct, especially if they are receiving company sick pay, because they are claiming it fraudulently," he adds.
"Tribunals hate it and are usually receptive to the argument it is misconduct if there is an unfair dismissal claim." There is also the chance employers might want to reclaim the payments they have made through the courts.
But Paul also backs up Fairweather's beliefs that having two jobs isn't the main issue if employees are open about it and work within the perimeters of the law. "Providing the employee is doing his job, quite frankly what he or she is doing in the evening or weekend isn't such a problem," he says. "The problem is working when they are not meant to be."
Andy agrees. "I make sure that the work in my main role doesn't suffer because I really want to be there. The call centre company is in a slightly different field to the one I am working in during the day," he says. "The plus is the knowledge I already have comes in handy when talking to customers. It also means I have seen certain financial problems from the other side of the fence, even though I won't be working two jobs forever."
Source HR Zone
Please don’t ask!!!!
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Many bosses are still asking inappropriate questions on application forms and in job interviews, warns the consumer group Which? As a result their companies risk being taken to employment tribunals where they can face unlimited fines.
Which? says there is widespread confusion about what potential employers can ask interview candidates. Previously standard questions about age, length of experience and religious views are now illegal, it points out. The consumer group says candidates facing such queries should politely decline to answer. According to Which?, the most commonly asked banned question is about whether someone is thinking about starting a family.
It says this kind of enquiry is simply unacceptable.
The consumer group argues firms should be focusing on a person's knowledge and skills, and not making pre-conceived judgements about their age or other personal circumstances. "Long gone are the bad old days when a nervous interviewee had to answer all sorts of questions about their lifestyle and their personal views," said Sue Tumelty, author of the Which? CV and Interview Handbook.
"As employers can't judge a candidate's ability to do the job on their age, sex or religious views, for example, they've no business asking about these things, so interviewees are in no way compelled to answer. "It helps to be aware of what you can and cannot be asked, so that you can feel confident in - politely - declining to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable," she added.
Employment protection
Since October 2006 it has been illegal to discriminate against workers under the age of 65 on the grounds of age.
NO GO AREAS
How old are you?
Are you married?
Are you gay?
What are your childcare arrangements?
Are you planning to start a family soon?
Are you a member of a trade union?
What political party do you support?
It is against the law to make someone redundant or to bar workers from training or promotion because they are too old - or too young. Under the legislation, employers cannot specify an ideal age in advertising a job, nor ask for a specific amount of experience.
Application forms should not ask for an applicant's date of birth. There are some circumstances in which candidates can be asked to provide their age, if it is what is called a "genuine occupational qualification".
For instance, the armed forces and the police have a minimum age as a standard requirement. But in the vast majority of cases it should not be requested or supplied. Potential employees are also protected by other legislation, including the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act, the Employment Equality Regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act.
As a result, employers are not allowed to discriminate against job candidates on the grounds of race, beliefs, gender, religion, sexuality or disability. As with age discrimination, the only exception is if employers can demonstrate there is an overriding genuine occupational qualification.
Job candidates who believe their rights have been infringed can take a potential employer to tribunal. Employment tribunals can recommend various remedies and can impose a range of fines, which are unlimited where discrimination is found to have occurred.
Source BBC News
Which? says there is widespread confusion about what potential employers can ask interview candidates. Previously standard questions about age, length of experience and religious views are now illegal, it points out. The consumer group says candidates facing such queries should politely decline to answer. According to Which?, the most commonly asked banned question is about whether someone is thinking about starting a family.
It says this kind of enquiry is simply unacceptable.
The consumer group argues firms should be focusing on a person's knowledge and skills, and not making pre-conceived judgements about their age or other personal circumstances. "Long gone are the bad old days when a nervous interviewee had to answer all sorts of questions about their lifestyle and their personal views," said Sue Tumelty, author of the Which? CV and Interview Handbook.
"As employers can't judge a candidate's ability to do the job on their age, sex or religious views, for example, they've no business asking about these things, so interviewees are in no way compelled to answer. "It helps to be aware of what you can and cannot be asked, so that you can feel confident in - politely - declining to answer any questions that make you uncomfortable," she added.
Employment protection
Since October 2006 it has been illegal to discriminate against workers under the age of 65 on the grounds of age.
NO GO AREAS
How old are you?
Are you married?
Are you gay?
What are your childcare arrangements?
Are you planning to start a family soon?
Are you a member of a trade union?
What political party do you support?
It is against the law to make someone redundant or to bar workers from training or promotion because they are too old - or too young. Under the legislation, employers cannot specify an ideal age in advertising a job, nor ask for a specific amount of experience.
Application forms should not ask for an applicant's date of birth. There are some circumstances in which candidates can be asked to provide their age, if it is what is called a "genuine occupational qualification".
For instance, the armed forces and the police have a minimum age as a standard requirement. But in the vast majority of cases it should not be requested or supplied. Potential employees are also protected by other legislation, including the Sex Discrimination Act, the Race Relations Act, the Employment Equality Regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act.
As a result, employers are not allowed to discriminate against job candidates on the grounds of race, beliefs, gender, religion, sexuality or disability. As with age discrimination, the only exception is if employers can demonstrate there is an overriding genuine occupational qualification.
Job candidates who believe their rights have been infringed can take a potential employer to tribunal. Employment tribunals can recommend various remedies and can impose a range of fines, which are unlimited where discrimination is found to have occurred.
Source BBC News
The devil is in your details!!!!!!
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Latest estimates from the Home Office put the cost of identity fraud to the UK economy at £1.7 billion. Employers can protect personal data about their staff, read our article outlining the risks involved if they get it wrong.
The digital era
When two CDs containing 25 million child benefit details went missing in November last year, the media focus turned to the storage of personal data and the need for adequate procedures and protections.
At around the same time, the DVA in Northern Ireland reported the loss of the personal details of more than 6,000 car owners, further emphasising that certain government agencies do not have adequate procedures in place to keep up with the digital era.
There is now more sharing of information than ever before; people are voluntarily putting data about themselves online, and many businesses are retaining much more personal data - about their suppliers, customers and employees.
Even so, as digital data sources mushroom, a recent study revealed that almost a quarter of employees in Britain feel their employers do not care about their privacy and 10 per cent actively distrust the people who have access to their personal data.
Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the UK and the general public are becoming more and more concerned about the safety of their personal details.
So what are employers' obligations in this area, and what do they stand to lose if they get it wrong?
The law
The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to computerised records of employees and workers, as well as well-structured manual records, such as indexed personnel files. All organisations retaining or dealing with personal data (data controllers) have to abide by eight 'data principles' in the Act, which set out the following:
1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully;
2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose(s);
3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed;
4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date;
5. Where processed for any purpose, personal data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose;
6. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of 'data subjects' (the individuals to whom the data relates) under the Act;
7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data;
8. Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area, unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.
The Act also sets outs further safeguards for sensitive personal data. Details of employees' race, nationality, previous convictions and medical records will be sensitive personal data. Generally, employers should get the individual employee's consent before processing any such information.
Advice for employers
As well as employees, the Act will apply to job applicants and interviewees. An organisation will obtain personal information as part of the recruitment process, by way of application forms, CVs and interview notes.
Organisations need to ensure that applicants are aware who will be processing their data and the purposes for which it will be used. Generally, specific consent from the individuals to this processing will not need to be obtained. However, if the organisation intends to keep the details of unsuccessful applicants 'on file', the applicants should be allowed to refuse permission for this.
Employers will have to balance the need to keep records of recruitment decisions (to protect the organisation from potential discrimination claims) with compliance with data protection principle five (see above).
Ideally records should not be kept for any longer than the statutory time period for bringing claims, unless this can be justified.
Some data will only be required once the position has been offered to an individual, such as bank details, and should not be asked of all potential candidates. Sensitive information such as criminal convictions should only be requested if it is relevant to the role and the request can be justified.
Once applications are received they should be stored appropriately, and generally access should be restricted to those involved in the recruitment process.
"An employer should consider training staff who have access to personal data to help to prevent the business being liable for acts of uninformed employees."
Data relating to employees of the business should also be stored carefully and systems should be put in place to prevent unauthorised access.
An employer should consider training staff who have access to personal data to help to prevent the business being liable for acts of uninformed employees.
As always, the principal advice to employers is to have adequate systems in place, and a clear policy that has been communicated to all employees.
Penalties for breach
At present, the Information Commissioner is charged with ensuring compliance with the Act. Disgruntled employees may contact the Commissioner to explain that a breach has been committed, in which case the Commissioner is likely to serve the employer with either an 'information notice', requiring them to provide certain information to the employee within a certain time limit, or an 'enforcement notice' requiring the employer to cease processing personal data.
Failure to comply with either notice is a criminal offence. Directors and managers can be personally liable in certain circumstances.
However, there have already been calls from a committee of MPs for a new criminal offence to be created for failure to take adequate care of personal details, in both the public and the private sector (rather than the failure to comply with a notice).
Critics of the current law also argue that the Information Commissioner should have stronger enforcement powers and that a legal obligation to report losses of data should be created.
Whether or not the suggested changes in this area of law become a reality remains to be seen, but the government has stated that it has recognised the need to strengthen data protection laws. It now seems clear that breaches of the data principles and failures to protect sensitive data will not be ignored.
Source HR Zone
The digital era
When two CDs containing 25 million child benefit details went missing in November last year, the media focus turned to the storage of personal data and the need for adequate procedures and protections.
At around the same time, the DVA in Northern Ireland reported the loss of the personal details of more than 6,000 car owners, further emphasising that certain government agencies do not have adequate procedures in place to keep up with the digital era.
There is now more sharing of information than ever before; people are voluntarily putting data about themselves online, and many businesses are retaining much more personal data - about their suppliers, customers and employees.
Even so, as digital data sources mushroom, a recent study revealed that almost a quarter of employees in Britain feel their employers do not care about their privacy and 10 per cent actively distrust the people who have access to their personal data.
Identity theft is one of the fastest growing crimes in the UK and the general public are becoming more and more concerned about the safety of their personal details.
So what are employers' obligations in this area, and what do they stand to lose if they get it wrong?
The law
The Data Protection Act 1998 applies to computerised records of employees and workers, as well as well-structured manual records, such as indexed personnel files. All organisations retaining or dealing with personal data (data controllers) have to abide by eight 'data principles' in the Act, which set out the following:
1. Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully;
2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose(s);
3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed;
4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date;
5. Where processed for any purpose, personal data shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose;
6. Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of 'data subjects' (the individuals to whom the data relates) under the Act;
7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data;
8. Personal data shall not be transferred to a country or territory outside the European Economic Area, unless that country or territory ensures an adequate level of protection of the rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the processing of personal data.
The Act also sets outs further safeguards for sensitive personal data. Details of employees' race, nationality, previous convictions and medical records will be sensitive personal data. Generally, employers should get the individual employee's consent before processing any such information.
Advice for employers
As well as employees, the Act will apply to job applicants and interviewees. An organisation will obtain personal information as part of the recruitment process, by way of application forms, CVs and interview notes.
Organisations need to ensure that applicants are aware who will be processing their data and the purposes for which it will be used. Generally, specific consent from the individuals to this processing will not need to be obtained. However, if the organisation intends to keep the details of unsuccessful applicants 'on file', the applicants should be allowed to refuse permission for this.
Employers will have to balance the need to keep records of recruitment decisions (to protect the organisation from potential discrimination claims) with compliance with data protection principle five (see above).
Ideally records should not be kept for any longer than the statutory time period for bringing claims, unless this can be justified.
Some data will only be required once the position has been offered to an individual, such as bank details, and should not be asked of all potential candidates. Sensitive information such as criminal convictions should only be requested if it is relevant to the role and the request can be justified.
Once applications are received they should be stored appropriately, and generally access should be restricted to those involved in the recruitment process.
"An employer should consider training staff who have access to personal data to help to prevent the business being liable for acts of uninformed employees."
Data relating to employees of the business should also be stored carefully and systems should be put in place to prevent unauthorised access.
An employer should consider training staff who have access to personal data to help to prevent the business being liable for acts of uninformed employees.
As always, the principal advice to employers is to have adequate systems in place, and a clear policy that has been communicated to all employees.
Penalties for breach
At present, the Information Commissioner is charged with ensuring compliance with the Act. Disgruntled employees may contact the Commissioner to explain that a breach has been committed, in which case the Commissioner is likely to serve the employer with either an 'information notice', requiring them to provide certain information to the employee within a certain time limit, or an 'enforcement notice' requiring the employer to cease processing personal data.
Failure to comply with either notice is a criminal offence. Directors and managers can be personally liable in certain circumstances.
However, there have already been calls from a committee of MPs for a new criminal offence to be created for failure to take adequate care of personal details, in both the public and the private sector (rather than the failure to comply with a notice).
Critics of the current law also argue that the Information Commissioner should have stronger enforcement powers and that a legal obligation to report losses of data should be created.
Whether or not the suggested changes in this area of law become a reality remains to be seen, but the government has stated that it has recognised the need to strengthen data protection laws. It now seems clear that breaches of the data principles and failures to protect sensitive data will not be ignored.
Source HR Zone
Are temps a permanent answer?
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
Britain’s 1m contract workers give business and the public sector a vital degree of flexibility.
Richard Ratcliff loves his job. The 58-year-old English and religious education teacher works two or three days a week, filling in for absent staff at secondary schools within 20 miles of his home at Snodland, Kent, as directed by his agency, Select Education. The rest of his week is spent gardening or visiting cultural sites.
“I’m semi-retired, but this way I get to keep my hand in while avoiding that rat-race element you find in most full-time jobs,” he said. “It’s quite stressful but very fulfilling.”
Bill Hooper’s career is just beginning. Within days of contacting the recruitment agency Manpower, the 26-year-old IT worker started in a temporary position doing electronic file management for Hertfordshire county council. “I needed employment quickly and temporary work let me get my foot in the door,” he said.
After seven months, Hooper is happy. “The only downside is the lack of security, but the longer you are in a position, the more chance there is that it could become a permanent job,” he said. While some agency workers are paid less than their permanent colleagues, both Ratcliff and Hooper receive the going rate.
There are about 1m temporary and contract workers in Britain. Employed and paid by recruitment agencies of which there are about 17,000 they fill posts at short notice and take on a variety of temporary placings. One estimate suggests that agency workers contribute £24.8 billion to the nation’s economy each year.
The public sector depends on them. At any one time Hertfordshire county council will have 600-700 agency workers supplied by Manpower to carry out essential roles, from filling temporary IT posts like Hooper’s to covering staff absence in critical areas such as child social work. “They are vital we couldn’t cover our 24/7 work without them,” said Mary Lowten, business partner resourcing at the county council.
Using an agency has many benefits: the local council does not need to maintain its own bank of back-up staff and can draw on Manpower’s wide pool of expertise at short notice. The agency handles all the paperwork and ensures that its workers are checked, interviewed and referenced.
Such screening is an important aspect of agency work. It is a big responsibility in fields such as social work or security, which was under scrutiny last week after it was revealed that illegal immigrants had been given jobs in the public sector, including guarding police and government premises.
Peter Flannery, managing director of Select Education, Britain’s largest teaching agency, said the firms solved problems for their clients by taking on this work and helping them avoid unnecessary costs.
“Flexibility is very important,” he said. “Certain schools at certain times of the year wouldn’t be able to operate if it wasn’t for supply teachers and teaching assistants. They provide a very important service.”
The government acknowledges the role the growing industry plays in providing flexibility in Britain’s labour market. Among other things, the employment bill flagged up in the Queen’s speech this month will better protect the most vulnerable agency workers from breaches in existing regulations.
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is to get greater investigative powers to pursue complaints, access companies’ financial records and will be able to bring its own prosecutions with unlimited fines for those found wanting. But the bill will do little to change the way temporary employment works. “Most agencies treat their workers fairly,” said Pat McFadden, minister for employment relations. “These proposals are targeted at those that don’t. In fact, legitimate agencies will benefit from more effective enforcement against illegal activity.”
Tom Hadley, director of external relations at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, described the proposed legislation as a positive step. “It’s important to protect workers as the whole temp model depends on it being a good option,” he said. He is more concerned with the spectre of pending European legislation the draft agency workers directive.
This would give temporary workers the same pay and benefits as permanent staff after six weeks’ employment. That will mean greater costs, less flexibility and more paperwork, Hadley warned. “It could turn employers off from using temporary workers, and that would have a disproportionate impact in the UK,” he said.
Mike Emmott, employee-relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, is equally wary. “The directive’s insistence on equality of treatment would not only completely undermine the temporary market, it would damage the interests of many people who chose temporary worker status,” he said. However, the Trades Union Congress is lobbying to give agency workers the same rights, pay and working conditions as directly employed staff from the first day of their assignment.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “Agency workers regularly earn less than directly employed staff, are not allowed to benefit from an employer’s contributions to a pension scheme, are given less holiday, little if any access to training, and tend to get no contractual sick pay. Some people, including women and older workers, are always going to prefer to work a series of temporary contracts, but just because they opt for agency work shouldn’t mean they are treated less fairly at work.”
Nevertheless, a study by King’s College London suggests that temporary workers tend to be happier than their permanent counterparts. David Guest, professor of organisational psychology, who carried out the research for the European Union, said this probably reflected the growing pressures on permanent jobs.
“Temporary workers don’t have to stay behind working after hours. They don’t worry about their next promotion and they don’t have to ingratiate themselves with bosses,” he said. “As a result, they report less anxiety, less depression, fewer work-life balance problems, lower levels of irritation and generally greater life satisfaction.”
Jana Haddow, a nurse from the Czech Republic now employed in the preop assessment unit at the Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, turned down a full-time job with the NHS to work for the Strand Nurses Bureau, part of the Advantage Healthcare Group. “A permanent position in an NHS hospital wouldn’t give me the flexibility I get working for an agency,” she said. “You learn much more as an agency nurse working in different hospitals. It gives you more knowledge, experience and skills and if I do not want to return to a particular ward where there are interpersonal problems, I can simply ask not to be sent back there. I really enjoy the work.”
Source The Times
Richard Ratcliff loves his job. The 58-year-old English and religious education teacher works two or three days a week, filling in for absent staff at secondary schools within 20 miles of his home at Snodland, Kent, as directed by his agency, Select Education. The rest of his week is spent gardening or visiting cultural sites.
“I’m semi-retired, but this way I get to keep my hand in while avoiding that rat-race element you find in most full-time jobs,” he said. “It’s quite stressful but very fulfilling.”
Bill Hooper’s career is just beginning. Within days of contacting the recruitment agency Manpower, the 26-year-old IT worker started in a temporary position doing electronic file management for Hertfordshire county council. “I needed employment quickly and temporary work let me get my foot in the door,” he said.
After seven months, Hooper is happy. “The only downside is the lack of security, but the longer you are in a position, the more chance there is that it could become a permanent job,” he said. While some agency workers are paid less than their permanent colleagues, both Ratcliff and Hooper receive the going rate.
There are about 1m temporary and contract workers in Britain. Employed and paid by recruitment agencies of which there are about 17,000 they fill posts at short notice and take on a variety of temporary placings. One estimate suggests that agency workers contribute £24.8 billion to the nation’s economy each year.
The public sector depends on them. At any one time Hertfordshire county council will have 600-700 agency workers supplied by Manpower to carry out essential roles, from filling temporary IT posts like Hooper’s to covering staff absence in critical areas such as child social work. “They are vital we couldn’t cover our 24/7 work without them,” said Mary Lowten, business partner resourcing at the county council.
Using an agency has many benefits: the local council does not need to maintain its own bank of back-up staff and can draw on Manpower’s wide pool of expertise at short notice. The agency handles all the paperwork and ensures that its workers are checked, interviewed and referenced.
Such screening is an important aspect of agency work. It is a big responsibility in fields such as social work or security, which was under scrutiny last week after it was revealed that illegal immigrants had been given jobs in the public sector, including guarding police and government premises.
Peter Flannery, managing director of Select Education, Britain’s largest teaching agency, said the firms solved problems for their clients by taking on this work and helping them avoid unnecessary costs.
“Flexibility is very important,” he said. “Certain schools at certain times of the year wouldn’t be able to operate if it wasn’t for supply teachers and teaching assistants. They provide a very important service.”
The government acknowledges the role the growing industry plays in providing flexibility in Britain’s labour market. Among other things, the employment bill flagged up in the Queen’s speech this month will better protect the most vulnerable agency workers from breaches in existing regulations.
The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate is to get greater investigative powers to pursue complaints, access companies’ financial records and will be able to bring its own prosecutions with unlimited fines for those found wanting. But the bill will do little to change the way temporary employment works. “Most agencies treat their workers fairly,” said Pat McFadden, minister for employment relations. “These proposals are targeted at those that don’t. In fact, legitimate agencies will benefit from more effective enforcement against illegal activity.”
Tom Hadley, director of external relations at the Recruitment & Employment Confederation, described the proposed legislation as a positive step. “It’s important to protect workers as the whole temp model depends on it being a good option,” he said. He is more concerned with the spectre of pending European legislation the draft agency workers directive.
This would give temporary workers the same pay and benefits as permanent staff after six weeks’ employment. That will mean greater costs, less flexibility and more paperwork, Hadley warned. “It could turn employers off from using temporary workers, and that would have a disproportionate impact in the UK,” he said.
Mike Emmott, employee-relations adviser with the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, is equally wary. “The directive’s insistence on equality of treatment would not only completely undermine the temporary market, it would damage the interests of many people who chose temporary worker status,” he said. However, the Trades Union Congress is lobbying to give agency workers the same rights, pay and working conditions as directly employed staff from the first day of their assignment.
TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said: “Agency workers regularly earn less than directly employed staff, are not allowed to benefit from an employer’s contributions to a pension scheme, are given less holiday, little if any access to training, and tend to get no contractual sick pay. Some people, including women and older workers, are always going to prefer to work a series of temporary contracts, but just because they opt for agency work shouldn’t mean they are treated less fairly at work.”
Nevertheless, a study by King’s College London suggests that temporary workers tend to be happier than their permanent counterparts. David Guest, professor of organisational psychology, who carried out the research for the European Union, said this probably reflected the growing pressures on permanent jobs.
“Temporary workers don’t have to stay behind working after hours. They don’t worry about their next promotion and they don’t have to ingratiate themselves with bosses,” he said. “As a result, they report less anxiety, less depression, fewer work-life balance problems, lower levels of irritation and generally greater life satisfaction.”
Jana Haddow, a nurse from the Czech Republic now employed in the preop assessment unit at the Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, turned down a full-time job with the NHS to work for the Strand Nurses Bureau, part of the Advantage Healthcare Group. “A permanent position in an NHS hospital wouldn’t give me the flexibility I get working for an agency,” she said. “You learn much more as an agency nurse working in different hospitals. It gives you more knowledge, experience and skills and if I do not want to return to a particular ward where there are interpersonal problems, I can simply ask not to be sent back there. I really enjoy the work.”
Source The Times
The UK Achilles Heel?
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
The CIPD is unsure whether the Skills Pledge will meet the skills need of the 21st century.
Speaking at an event yesterday, its chief economist John Philpot also said that the UK's poor productivity was the "Achilles heel" of the economy and that the employability of young workers is a big contributing factor to the current skills crisis.
"There are critical problems in the supply of labour from schools and colleges, and it's down to overall employability - the lack of soft skills," he said. "Employability levels are not increasing at anything like the rate of increases in qualifications."
Also speaking at the ACAS and CIPD Building Successful Workplaces event was Dame Carol Black, national director for health and work, who suggested employers and doctors should be working towards electronic 'fit' notes, instead of sick notes. She also said that union representatives should have a health and wellbeing role within organisations, on top of their current safety role.
Speaking at an event yesterday, its chief economist John Philpot also said that the UK's poor productivity was the "Achilles heel" of the economy and that the employability of young workers is a big contributing factor to the current skills crisis.
"There are critical problems in the supply of labour from schools and colleges, and it's down to overall employability - the lack of soft skills," he said. "Employability levels are not increasing at anything like the rate of increases in qualifications."
Also speaking at the ACAS and CIPD Building Successful Workplaces event was Dame Carol Black, national director for health and work, who suggested employers and doctors should be working towards electronic 'fit' notes, instead of sick notes. She also said that union representatives should have a health and wellbeing role within organisations, on top of their current safety role.
Who is guarding whom?
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
A new immigration scandal hit the Government after it emerged that thousands of security guards have been working illegally in Britain, including one allegedly guarding the Prime Minister's car. The Security Industry Authority, set up by the Home Office to vet doormen and security personnel, has failed to include a check on whether applicants were entitled to work in Britain.
The checks meant that an estimated 5,000 illegal immigrants have been employed on night club doors and in sensitive security posts, including six people who were working for the Metropolitan Police.
The main aim of the SIA was to weed out security personnel with criminal records but the lack of checks on immigration status mean that some may also have records abroad which have not come to light. Set up three years ago, the SIA has issued around 250,000 licences, for workers whose responsibilities include guarding Whitehall offices, ports and airports.
Yesterday, the Home Office said it had asked for a review of all the licences issued before the problem came to light in July. Since then a new step has been added to the application procedure which involves checks with the Border and Immigration Agency. A Home Office spokesman said: "The SIA took immediate action as soon as they became aware that some licence-holders had been employed illegally. From July this year, all new applicants have been granted a licence only if they are entitled to seek work in Britain”
"Ministers ordered checks on all existing licence-holders and these will be completed shortly. Any individual found to be working illegally will have their licence removed and face removal from the UK."
The SIA has accepted that it is "inevitable" that criminals and illegal workers will try and get licences but emphasised that the legal obligation to ensure that an employee has the right to work in Britain is placed on the employer - even if that is also the Government.
The Home Office said it would consider prosecuting any employers who had taken on illegal immigrants, raising the prospect of a prosecution against the Metropolitan Police, which is overseen by the same Government department.
The Conservative Party said it was yet another example that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose".
Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "What is extraordinary about this latest Home Office fiasco is that we have been through this before. "Last year, the Home Office discovered it was employing illegal immigrants as cleaners in the Immigration Department itself.
From these new revelations it looks like no effective action was taken to check who has access to some of the most sensitive buildings in this country."
Last month, Marouane Bourannane, 35, an Algerian, who was employed by Group 4 Securicor, appeared in court and admitted possessing a false passport. Bourannane, of Beckenham, south-east London, had worked as a security officer at the Labour and Conservative party conferences and allegedly had a picture of himself with Gordon Brown on his mobile phone.
Two weeks ago, Peter Hain, the Work and Pensions Secretary, was forced to admit that 300,000 foreign citizens working in Britain had been left out of official statistics.
Source: The Telegraph
The checks meant that an estimated 5,000 illegal immigrants have been employed on night club doors and in sensitive security posts, including six people who were working for the Metropolitan Police.
The main aim of the SIA was to weed out security personnel with criminal records but the lack of checks on immigration status mean that some may also have records abroad which have not come to light. Set up three years ago, the SIA has issued around 250,000 licences, for workers whose responsibilities include guarding Whitehall offices, ports and airports.
Yesterday, the Home Office said it had asked for a review of all the licences issued before the problem came to light in July. Since then a new step has been added to the application procedure which involves checks with the Border and Immigration Agency. A Home Office spokesman said: "The SIA took immediate action as soon as they became aware that some licence-holders had been employed illegally. From July this year, all new applicants have been granted a licence only if they are entitled to seek work in Britain”
"Ministers ordered checks on all existing licence-holders and these will be completed shortly. Any individual found to be working illegally will have their licence removed and face removal from the UK."
The SIA has accepted that it is "inevitable" that criminals and illegal workers will try and get licences but emphasised that the legal obligation to ensure that an employee has the right to work in Britain is placed on the employer - even if that is also the Government.
The Home Office said it would consider prosecuting any employers who had taken on illegal immigrants, raising the prospect of a prosecution against the Metropolitan Police, which is overseen by the same Government department.
The Conservative Party said it was yet another example that the Home Office was "not fit for purpose".
Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, said: "What is extraordinary about this latest Home Office fiasco is that we have been through this before. "Last year, the Home Office discovered it was employing illegal immigrants as cleaners in the Immigration Department itself.
From these new revelations it looks like no effective action was taken to check who has access to some of the most sensitive buildings in this country."
Last month, Marouane Bourannane, 35, an Algerian, who was employed by Group 4 Securicor, appeared in court and admitted possessing a false passport. Bourannane, of Beckenham, south-east London, had worked as a security officer at the Labour and Conservative party conferences and allegedly had a picture of himself with Gordon Brown on his mobile phone.
Two weeks ago, Peter Hain, the Work and Pensions Secretary, was forced to admit that 300,000 foreign citizens working in Britain had been left out of official statistics.
Source: The Telegraph
Whose responsibility is Health & Safety?
21st Mar 2009
21st Mar 2009
More than half of employers believe health and safety should be the responsibility of the employee, according to research from Consult GEE.
Results also show that 72% of employers believe the cost of complying with health and safety laws had increased in the past year.
Stress was found to be the fastest-growing health and safety risk to the workforce, with 45.2% of employers citing it as the riskiest. This was followed by trips and falls (22.8%); back injury (15.8%); repetitive strain injury (14.5%); and bullying (1.8%).
The survey asked 250 businesses in the past 12 months.
"Businesses are fed up with the amount of health and safety red tape being piled on them," says Martin Pearce, health and safety expert at Consult GEE. "The increasing amount of rules and regulation is clearly a burden for them."
Results also show that 72% of employers believe the cost of complying with health and safety laws had increased in the past year.
Stress was found to be the fastest-growing health and safety risk to the workforce, with 45.2% of employers citing it as the riskiest. This was followed by trips and falls (22.8%); back injury (15.8%); repetitive strain injury (14.5%); and bullying (1.8%).
The survey asked 250 businesses in the past 12 months.
"Businesses are fed up with the amount of health and safety red tape being piled on them," says Martin Pearce, health and safety expert at Consult GEE. "The increasing amount of rules and regulation is clearly a burden for them."