The cost and rate of staff turnover to businesses has hit record levels,according to research. The CIPD survey of 630 HR professionals shows that a quarter of all staffleft their firms last year – the highest figure since the survey began in 1995.The CIPD’s 2001 Labour Turnover Survey also shows that two-thirds oforganisations claim that such a high turnover rate is damaging their business.The average turnover cost of managerial and professional staff is now over£6,000 per employee – a 28 per cent increase on last year. The overall averagecost of turnover per employee is £3,933. The professional service sector is the worst hit. It has an average turnovercost of over £8,300 per employee, with nearly a fifth of companies paying morethan £10,000 to replace staff. Nick Page, rewards adviser at the CIPD and the report’s author, said,”The escalation in the rate of labour turnover is a big concern forbusiness and is clearly impacting on organisational performance. “However, it is encouraging to see employers responding to suchactivity, with one in four planning to introduce work-life balance measures andmany more planning to use exit interviews and change pay and benefit structures.”Surprisingly, the survey shows that public sector workers, such as teachers,are less likely to leave their jobs than their counterparts in the privatesector. Page said, “Clearly the poor performance of the public sector inrecruiting new people and managing turnover is a key reason for its severelabour shortages, rather than people deserting the public sector in droves. Theway we manage labour turnover, therefore, is vitally important”. High turnover should be tackled by offering staff better career and rewardstructures, claims the CIPD. www.cipd.co.ukBy Paul Nelson Related posts:No related photos. Concern as business sees new high in staff turnoverOn 16 Oct 2001 in Personnel Today Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article
Previous Article Next Article Comments are closed. Related posts:No related photos. Ruling could see end to career breaksOn 19 Mar 2002 in Personnel Today Employers could be discouraged from giving their employees career breaksafter an employment appeal tribunal ruled such breaks do not interruptcontinuity of service. The tribunal ruled that a Marks & Spencer employee made redundant in 1999should have her redundancy payment based on when she started her service withthe firm in 1973, rather than on when she returned to work in 1994 followingher career break. The decision means staff being made redundant should receive rights andbenefits based on their whole length of service – not just the time after acareer break. Jonathan Chamberlain, of law firm Wragge & Co, believes the ruling coulddiscourage some employers from including career breaks as part of theirfamily-friendly working polices. “It is a setback to promoting flexible and family-friendly policiesjust at a time when the Government is encouraging it. Companies are going to beexpected to take an employee back after a break of several years, but if thingsdon’t work out, staff will have the statutory rights based on the total time ofservice,” he said. Chamberlain advised companies to review polices carefully if they want toensure there is a total interruption in their employment relationship withstaff during career breaks. “This will require very careful drafting and even then it may not bepossible,” he added.
Comments are closed. The famous builders’ tea break is becoming a thing of the past as workers inthe construction industry find themselves under increasing pressure at work,research for the DTI finds. A survey for the Department of Trade and Industry’s Work-Life BalanceCampaign reveals that the majority of construction industry workers are doingovertime or skipping breaks because of the demands of their job. More than a quarter of the respondents to the poll in Building Magazineestimate they are doing up to five hours overtime a week, 40 per cent betweenfive and 10 hours, 24 per cent between 10 and 15 hours and 9 per cent over 15hours. The research also reveals that more than 80 per cent of company owners wouldconsider offering their staff flexible working options if they thought thiswould increase productivity levels and increase morale. Nearly two-thirds ofemployers in the sector report they already have flexible working practices. Part-time working is the most popular flexible working practice with 40 percent of employers providing this option to some staff, followed by flexitime on39 per cent and staggered hours on 27 per cent. More than half of the 180respondents reveal they would be interested in using flexible working practicesto attract more women to the business. Adrian Barrick, editor of Building Magazine, said the survey shows there isa need for the construction industry to start to embrace flexible workingwherever possible. “In the macho world of construction, work invariablycomes before partners and children – but long hours working puts anunsustainable strain on all staff whether they have caring responsibilities ornot,” he said. “As an industry we have fallen behind other sectors in addressing thisissue and it is more important than ever to hold on to good staff.” www.dti.gov.ukBy Ben Willmott Related posts:No related photos. Previous Article Next Article Construction workers fail to find work-life balanceOn 9 Apr 2002 in Personnel Today
HRis failing to get the message of its crucial role over to the board. We askedthree advertising agencies how theywould tackle the issue. By Philip Boucher and Liz SimpsonWe’ve heard it all before but HR is a profession that is frequentlyoverlooked, sidelined dismissed and downsized. Clearly, such complacency callsfor radical tactics to change this mindset. What if the profession were to callin an advertising agency to come up with an advertising/marketing campaign togive the board that much-needed wake-up call and convince them of the vitalcontribution HR makes to an organisation? Advertising is all about selling the lifestyle of a particular product orservice. With companies increasingly striving to become employers of choice, HRhas an integral part to play in promoting a company’s culture and, byassociation, its brand. Therefore a higher profile for HR within anorganisation will start to establish this. To devise the campaigns we approached three agencies located in the UK andUS and gave them a brief (see agency brief left) as to how HR wants to be seen.The campaign wouldn’t have a fixed budget so would not be constricted by costs,but it would be up to the agencies to maximise the effectiveness of theirmessage through clever choice of media. Each of the three agencies came up with very different interpretations ofthe brief, solutions, methods of delivery and rationales for their approach. The campaigns Agency: Ward Diamond Advertising WDA, based in Clerkenwell, London, was established more than seven years agoand has an annual turnover of £4m. It has a team of recruitment advertisingspecialists and its client base includes British Film Institute, BritishAirways Travel Shops, Thomas Cook, Rail Europe and Macmillan Cancer Relief. The campaign To brand HR as ‘HRMY’, a pun on army, and use a seriesof events leading up to an ‘HRMY’ delivering a dossier with evidence of HR’ssuccesses in other organisations to the board. The rationale for the pun, explains WDA managing director Samantha Diamond,is that an army is powerful and able to achieve ambitious and complexobjectives as a result of leadership, planning and strategy and HR should beperceived in the same way. To avoid seeming overly militaristic, WDA decided that its campaign wouldcontain no inappropriate reference to conflict, weapons, attacks or anythingsimilar – it wouldn’t even mention the war for talent. The tagline to the campaign would be performance-enhancing force – againpromoting HR’s ability to influence the bottom line. To match the army theme, the campaign would be run in phases like thebuild-up to a military operation. Each phase would begin on a Monday, leadingup to the final brief to the board. The first stage would be a giant inflatablebillboard to announce to the board that something big was coming. The second would add intrigue. Every day of week two an envelope marked ‘ForYour Eyes Only’ would be pushed under each director’s door. Envelopes wouldcontain a task and a method by which to achieve it. The tasks would all relateto improving business performance. The methods would demonstrate proven ways inwhich HR can achieve this. In week three, directors would receive a package – the HRMY operations kit. Mockedup to resemble a survival kit, it would contain the following items, each witha label attached with one word printed which refer to key ways in which HR canaid business: – Compass – direction (ensuring workers understand board goals and work towardsthem) – Radio – communication (promoting effective communication throughout thecompany) – Flare – attraction (attracting and retaining people who can help the boardachieve its goals) – Chocolate – energy and motivation (motivating staff to raise productivity)– Antiseptic – problem prevention (providing the flexibility to counterexternal threats and problems within the organisation The final stage is a directors’ meeting where the uniformed HRMY team wouldburst in. The dossier would be distributed to each director and the most seniorHRMY member would begin the briefing. Key message The best way to get through to the board is todemonstrate how HR can affect the bottom line Media The campaign would run in several phases – billboardadvertising, direct mail and publications Soundbite “We should portray HR as a confident, credible andcapable force.” Agency: Wilding McArdle Wilson (WMW) WMW is an employer marketing agency based in Clerkenwell, London. Set upfive years ago 80 per cent of its work is consultancy (in both print andmulti-media) and ranges from employer branding programmes to online orderingsystems. The remaining 20 per cent of its work is from recruitment advertising.Clients include: Arcadia, B&Q, Deloitte & Touche, Dyson and KraftFoods. The campaign WMW chose to internally promote the central businessrole that a business-focused client and commercially driven HR function shouldplay – in order to win the confidence of both senior management and board leveldirectors. The campaign seeks to convey how HR makes a difference to the bottom linevia the mixed media of posters, teasers, faux heritage plaques and an onlineboard game, in what director Sue McArdle, describes as a “witty, playfuland innovative way”. “The crucial issue of this campaign is to promote the vital role thatHR plays and to convey how HR makes its contribution to the bottom line. Ifthis is successfully accomplished, it’s a simple and inevitable progression tohaving a voice at board level,” she explains. The campaign is intended to be versatile and can be paced over anytimescale. Media Teasers – delivered directly to senior management, internalposters, fake commemorative plaques, a playable game called (Get on) The BoardGame and an intranet version of the board game Key message HR is an essential function for the wellbeing of thebusiness because it does following things for the business. Soundbite “HR functions tend to promote their programmes asindividual, distinct strategies rather than as a single expression of awide-ranging, key business enabler. Strong HR strategy is integral to everyaspect of a business, not just a ‘people-thing’.” To play the online version of (Get on) The Board Game go to www.wmwuk.net/ontheboardAgency: The Cherenson Group Cherenson is a full-service PR and advertising agency with a recruitment armbased in New Jersey, US. Vice-president Mike Cherenson has worked for thedemocratic national convention committee in 1992 and as a consultant for localand state-wide politicians. Clients include: Coca-Cola, Avis, PrudentialFinancial and Bank of New York. The campaign The Cherenson Group approached the task as a politicalcampaign that must win support throughout the organisation. “In corporatelife no-one is going to get anywhere until they accept that business lifeinvolves political fights including the ability to show why you’re importantand need to be listened to,” explains Cherenson. Step one, he says, consists of HR touring the company to find out what theemployee issues are. “Like any good political candidate you can only solvepeople’s problems if you know what these are in the first place.” This internal qualitative research can be translated into a series of casestudies outlining all the ways in which HR has actually helped employees withtheir concerns. Real life examples could be used as a series of messages to employeesconveyed through large wall posters, inserted into employee mailings, posted onthe corporate intranet and even screensavers. Cherenson believes attracting the‘voters’ in this way builds a network of advocates throughout the company whowill help disseminate the message to line managers (whose support is vital inpersuading the board) that HR is an effective and essential business partner. “Today’s companies are always looking to slash overheads and increaserevenue. HR is the one department that has ties to all employees and it needsto develop and utilise those relationships, and the tools at its disposal, tosolve the company’s problems,” he explains. Key message When people have a problem and want to know who can helpthem, the answer is, human resources. HR needs to present evidence to the boardthat what it does is not an expense but an investment and that such investmentshave demonstrable returns. Media Wall posters, inserts into employee mailings, the corporateintranet, screensavers backed up by short executive briefings. Soundbite “There is no magic dust and putting up some posterswill not fix the problem overnight. This must be a long-term sustainedprogramme, where HR is seen as an advocate for the workers” he HR in a bad light: how it is frequently seen – HR professionals lack foresight, influence and credibility and play a marginalrole in many companies – The board is (often) mystified about what HR does and is ignorant of therelationship between good people management and financial performance – Even when companies put people issues at the heart of their policies, HRdoes not get the recognition for putting these in place – HR’s role is primarily stuck at the lower end of the scale hampered bymanagers’ failure to understand what it can offer and also by HR professionalsnot being assertive enough and not having enough authority (see below) – However talented an HR director is, if the board does not want to listenit won’t..*Equally, if line managers don’t buy into HR strategy, gettinganything done may prove nigh on impossible. How HR wants to be seen: convincing the board – Be a dynamic, credible force with business acumen that makes a positivecontribution to organisational performance and the bottom line – To be considered a priority – involved right at the beginning of anystrategic agenda or business planning and able to draw people strategies fromthe business objectives And be seen as a ‘value-adder’ to any commercialdecision – For business leaders to recognise the value of good people management andhigh-performance HR policies – Considered as an effective business partner with a seat on the board orfailing that to at least have a strong relationship with the top team – To be seen as accessible and effective by the workforce, shedding thehuman remains image Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article The hard sellOn 29 Oct 2002 in Military, Personnel Today Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel TodayOn this page you will find details of how to submit content to Personnel Today. We do not publish a… Related posts:
Related posts:No related photos. Comments are closed. Previous Article Next Article What are the psychological consequences following chemicalpoisoning or exposure? OH practitioners often acknowledge the problem, but findthere is no uniform judicial approach and little information available, by AlanCare There is clearly a difference between a chemical exposure causing physical(organic) chemical poisoning given a sufficient dose, and an exposure tochemicals that may only cause a short-lived acute adverse reaction withpsychological overlay. Chemical exposure inevitably causes psychological harm and injury for themajority of individuals who are exposed to toxic substances and in many cases,the psychological reaction may far outweigh the original physical chemicalreaction. For example, a chemical exposure causing only a headache may lead toa lifetime of psychological worry and anxiety. An example of a classic industrial disease of chemical poisoning causingchronic long-term damage would be a high-dose exposure to benzene, triggeringleukaemia. The condition will be physically life threatening, and obviously theindividual will also suffer a considerable amount of anxiety. However, in many cases, the individual may only be exposed to a chemical, ora combination of chemicals, that should not – according to toxicologicalunderstanding – result in an adverse chronic illness. But often we see thoseindividuals ‘fall apart’, unable to return to work or recover any normalsemblance of life prior to the exposure. Some individuals may become obsessed about their exposure and carry outextensive research into diseases and chemicals to the nth degree, which mayconsiderably add to their anxiety. With easy access to information via theinternet – where although there are some useful websites, there are many othersof dubious quality – this situation is becoming increasingly common. In the courts, the expectation as to a ‘normal’ reaction of the individualto a chemical poisoning or exposure seems to start from what would be thereaction of the reasonable man or woman. The older expression was, ‘is thatperson of average phlegm and fortitude?’ In theory, the judge always determines the individual’s reaction to a toxicevent or exposure with the help of expert opinion. But in reality, theirdecision is entirely subjective. Is this the best that can be achieved? How dothe majority of chemical poisoning victims react to their exposure to hazardousand toxic substances? The ‘right’ reaction The reaction to chemical exposure may vary – the victim may just shrug theirshoulders and move on. But from my 20 years experience in dealing with suchcases, the far more common reaction is moderate to severe anxiety. Some arefrightened witless. And for many, coming to terms with their exposure and anyacute injury or harm is more than they can cope with. So why do individuals often respond so profoundly to toxic exposure? TheATSDR1, the leading Disease Registry in Atlanta, states: “Unlike thedamage and injuries caused by a natural disaster, many toxic substances areinvisible to the senses. This invisibility results in feelings of uncertainty.People cannot be sure without instrumentation if they have been exposed to atoxin and how much they have been exposed. “Also, due to the time lag between exposure and the appearance of achronic disease [for example mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure] itis very difficult to relate past exposure to subsequent disease. “Health outcomes are therefore uncertain and leave individuals with aloss of control. Two areas where people have the most difficulty coping arewith uncertainty and loss of control”. Or is it all in their heads? In another study, a physical rather thanpsychological effect may be the sole cause, as was argued by one expert. Theyreported that a small scale study of Gulf War veterans who complained ofdizziness showed that some of them had brain damage similar to that found invictims of the 1995 Tokyo subway nerve gas attack. Or, as Dr Roland commented,”In other words, these people are not faking it and they are not stressedout”.2 Interestingly, a 1997 report following up the Sarin nerve agent attack byterrorists on the Tokyo subway on 20 March 1995 – two years earlier – statedthat post-incident, 60 per cent of 610 individuals were affected even three tosix months later by psychological sequelae and PTSD (Post Traumatic SyndromeDisorder) type problems. The disease centre in Atlanta has also stated: “A second significantpoint made was that the majority of the responses people have to exposure totoxic substances are normal, that is, normal people behaving normally in anabnormal situation.” It is this central issue, ‘normal people behaving normally in an abnormalsituation’ that has not yet been fully addressed, and at present is only subjectivelydetermined. What exactly is our understanding of acting normally in an abnormalsituation? Some will be less than sympathetic and say ‘get a grip’; ‘move on’; ‘thereis no connection between your present symptoms and the chemical exposure, it isall in your mind’. This is very much so when there is clear scientific andmedical evidence that the exposure could only result in trivial consequencesand the individual has in effect over reacted. But what is a ‘normal’ or reasonable overreaction to poisoning or exposure.Who defines susceptibility? As an example, a worker for a local council was exposed to 1 nml above theaction level for Lindane, an organo-chlorine pesticide. This was anextraordinarily small exposure. However, on his enquiry of the Health &Safety Executive (HSE) as to Lindane and its effects, he received reams ofinformation with which he frankly could not cope. Suffering sweats and hightemperatures, he took to his bed for years, only venturing out of his bed tolay on his couch, and rarely going outside. A toxicologist will say that 1 nml would only have a trivial effect. But apsychiatric condition was diagnosed and he received substantial damages in anout-of-court settlement. In the unreported case of Ashton v ICI High Court, Manchester 21 May 1992,Mr Justice Rose awarded damages of £10,000 for pain, suffering and loss ofamenity to Mr Ashton. He had suffered severe anxiety believing that he wouldcontract cancer having been exposed to Vinyl Chloride Monomer – a cause ofangiosarcoma cancer of the liver. The consultant psychiatrist Dr Cashman stated in the judgement in hisopinion: “The plaintiff has a chronic reactive anxiety depression causedby his apprehensive concern about developing the fatal disease, namely ASL dueto VSM”. Mr Justice Rose stated: “In my judgement, the plaintiff’s reaction wasof the same kind as that of other members of the workforce, although clearlyits extent was greater than that suffered by others. He was more susceptiblethan some to psychiatric diseases. But this does not mean that psychiatricdiseases were not reasonably foreseeable”. Therefore in this case, even though Mr Ashton had not suffered any physicalinjury at all, his fear of cancer was enough to result in an award of damages. Group exposure In group or multi-party chemical exposure cases, a similar situation mayoccur – they will become consumed by anxiety. Again, this is recognised by thecourts, and as long a recognisable psychiatric injury has occurred – forexample PTSD – damages may be awarded for the psychological sequelae as well asfor the physical acute injuries caused by the exposure. In many cases, the strict PTSD criteria may not be met, but the individualmay be clearly affected by the severest form of anxiety. PTSD is strictlydefined according to a classification system. It can be argued that wheresudden chemical exposure occurs, those exposed only become aware of thepossible risk factors involved after the actual exposure has taken place.Therefore although the chemical exposure will not give rise to traumaticmemories at the time, it is the post-incident anxiety caused by worrying aboutfuture consequences that has the debilitating effect. That individual may well have previously had an ‘ordinary’ lifestyle that isnow completely in tatters, so it is surely the case that other ‘post-traumatic’type psychological illnesses do come into play. Group dynamics may well play a part in increasing anxiety among the group,particularly if it is large and the chemical concerned becomes a focus of mediaattention. A poisoned individual may find it difficult to gain recognition anda chemical poisoning diagnosis (some say it is impossible) and suffers allalone, while a group may well discuss their collective problems at length, increasingtheir anxiety. Inevitably, there will be symptom comparisons. Thus normal occurrences suchas headaches and gastro-intestinal problems formerly accepted as a part oflife, suddenly develop sinister overtones as they become ‘proof’ of chemicalpoisoning. In one such unreported case, a bag containing a mercaptan – which is addedto North Sea gas to provide a warning smell for leaks – broke open in afactory. This chemical has a low toxicity profile, but has an incredibly foulsmell. At that time, local children coincidentally suffered tummy upsets, whichthe local physician described as probable summer diarrhoea. However, this ledto a multi-party action for damages by concerned parents. Again, fear of theeffects of the chemicals upon the long-term health of their children andthemselves clearly became the parents’ major concern, far outreaching anyphysical reality of harm by the chemical. But how far does one take this reaction and anxiety? To return to Mr JusticeRoses’ comments as to susceptibility, there are increasing numbers ofindividuals and a growing body of medical literature3 highlighting MultipleChemical Sensitivity (MCS). MCS sufferers claim that often a single low-dosechemical exposure event – particularly pesticides and petrochemicals – willtrigger their susceptibility ever more to even lower chemical exposures causingdisablement. This aspect has been considered by Graveling and his colleagues4 (Health& Safety Executive-funded research) who stated: “Éthe collatedevidence suggests that MCS does exist although its prevalence seems to beexaggerated”. However, this view remains highly controversial and has been severelycriticised in certain quarters. It is perhaps fair to say that the battle linesare drawn between those who support MCS, and those who don’t. Conclusion This article is not intended to understate or underplay the physical effectsupon human health of chemicals where clearly injuries, illness and even deathmay occur. However, failure to recognise that individuals will reactdifferently – sometimes exceptionally and excessively – in the face of what isproven both medically and scientifically to be a low toxicity chemical or lowdose of such a chemical, surely misses the point. Again, the Atlanta Disease Registry discussions are prescient in statingthat individuals do not necessarily understand, agree with or work within theparameters of scientists. The public have also lost considerable faith in most‘experts’ – particularly government experts post BSE – and the old adage thatthe ‘doctor knows best’ is no longer widely accepted. To the affected individual the reality is simple: they have been poisoned orexposed. They were previously healthy, and now they are not. What is thecourt’s definitive approach to a reasonable reaction in such an abnormalsituation and how does the court decide causation in the absence of evidenceother than individual (or group) subjective symptoms. How is the court to judgethose individuals who genuinely cling on to their belief of illness, despitescientific evidence to the contrary? Perhaps the judgment in Page v Smith Houseof Lords provides some answers. “Applying the principle that the defendant had to take his victim as hefound him…it was irrelevant that the defendant could not have foreseen thatthe plaintiff had an ‘eggshell personality’ since (per Lord Browne-Wilkinson)it was established by medical science that psychiatric illness could besuffered as a consequence of an accident although not demonstrably attributabledirectly to physical injury to the Plaintiff”.5 Alan Care, of Thomson Snell & Passmore solicitors, specialises inchemical poisoning personal injury claims and is co-ordinator of theAssociation of Person Injury Lawyers (APIL) Environment Special Interest Group References 1. ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) ExecutiveSummary Report on the Psychological Responses to Hazardous substances – websitelast updated 22 9 2000 (workshop discussion and consideration of the effects onlocal community living near waste sites). 2. The National Gulf War Resources Centre Inc website as at 14 02 2002 3. A Report on chemical sensitivity (MCS) US Interagency Workshop on MCSPredecisional draft 1998/Ashford and Miller Chemical exposures – low levels andhigh stakes 1991 4. R A Graveling et al, Review of Multiple chemical sensitivity Occup.Environ. Med. 1999 5. Page V Smith House of Lords 1995 Poisoning the mindOn 2 Jan 2003 in Personnel Today
Comments are closed. Health Secretary calls for equal billing for preventionOn 2 Jan 2003 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Alan Milburn has set out the next five steps health professionals need totake to modernise the NHSHealth prevention must no longer play second fiddle to health treatmentwithin the NHS, Health Secretary Alan Milburn has said. In a major speech on health inequalities and health promotion, Milburn setout the next five steps health professionals must take to shift the emphasis ofhealthcare towards prevention as well as a cure. Following the publication of a review on health inequalities, Milburndescribed them as a “scar” on the nation. “Too many people are denied the basic chances in life,” he said. “Poorer people get sick more often and die earlier. It is simplyunacceptable that the opportunity for a long and healthy life is still linkedto social circumstances, childhood poverty, where you live, how much yourparents earn, how much you earn, and your race and gender.” A new approach was needed that offered people the opportunity of betterhealth, he said. “One that recognises that diets are often less healthy and smokingrates are higher in poorer communities, [an approach] that acknowledges peoplehave the right to make a choice about what they eat or whether they smoke, butpeople should have the opportunity to have a healthier diet or to give upsmoking if they so choose.” The five steps he outlined were: tackling inequalities in health services,focusing on cancer and coronary heart disease, ensuring a better balancebetween prevention and treatment, tackling smoking, and putting public healthat the heart of the NHS. www.doh.gov.uk/healthinequalities/ccsrsummaryreport.htmTobacco ads stubbed out – Tobacco advertising on billboards and in newspapers and magazines will bebanned from 14 February 2003 – The timetable emerged after the Government’s Tobacco Advertising and PromotionBill received Royal Assent in November, the final stage of the legislativeprocess – By 14 May, in-pack promotion schemes and direct marketing contracts willalso cease “We are considering responses to our public consultation on regulationsgoverning point-of-sale advertising, brand sharing and sponsorship. We will setspecific dates for these in due course,” said Minister for Public HealthHazel Blears. Related posts:No related photos.
City HR departments need more stringent pay reviews and clearer performancetargets to create greater equality and halt the growth in discriminationclaims, warn experts. Discrimination claims were thrown into the limelight again earlier thismonth when a former senior executive from Merrill Lynch began proceedingsagainst the company for a record £7.8m claim for gender bias. Speaking at a roundtable event last week, Caroline Slocock, chief executiveof the Equal Opportunities Commission, said the UK finance sector must face thefact that it has the widest gender pay gap of any industrial sector. “[It’s] a situation that needs to be tackled urgently,” she said.”When a company loses an equal pay case it loses more than its reputationas a fair employer – doubt is also cast on its ability to manage its businesseffectively.” Ros McIntyre of Vivid Change Partnership, said: “Employers need to beclear about what performance they want so they can distinguish betweenemployees who are being subjected to discrimination, and those who are simplyfailing to perform.” Vic Daniels, director at HR consultancy DBM, said more detailed andtransparent performance criteria were needed. “HR professionals need moreformalised guidelines, stringent recording and policies specific to equalopportunities,” he said. A second woman – Elizabeth Weston – is suing Merrill Lynch for sexdiscrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal, it was reported lastweek. Comments are closed. City pay reviews must be altered to create equalityOn 22 Jun 2004 in Personnel Today Previous Article Next Article Related posts:No related photos.
Previous Article Next Article No comments yet. Leave a Reply Click here to cancel reply.Comment Name (required) Email (will not be published) (required) Website View all posts by Jenny Perkins → How can we engage gig economy workers?By Jenny Perkins on 1 Jun 2017 in Gig economy, Employee engagement, Personnel Today About Jenny Perkins Jenny Perkins is Head of Engagement at Cirrus. Jenny can be contacted at [email protected] or @jennyperkins50 Baby boomers are 22% more likely to seek work with “gig” employers than millennials. The gig economy is on the rise, with the Taylor review exploring how employment regulation and practices can keep pace with the changing world of work. How can employers motivate and engage people who work for their business but aren’t actually employed? Jenny Perkins from Cirrus offers some tips.Although recent media coverage has led to a perception of gig workers as mostly young and relatively unskilled, research demonstrates that the reality is quite different.Gig economy resourcesWhy HR should embrace the gig economyPodcast: Introduction to the gig economyGood practice manual: employee recognitionBaby boomers (those born between the mid-1940s and the mid-1960s) are more likely to embrace gig working than any other generation. In fact, a study by job board Indeed found that they are 22% more likely than millennials to search for work with gig employers.There is also a perception that the gig economy is centred around industry challengers such as Uber and Deliveroo. Again, the reality is different.The majority of the recent growth in gig working since 2009 has taken place in lucrative sectors such as advertising and banking, and the gig economy is having a significant impact on large, established businesses.The Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates that 15% of the British labour market is self-employed with an estimated 5 million people classified as gig workers.ONS figures also show that 60% of self-employed people work in high-skilled managerial and professional roles. Gig economy workers generally only get paid for the “gigs” they do, whether that’s building a website or delivering a pizza.Flexibility and control?Of course, the unprecedented growth of the gig economy presents many challenges for workers and for business leaders. It does of course present opportunities too.Advocates of the gig economy claim that both workers and organisations benefit from enhanced flexibility and greater control. While there has been criticism of gig workers’ lack of rights, there is also evidence to demonstrate that many enjoy the flexibility and choice that gig working provides.In the past, contingent workers have often been viewed as an additional resource used by organisations to address labour and skills shortages when needed.However, today’s gig workers can be central to business success. As part to the trend towards more mobile and virtual workforces, we are starting to see many more examples of effective integration where gig workers are an important component of the workforce.As the gig economy continues to grow at a considerable pace, how can employers ensure their gig workers are engaged and productive, and become advocates for their brand? Here are some tips:Treat them as people rather than as resources. This is the number one, most important thing you can do. No matter how transient the relationship, don’t just think of gig workers as flexible resources. Take time to communicate with them on a human level and get to know them.Ensure your employee value proposition is attractive and engaging to gig workers as well as employees. Think about what your organisation offers in return for their skills and experience. Articulate and communicate your EVP wherever gig workers are most likely to find you.Streamline the way you contract with gig workers. EY research found that 31% of US organisations have multiple vendor management systems. Bureaucracy is a barrier to engagement, so introduce simple and clear processes.Create an induction process for gig workers. The EY research found that 55% of contingent workers are not “onboarded”. Gig workers benefit from induction as much as employees do. Even a pared-down induction process can help them to understand your organisation’s purpose, culture and goals, and to become an integral part of your business. This also applies when you are rolling out new business initiatives. Ensure that you involve gig workers and take them on the journey with you.Offer opportunities for learning and development. Your organisation-wide L&D strategy should consider the needs of gig workers and the benefits you will gain from developing their skills. Consider part-funding any relevant training, or offering other sources of support such as access to an online knowledge portal.Harness innovation. IBM research shows that independent workers are significantly more innovative than other employees. Researchers found that many successful organisations have established innovation teams that combine internal and external collaborators.Use gig workers to catalyse change. Gig workers can be change agents, helping to highlight benefits to employed workers. They often bring fresh perspectives and can help overcome resistance to change within a legacy workforce. EY’s research found that 43% of US organisations find existing employees benefit from contingent workers’ skills transfer.Include gig workers in company communications. You may need to have different levels of confidentiality, but sharing company news and seeking feedback from gig workers will help them feel engaged. Digital communication tools such as intranets, chat applications and social engagement platforms are particularly helpful for engaging gig workers in a mobile, geographically dispersed workforce.Recognise contributions. Gig workers will be more engaged (and more productive) if they are aware of how they contribute. Offer (and seek) regular feedback, celebrate success, and demonstrate to both gig workers and employees how much their joint contributions matter.Treat gig workers with respect. If you don’t, they may damage your reputation. If you do, they will be valuable advocates for your organisation. Related posts:No related photos.
Robert Herjavec and 24400 Little Valley Rd (Getty, Redfin)Robert Herjavec, a longtime investor on the reality show “Shark Tank,” is hunting for a deal in Los Angeles.The Canadian businessman and television personality listed his Hidden Hills mansion for $17.3 million, just 16 months after he bought it for $14.6 million, according to the Variety.The “modern farmhouse” property includes a main house and guest house, which together have seven bedrooms and nine bathrooms. They total 14,400 square feet, and sit on 1.8 acres. He bought the property about a year after selling a smaller home in the Hollywood Hills.Amenities include a home theater, gym, and a 10-plus car garage around the main house. Out back there is the large swimming pool, patio area, lawns, and the guest house.Hidden Hills has seen a lot of investment this year. Kris Jenner and daughter Khloe Kardashian bought neighboring mansions there this fall.Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner, also bought a property there this year. Miley Cyrus paid $5 million in an off-market deal for a home in the neighborhood. Lori Loughlin and Mossimo Giannulli, who were convicted in the college admissions scandal, also bought a home there for $9.5 million this year. [Variety] — Dennis Lynch Tags220 Central Park SouthHidden HillsLA luxury listingsVornado Realty Trust Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink Share via Shortlink
Share via Shortlink Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare via Email Share via Shortlink TagsAby Rosengramercy parkGramercy Park HotelHotelsRFR Realty The Gramercy Park Hotel at 2 Lexington Avenue and Aby Rosen of RFR Holding (Getty; Google Maps)The latest visit paid to the Gramercy Park Hotel was from the debt collector.Aby Rosen’s RFR Holding, which owns the swanky hotel, is behind on $900,000 in ground lease payments, according to Artnet. A notice on the hotel’s door states that if Rosen does not pay by Dec. 28, his hotel could face eviction.Rosen only owns the hotel, which before the pandemic was a go-to spot for art and fashion events. The estate of Sol Goldman owns the land underneath, which Rosen pays $5.3 million per year to lease.Read moreAby Rosen is bringing back the Chrysler Building’s observation deckAby Rosen buys Midtown office building for $350MAby Rosen, Michael Fuchs back new retail brokerage The notice is signed by Louisa Little, an administrator at Solil Management, the company that represents Sol Goldman’s estate. Goldman was one of Manhattan’s largest landlords and at one period owned nearly 1,900 separate parcels, according to ArtNet.Rosen bought the hotel with longtime friend hotelier Ian Schrager in 2003. The two redeveloped the property, and Rosen took full ownership in 2010.The hotel had closed its doors to guests at the onset of the pandemic, but Rosen recently said he offered his employees who live in the suburbs the opportunity to stay there to avoid commuting to the office.“I told everybody, ‘Guys, you want to stay Tuesday night or Wednesday? Be my guest. Breakfast is at 9. Then show up at the office when you feel like it,’ ” Rosen told Bloomberg News.Hotels have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic. About 80 percent of hotel properties tied to the commercial mortgage-backed securities market are showing signs of distress, according to recent figures from Trepp.[Artnet] — Keith Larsen