Order by:

Feb

14

The pitfalls of an office romance

 

According to John Paul Young, love is in the air. In fact, it’s everywhere you look around, now I don’t know if I’m being foolish, I don’t think I’m being wise, but it’s something that I must believe in, and it’s there when I look in your eyes.

Although, try not to look in someone’s eyes too long and hard or you could be facing disciplinary action.

Relationships in the workplace can be a glorious thing, and often the reason you arrive at work so cheery. There are many examples of couples who have made working together look easy. Brad and Angelina, Sonny and Cher, and Donald and Melania Trump… wait…

But what happens when the bubble bursts and the former lovebirds are left crying into their cup a soup at lunch?

We’ve put together a handy guide to avoid the pitfalls of cupid’s arrow during your 9-5 day.

Put it in writing  

Perhaps the simplest tip we can suggest is to create a policy around relationships in the workplace. Simply ignoring it and thinking you’ll cross the bridge when you get to it can leave you in the middle of an emotional battlefield. No one wants to be Danny DeVito in between Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner in War of the Roses.

The idea here is to create a nice balance between protecting the interests of the business but also the employee’s personal life. Typically, the policy will allow relationships in the workplace provided it does not interfere with their work or conduct.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder and the work run smoother

In the event that a workplace romance does impact on workload it is important to put in place a contingency where an employee can be moved to another department. This reduces the risk of misconduct and refocuses employees.

Sweet talk

Ban it outright. No exceptions.

50 shades of ‘stop it’

Public displays of affection have their place, but the workplace probably isn’t one of them. While lust is an important aspect of any relationship, no one wants to see a love scene while eating their lunch. Make clear your expectations of conduct within the office and act accordingly if the rules are broken.

Asking couples in work to refrain from kissing can be awkward, but by nipping it in the bud early you’re saving the rest of the staff from feeling awkward in the future.

Think before you flirt

One of the biggest issues for relationships in the workplace is when a senior member of staff begins a courtship with a junior member of the team. For example, a team leader in a call centre in a relationship with a call handler over whom they hold a certain amount of sway. This may cause distress for other members of the team and could lead to accusations of favouritism.

The same rule for all

It goes without saying, but all relationships must be treated equally; i.e. same sex couples should be entitled to the same freedoms within the workplace that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Going underground

Banning relationships in the workplace outright could force employees to take their romance underground. While this doesn’t seem like a bad idea overall, it can create an air of deceit that could sully other areas of the business.

The inevitable break-up

More awkward than Christmas with Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, the office break-up can be a nightmare for anyone in the wake of destruction. One possible way to mitigate any potential fallout is to include a section within the relationship policy that requires HR to be notified if a workplace relationship has broken down.

This gives HR the ability to get ahead of the situation and make any possible adjustments to help alleviate any potential issues. It also provides an opportunity for HR to remind the employees about what is expected of their behaviour and to act accordingly.

If you need help to prepare a relationship policy, contact us today on 0161 603 2156 or email info@opsium.co.uk


Posted by: Opsium Marketing
View more by: Opsium Marketing Back to top

Feb

13

New mums are off limits

 

Ministers have proposed protecting new mothers who return to work from dismissal within six months.

Following a report from the women and equalities committee, 11% of new mothers reported being dismissed, made redundant or being treated so poorly that they have wanted to leave their job.

German ingenuity

Ministers have suggested we should follow the German system, where women can’t be made redundant within four months of returning to their role, although under special circumstances a business could appeal this to a higher authority.

Business minister, Margot James, said:

‘We are determined to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination and a key part of that is making sure new and expectant mothers are supported and treated fairly by their employers.

While most businesses abide by the law, some do not. There should be zero tolerance of discrimination against pregnant women or women who have just given birth, that’s why today we are committing to making sure new and expectant mothers have sufficient protections from redundancy.’ 

Criticism

The Government’s stance was criticised by the women and equalities committee chairman, Maria Miller, who said:

‘New protections are needed, particularly for women who have casual or zero hours employment arrangements, for ensuring that risks in the workplace for pregnant women are addressed, and for guarding against discriminatory redundancies.’

Going forward

Just how the Government aims to enforce their zero tolerance stance against businesses who do discriminate against new and expectant mothers remains to be seen. Do you think protecting mothers for a minimum of six months is enough or do you think it should be longer/ shorter?

You can join the debate on Facebook or Twitter using #MothersRights


Posted by: Opsium Marketing
View more by: Opsium Marketing Back to top

Feb

07

Dress code discrimination

 

Commons’ committee call for review following damning evidence of sexist dress code instructions placed on women.

A recent parliamentary report has highlighted that women are still being forced to wear high heels, makeup or revealing outfits to satisfy archaic dress codes that are in desperate need of review.

The findings of the report contradict reassurances made by the prime minister, Theresa May, back in 2011 when she dismissed concerns over dress codes saying:

“Traditional gender-based workplace dress codes […] encourage a sense of professionalism in the workplace.”

Nicola Thorp

The need for a report was confirmed following the treatment of Nicola Thorp a receptionist who reported for work at PwC only to be sent home again following her refusal to purchase a pair of high heels.

The case was widely reported, with reception services provider Portico, who had sent Thorp to PwC, criticised for their strict dress code.  Portico has since seen their dress code leaked and people were shocked by the level of detail they go into. Below is an example of the dress code:

Hair – want to see:

  • Regularly maintained hair colour (if individual colours hair) with no visible roots

Hair – don’t want to see:

  • Greasy, wet, or highly gelled
  • Flowers worn as accessories
  • Visible root growth

Makeup – want to see:

  • Light blusher
  • Lipstick or tinted gloss
  • Mascara
  • Eye shadow
  • Light foundation/powder

Makeup – don’t want to see:

  • No make-up at all
  • Shiny faces
  • Sparkle/glitter

Shoes – want to see:

  • Heel height normally a minimum of two inches and maximum of four inches, unless otherwise agreed by the company.

Shoes – don’t want to see:

  • Slingback or open-toe shoes
  • Shoes with ankle straps
  • Suede or patent shoes
  • Loafer or ballet pump style shoes
  • Shoes with gold/silver buckles, straps or bows
  • Wedges
  • Sandals

Shortly afterwards, Thorp launched a petition calling for law firms to stop requiring women to wear high heels at work. The petition attracted over 150,000 signatures and consequently resulted in the women and equalities committee and the petitions committee to invite other examples of dress code discrimination.

The parliamentary report has since ruled that hundreds of women have faced discrimination by being forced to comply with archaic dress codes which the report described as troubling and evidence that the Equalities Act 2010 is not adequately protecting workers. The report said:

“We heard from hundreds of women who told us about the pain and long-term damage caused by wearing high heels for long periods in the workplace, as well as from women who had been required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to constantly re-apply makeup.

“The Government has said that the existing law is clear, and that the dress code that prompted this petition is already unlawful. Nevertheless, discriminatory dress codes remain widespread.

“It is therefore clear that the existing law is not yet fully effective in protecting employees from discrimination at work. We call on the Government to review this area of law.”

The Fawcett Society, the UK’s leading charity campaigning for gender equality and women’s rights, said:

“There have been statements from women expressing that being asked to look ‘sexy’ in the workplace leads to the uncomfortable realisation that the business they work for is profiting from their bodies.”

This sends out a clear message that appearance is valued more than a person’s experience or skillset.

Uncertainty

There is a certain amount of uncertainty surrounding the Equality Act when it pertains to makeup, with no clear outline for what is and is not considered discrimination. One example given to the committees was a casino worker who was asked to carry a makeup bag with her during the day to ensure she can reapply at regular intervals.

Another area of uncertainty is the LGBT community, with certain dress codes reinforcing stereotypes that could make them feel uncomfortable.

Is this an overreaction?

Perhaps the concern that a segment of people could feel uncomfortable by a dress code is political correctness gone mad, although it’s more likely that certain opinions have yet to catch up with the rest of the world.

For years, women have been made to be the object of lust in the workplace. Whether you’re watching Maggie Gyllenhaal play an overly sexualised PA in The Secretary or Christina Hendricks playing a busty office manager in the hit TV series Mad Men, the focus is clearly on their bodies and the effect it has on the men around them. While you could forgive Mad Men for their misogynistic take on the office manager, it was based in the ‘60s after all; it does depict a time and attitude that has clearly moved on.

While certain roles within an organisation require employees to ‘dress to impress’, it Is indefensible the level of control a company like Portico hold over their female employees. Whether there is a similar dress code for men that requires a tie, polished shoes, manicured nails and a strategically placed handkerchief, remains to be seen.

Regardless, it is frustrating to still be discussing sexist dress codes that discriminate and force a level of discomfort on employees. The reality is that a well thought out dress code protects a business’ reputation and brand, ensuring that employees are comfortable, yet able to accurately represent their employer in a well maintained and professional manner.

If you would like to speak us to review your dress code or provide guidance on the correct way to enforce one, contact Opsium Employer Support today.


Posted by: Opsium Marketing
View more by: Opsium Marketing Back to top

Feb

07

Top five employment law changes for 2017

 

Five employment law changes to look out for in 2017

With 2016 now a mere memory for most it’s time to start panicking about the employment law changes you’ve known about for a year but left till the last minute. So in no particular order, we’ve put together the top five employment law changes you need to be thinking about in 2017.

Gender pay gap

If you work in an organisation that employs more than 250 individuals and you’re in the private, public or voluntary sector you will soon be required to publish information on the gender pay gap in your workplace.

Information must include standard pay and any bonuses and also the number of male and female workers within each quartile of the organisation’s pay structure.

While regulations have yet to be finalised, the deadline for the first report is April 2018 meaning 2017 is the year to get your affairs in order.

Salary sacrifice takes a hit

With a number of salary sacrifice schemes being abolished in April 2017 employers will need to take a closer look at their tax saving options. Mobile phones, gym memberships, accommodation, school fees and white goods will no longer be eligible, although pensions, childcare and cycle-to-work schemes are exempt.

If you have a scheme that has been in place prior to April 2017, it will be protected until 2018, while those relating to cars, accommodation and school fees are protected until 2021.

The move is expected to cost employees and employers £85m in 2017/18 and over the next six years will generate an additional £1bn in tax.

National minimum wage changes

From April 2017, the national minimum wage will increase by 4% to £7.50 an hour for 25s and over. The increase is part of the proposed plans to implement a national living wage, which will be £9 an hour by 2020.

The increase is expected to put an extra £600 in the pockets of over 25s although experts including Hannah Maundrell, editor in chief of Money.co.uk, have expressed concerns that it still isn’t enough for families to maintain a good standard of living.

Apprenticeship levy being introduced

From April 2017, employers with an annual payroll of more than £3m will be required to pay a 0.5% levy on their total bill to invest in apprenticeships. Those with annual wages lower than £3m will be able to take advantage of Government supplements for training apprentices.

The Government will top up 10% to the levy sum each month, which employers in England will gain access to through an account with the Digital Apprenticeship Service. Employers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have separate arrangements put into place.

With the Government eager to train 3m apprentices by 2020, you will begin to see a big push for employers to take part in all areas of the scheme.

Brexit

Prime Minister Theresa May announced that she intends to trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017, although with the recent Supreme Court decision that a parliamentary vote must be passed before Article 50 can be invoked, that date may be a little optimistic.

Many UK employment rights derive from EU law and while current laws are not at risk of change anytime soon, the future of employment rights certainly could be.

Until we have a clear vision of the landscape post-Brexit, the chance of Britain moving away from EU laws and regulations is still very much up in the air.

Other things to look out for

Holiday pay

One case employers need to keep an eye on is the Lock V British Gas case in regards to whether holiday pay should include contractual results based commission. This has gone back and forth for several years now with British Gas launching the latest appeal to the Supreme Court. A judgement is expected sometime in 2017 and considering the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling against British Gas, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will uphold the appeal.

Ban on Muslim headscarves

There are currently two cases pending a decision by the ECJ on whether the banning of Muslim headscarves in the workplace amounts to direct discrimination.

A decision is expected soon and could cause huge waves for all involved.

Changes to rules for employing foreign workers

Employers who sponsor foreign workers will be required to pay an immigration skills charge of £1,000 per worker, or £364 for small employers and charities, from April 2017. These will be in addition to the current fees for visa applications.

If you would like to know more about these changes or any others that are on the horizon, contact Opsium Employer Support today.


Posted by: Opsium Marketing
View more by: Opsium Marketing Back to top

Dec

15

The average cost of loss

The backbone of any great SME is the employees. Hardworking, dedicated, loyal, the holy trinity of employee traits. But when that shining example decides to up sticks and moves to a new role, the cost could be much higher than you can stomach.

According to new research by AXA PPP Healthcare, the average cost of replacing an employee is £30,000. No, you didn’t squint, that’s thirty thousand pounds, sterling. While the pound may be on life support, the numbers add up.

SME bosses claim that recruitment costs, training and lost productivity are increasing the average cost of replacing an employee. That’s why UK SMEs are predicting that 2017 will be the year of retention with 35% of employers surveyed focusing on work/life balance, 21% offering more flexibility in the role and 19% investing in better procurement practices to save costs.

Speaking about the results of the survey, Paul Moulton, intermediary distribution director for AXA PPP Healthcare, said:

"Getting and keeping talented people is an essential part of running a successful business. It's encouraging that SMEs acknowledge the importance of employee work/life balance as creating a positive environment where workers can flourish is, undoubtedly, key to building and maintaining a motivated, loyal workforce - and safeguarding a business from the risk of losing valuable people.

"It's also promising that so many SMEs say they are expecting to grow their workforce in 2017 as this should present intermediaries with an opportunity to further support their clients' growing businesses."

While the comments paint a picture of a rosy 2017 for SMEs and employees alike, with 24% of those surveyed looking to hire three to five people in the new year, that could all be set to change in the new year with an increase to the national living wage and minimum wage.

With auto-enrolment increases, apprenticeship levy and the recent changes to holiday pay, businesses are going to have to tighten their belts and find savings where they can, and with Brexit expected to further shape the business landscape in 2017, SMEs would be remiss to plan too far ahead. Instead, the aim must be on steadying the ship and bolstering departments when and if needed.


Posted by: Opsium Marketing
View more by: Opsium Marketing Back to top
Page 3 of 18

Employer Protect

Expert HR advice and assistance when you need it, coupled with insurance cover for your legal costs and awards

Find out more

How we can help

Opsium provide the advice, guidance and practical tools you need for a happy, motivated workforce

Find out more