The Department for Children Schools and Family has recently produced a very useful guide on Employing Children covering everything that you need to know including the types of work that children can and cannot do, the numbers of hours they can work, how the rules differ for work experience and health and safety requirements.
The guide can be found at http://publications.everychildmatters.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/Child_employment09.pdf
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
A virtual Human Resources consultancy, combining the expert know-how of experienced HR professionals backed up with specialist employment law advice from its sister company, Loch Associates. Specifically designed for businesses to tap into professional HR expertise and assistance when needed, HRAdviseMe™ is a completely flexible service tailored to suit your HR needs and business model.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Lord Turner's taxing bonus dilemma comes with a twist
This article was written by Pam Loch and appeared on the Wealthnet on 2 September 2009
Bonuses again hit the headlines last week with Lord Turner, the head of the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) entering the debate. Controversially he has been quoted backing the introduction of taxes to curb bonus payments.
Was he misquoted or was Lord Turner suggesting a tax in the UK would control bonuses and restore trust in the financial sector? If so, what would be the implications for businesses in the UK trying to attract and retain talented employees in the future?
The Tobin Connection
Lord Turner was alleged to be backing a tax which became known as the Tobin tax after the economist James Tobin. Suggested as a way to prevent speculative trading in the 1970’s, the tax has continually been resisted by the financial sector.
The Tobin tax operated by imposing a tax on international transactions. Lord Turner was quoted as being “happy to consider taxes on financial transactions”. This has been greeted with horror by businesses concerned about the impact it could have on businesses in the UK engaging in international transactions.
Employees working in those businesses would be affected with their potential earnings being reduced as a result.
With signs of UK and global recovery, employers who have already reduced staffing levels are keen to retain their employees. Employers in a still fragile UK market therefore are rightly concerned about the impact such a tax could have on their employees’ earning capacity.
The Twist
In a television interview with Sky News however Lord Turner tells a slightly different version of events. He recognises that there may remain concerns amongst the general public about bonuses being paid for work that may not be “socially valuable work”. However if that is the case, the FSA as a regulator cannot control bonus levels. His original point was that if there is a concern then there is a choice to be made. Either;
1. Impose capital adequacy limits that increase the amount of reserves that have to be retained so that there is less profit to distribute as bonuses, or
2. Introduce a tax like the Tobin tax that would achieve a similar goal of reducing the funds available to pay employees.
The FSA cannot introduce legislation but Lord Turner did make an important point that any changes to the UK system should not be made isolation. Specifically an international agreement would be necessary. A sigh of relief? There is no doubt that the subject of bonuses is now a highly sensitive and emotive subject. The reality though is that most employers want to ensure they incentivise their staff to perform to the best of their ability and bonuses remain a key part in achieving this. Bonus arrangements have become an increasingly common element of remuneration packages to motivate and incentivise employees - a lawful performance enhancer.
If bonus arrangements have been designed well then they should incentivise the employee and the employer should benefit from their good performance. Many will argue that this is a matter between the employer and the employee as the businesses involved are private entities.
Of course a dilemma arises where the businesses are partially “owned” by the UK Government or where the actions of the employees to achieve their bonuses could have an adverse affect on the UK economy. Thrown into the pot is the tax successful businesses and employees pay on their bonuses to the UK treasury.
Directly limiting bonuses would be difficult and problematical. The UK Government would in effect have to introduce legislation that would impose a new contractual clause to override any express bonus entitlements in contracts of employment. The legislation would somehow also have to deal with discretionary bonuses in addition to contractual ones.
It would also have to provide some form of “immunity” to employers from being sued for breach of contract by their employees for non-payment of their full bonus entitlement based on their contract of employment. Then there is the question of retaining those employees and rewarding them.
The Future is …. ?
With all the potential difficulties that can derive from limiting bonuses by direct intervention in the employer/employee relationship, it is more likely that the UK Government will prefer the alternatives mooted by Lord Turner. If the UK Government acts alone however the negative impact on businesses and crucially on their ability to retain the best employees, is likely to be very significant.
With concerns remaining though about bonus levels, it will remain a topic high on the agenda in the UK and global arena too. A global response should not necessarily be ruled out. Employers therefore should not ignore the possibility that alternatives to bonuses may be the way forward to avoid intervention in their businesses and consider identifying other ways to incentivise and reward their employees.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Bonuses again hit the headlines last week with Lord Turner, the head of the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) entering the debate. Controversially he has been quoted backing the introduction of taxes to curb bonus payments.
Was he misquoted or was Lord Turner suggesting a tax in the UK would control bonuses and restore trust in the financial sector? If so, what would be the implications for businesses in the UK trying to attract and retain talented employees in the future?
The Tobin Connection
Lord Turner was alleged to be backing a tax which became known as the Tobin tax after the economist James Tobin. Suggested as a way to prevent speculative trading in the 1970’s, the tax has continually been resisted by the financial sector.
The Tobin tax operated by imposing a tax on international transactions. Lord Turner was quoted as being “happy to consider taxes on financial transactions”. This has been greeted with horror by businesses concerned about the impact it could have on businesses in the UK engaging in international transactions.
Employees working in those businesses would be affected with their potential earnings being reduced as a result.
With signs of UK and global recovery, employers who have already reduced staffing levels are keen to retain their employees. Employers in a still fragile UK market therefore are rightly concerned about the impact such a tax could have on their employees’ earning capacity.
The Twist
In a television interview with Sky News however Lord Turner tells a slightly different version of events. He recognises that there may remain concerns amongst the general public about bonuses being paid for work that may not be “socially valuable work”. However if that is the case, the FSA as a regulator cannot control bonus levels. His original point was that if there is a concern then there is a choice to be made. Either;
1. Impose capital adequacy limits that increase the amount of reserves that have to be retained so that there is less profit to distribute as bonuses, or
2. Introduce a tax like the Tobin tax that would achieve a similar goal of reducing the funds available to pay employees.
The FSA cannot introduce legislation but Lord Turner did make an important point that any changes to the UK system should not be made isolation. Specifically an international agreement would be necessary. A sigh of relief? There is no doubt that the subject of bonuses is now a highly sensitive and emotive subject. The reality though is that most employers want to ensure they incentivise their staff to perform to the best of their ability and bonuses remain a key part in achieving this. Bonus arrangements have become an increasingly common element of remuneration packages to motivate and incentivise employees - a lawful performance enhancer.
If bonus arrangements have been designed well then they should incentivise the employee and the employer should benefit from their good performance. Many will argue that this is a matter between the employer and the employee as the businesses involved are private entities.
Of course a dilemma arises where the businesses are partially “owned” by the UK Government or where the actions of the employees to achieve their bonuses could have an adverse affect on the UK economy. Thrown into the pot is the tax successful businesses and employees pay on their bonuses to the UK treasury.
Directly limiting bonuses would be difficult and problematical. The UK Government would in effect have to introduce legislation that would impose a new contractual clause to override any express bonus entitlements in contracts of employment. The legislation would somehow also have to deal with discretionary bonuses in addition to contractual ones.
It would also have to provide some form of “immunity” to employers from being sued for breach of contract by their employees for non-payment of their full bonus entitlement based on their contract of employment. Then there is the question of retaining those employees and rewarding them.
The Future is …. ?
With all the potential difficulties that can derive from limiting bonuses by direct intervention in the employer/employee relationship, it is more likely that the UK Government will prefer the alternatives mooted by Lord Turner. If the UK Government acts alone however the negative impact on businesses and crucially on their ability to retain the best employees, is likely to be very significant.
With concerns remaining though about bonus levels, it will remain a topic high on the agenda in the UK and global arena too. A global response should not necessarily be ruled out. Employers therefore should not ignore the possibility that alternatives to bonuses may be the way forward to avoid intervention in their businesses and consider identifying other ways to incentivise and reward their employees.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Friday, August 14, 2009
HMRC action over the taxation of temporary workers
HMRC has published concerns that organisations supplying temporary workers are creating overarching employment contracts so that temporary workers can claim tax relief for travel and subsistence expenses. To deal with this it plans to carry out a detailed investigation into the concerns and challenges will be made where organisations are considered to be non-compliant.
HMRC also warns that measures to prevent abuses of the system may be introduced. Employers should therefore review their current processes.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
HMRC also warns that measures to prevent abuses of the system may be introduced. Employers should therefore review their current processes.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Job Interviews: Careless talk costs your business - HR Zone 30 July 2009
This article was written by Pam Loch and Chloe Pereira
Many managers carrying out interviews focus not only on the skills of the candidate concerned, but also on their 'fit' for the business. Will they get on with existing employees? Do they fit with the traditional/trendy culture of the company? Will they easily adapt to the demands of working additional hours when required?
Some managers may not appreciate that the questions they ask are unlawful. Indeed, research by RecruitSure.com indicates that over a third of interviewers ask illegal questions at interview, exposing their businesses to potential claims.
Employment legislation provides protection for candidates during the recruitment process, including at interview. Candidates have the right not to be discriminated against for any of the prohibited reasons, which includes sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability.
Avoiding liability – the basic approach
Clearly managers should be provided with training on discrimination legislation and the types of questions which must be avoided. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are set out by legislation and there are obvious pitfalls which can be avoided, for example, 'how old are you'?
However, employers should also consider the questions managers may ask which do not so obviously fall under the legislation, but could be considered to be discriminatory. For example, 'how many years experience do you have in the industry'? Whilst this may seem like a perfectly reasonable question, and the motive behind asking it could be argued as being completely legitimate, it can be discriminatory on the grounds of age. Managers should be made aware that the intention behind their question won’t necessarily matter if the question itself could be interpreted as being directly or indirectly discriminatory.
A simple way to avoid this is to ensure the manager prepares all the questions they may wish to ask in advance. Each question can be carefully considered and structured, with the support of HR if required, to avoid unintentional discrimination.
Managers should also be very careful about the notes they take at interviews. Even comments to jog the memory later could be considered discriminatory, for example, 'nice young girl wearing red blouse and skirt'. Such a note may have been made as an aide memoire so the interviewer will be able to recall the candidate when reviewing his notes. However, if that candidate didn’t get the job, or if she did and another unsuccessful older male candidate suspected it was because of her/his age or sex, these records will not look good for the employer.
Although training may stop managers asking illegal questions, it will not necessarily stop them from forming their own opinions and making a decision based on discriminatory reasons. For example, a manager interviewing a female candidate notices that she is wearing an engagement ring. The manager knows he must not ask the candidate about this as he could potentially risk her bringing a claim for sex discrimination. He doesn’t expose the company by asking the candidate an illegal question, but he does decide not to offer her a second interview. He comes up with a seemingly legitimate reason, such as arguing that another candidate is more qualified.
Actually the manager has made his decision based on the assumption that the candidate is marrying and will therefore be looking to start a family soon: if he hired her she would soon be off on maternity leave.
Avoiding liability – the complete solution
In order for employers to ensure that their managers are not making discriminatory recruitment decisions, much more effort and thought needs to go into changing perception – not just practice. Employers need to educate interviewers so that they understand, for example, that 'trendy' doesn’t necessarily equal 'young', and that women make just as good employees as their male counterparts.
As well as having the appropriate mindset and asking the right questions, there are additional interview techniques which could help. Psychometric testing for example can indicate whether the candidate has the types of characteristics which will 'fit' in with the business model. For example, asking the candidate to talk about particular achievements in previous roles, rather than concentrating on her number of years experience, will help to focus the interviewer’s mind in the right direction.
The future of recruitment
Forming opinions based on subconscious perceptions will undoubtedly always form an unavoidable part of the recruitment process, but with a society and legislature continuously moving toward equality, a much more comprehensive recruitment process is likely to become part of the norm. The more thorough and considered the process, the less chance there is of not only facing claims for discrimination, but of missing out on valuable talent in potential employees which may otherwise have been discounted for illegitimate and irrelevant reasons.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Many managers carrying out interviews focus not only on the skills of the candidate concerned, but also on their 'fit' for the business. Will they get on with existing employees? Do they fit with the traditional/trendy culture of the company? Will they easily adapt to the demands of working additional hours when required?
Some managers may not appreciate that the questions they ask are unlawful. Indeed, research by RecruitSure.com indicates that over a third of interviewers ask illegal questions at interview, exposing their businesses to potential claims.
Employment legislation provides protection for candidates during the recruitment process, including at interview. Candidates have the right not to be discriminated against for any of the prohibited reasons, which includes sex, race, religion, age, sexual orientation and disability.
Avoiding liability – the basic approach
Clearly managers should be provided with training on discrimination legislation and the types of questions which must be avoided. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are set out by legislation and there are obvious pitfalls which can be avoided, for example, 'how old are you'?
However, employers should also consider the questions managers may ask which do not so obviously fall under the legislation, but could be considered to be discriminatory. For example, 'how many years experience do you have in the industry'? Whilst this may seem like a perfectly reasonable question, and the motive behind asking it could be argued as being completely legitimate, it can be discriminatory on the grounds of age. Managers should be made aware that the intention behind their question won’t necessarily matter if the question itself could be interpreted as being directly or indirectly discriminatory.
A simple way to avoid this is to ensure the manager prepares all the questions they may wish to ask in advance. Each question can be carefully considered and structured, with the support of HR if required, to avoid unintentional discrimination.
Managers should also be very careful about the notes they take at interviews. Even comments to jog the memory later could be considered discriminatory, for example, 'nice young girl wearing red blouse and skirt'. Such a note may have been made as an aide memoire so the interviewer will be able to recall the candidate when reviewing his notes. However, if that candidate didn’t get the job, or if she did and another unsuccessful older male candidate suspected it was because of her/his age or sex, these records will not look good for the employer.
Although training may stop managers asking illegal questions, it will not necessarily stop them from forming their own opinions and making a decision based on discriminatory reasons. For example, a manager interviewing a female candidate notices that she is wearing an engagement ring. The manager knows he must not ask the candidate about this as he could potentially risk her bringing a claim for sex discrimination. He doesn’t expose the company by asking the candidate an illegal question, but he does decide not to offer her a second interview. He comes up with a seemingly legitimate reason, such as arguing that another candidate is more qualified.
Actually the manager has made his decision based on the assumption that the candidate is marrying and will therefore be looking to start a family soon: if he hired her she would soon be off on maternity leave.
Avoiding liability – the complete solution
In order for employers to ensure that their managers are not making discriminatory recruitment decisions, much more effort and thought needs to go into changing perception – not just practice. Employers need to educate interviewers so that they understand, for example, that 'trendy' doesn’t necessarily equal 'young', and that women make just as good employees as their male counterparts.
As well as having the appropriate mindset and asking the right questions, there are additional interview techniques which could help. Psychometric testing for example can indicate whether the candidate has the types of characteristics which will 'fit' in with the business model. For example, asking the candidate to talk about particular achievements in previous roles, rather than concentrating on her number of years experience, will help to focus the interviewer’s mind in the right direction.
The future of recruitment
Forming opinions based on subconscious perceptions will undoubtedly always form an unavoidable part of the recruitment process, but with a society and legislature continuously moving toward equality, a much more comprehensive recruitment process is likely to become part of the norm. The more thorough and considered the process, the less chance there is of not only facing claims for discrimination, but of missing out on valuable talent in potential employees which may otherwise have been discounted for illegitimate and irrelevant reasons.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Thursday, July 23, 2009
2 weeks self-certification for sickness absence imminent ?
Employees could soon be able to self-certify their sickness absence for 14 days instead of 7 days.
The Government is considering the change in response to the number of workers being diagnosed with swine flu.
This step could free up medical resources and perhaps even prevent a spread of swine flu in GP surgeries. If put in place the change could last up to six-months with no advance consultation with employers before implementation.
Currently, employees can self-certify for up to seven days of sickness absence and then they must produce a certificate from their GP to cover any further periods of sickness absence.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
The Government is considering the change in response to the number of workers being diagnosed with swine flu.
This step could free up medical resources and perhaps even prevent a spread of swine flu in GP surgeries. If put in place the change could last up to six-months with no advance consultation with employers before implementation.
Currently, employees can self-certify for up to seven days of sickness absence and then they must produce a certificate from their GP to cover any further periods of sickness absence.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Thursday, July 16, 2009
BERR and DIUS merger: Implications for employers - HR Zone 14 July 2009
This article was written by Pam Loch and Wendy Hayes and appeared on the HRZone website on 14 July 2009
Just two years after it was created, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was scrapped last month in favour of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Pam Loch and Wendy Hayes discuss whether employers are right to be sceptical.
Last month, in yet another revamp by the government, the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) were merged together to become the new Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS).
Only a few years ago, BERR superseded its predecessor, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) although many still refer to it as the DTI to this day. However, the warm welcome to the latest proposal that had been hoped for has not been forthcoming. In the middle of a potentially deep recession, there have been raised eyebrows and questions asked as to the benefit of such a merger and the merit of additional costs being incurred to implement it. Many businesses are also sceptical about the impact of the merger. So, are businesses correct to question the merit of this merger?
The rationale for change
One of the key aims of the creation of BIS is to improve global competitiveness. In the employment arena it plans to do this by providing better employment opportunities and better skills and training.
Unlike BERR and DIUS, the BIS remit will be to focus on current and developing global issues which the recession has highlighted as a major factor in the UK economy. It will also be responsible for the development of higher and further education and the government’s ambitious plans to expand apprenticeships. Yet some employment experts warn that the merger will further complicate the skills system, which many employers say is already too confusing.
When BERR replaced the DTI it was estimated that it cost just over £200,000. It is likely the costs will be more significant this time around and there has been much criticism of the decision by the government to incur additional costs like this at the expense of the taxpayer.There is of course additional costs for businesses. As well as management having to spend time working out what the changes will mean for their business, there is also a tangible cost to take on board. Some businesses will have to incur direct costs as they may have to spend considerable sums of money reprinting and changing their documentation to reflect the new position. With very few businesses aware of the rationale for the change and unable to recognise the immediate benefits in the middle of a recession, the government has been heavily criticised. It is unclear why the government has decided to embark on yet another reorganisation, spending more money on a merger that does not appear to offer significant improvements for most businesses.
The employer’s perspective
On the plus side however, it is hoped that the merger will help to build the UK’s economy by developing businesses which will in time increase recruitment opportunities.
The government’s key aid to achieving this is a training and development tool called 'Train to Gain'. It is designed to play a key role by focusing on providing aid to businesses which allows employers to receive up to £1,000 towards recruitment costs when they take on a jobseeker who has been out of work for over six months.
Most employers have reduced their funding on training and this is clearly a symptom of the current financial climate. This is exacerbated by the fact that many employers are less likely to recruit and are more likely to be reducing their headcount during a recession. The result is a much reduced requirement for training. Going forward though, the government believes it is crucial to continue to train employees to ensure the businesses remain competitive going forward. To encourage this investment, employers will now have access to training support via BIS.
Time will tell as to whether the merger and the BIS offerings will encourage employers to recognise that in a tough economic environment, it’s important to maintain a competitive advantage and that 'skilling up' their workforce is one important tool to achieve that.
Conclusion
In the current financial climate, few would doubt that providing assistance to businesses and employees is essential. Combining the skills and strengths of BERR and DIUS could add up to a better way to try to ensure UK businesses can compete more effectively in a changing global economy.It's too early though to comment on exactly how the merger will impact on UK businesses. With a Labour government having pushed ahead with the merger at this stage, it’s also possible that a de-merger or more changes could be afoot if there is a change of government at the next election. It will be interesting to see what positive impact this merger can have before the next election, and if the next government will take a different view of what combines best. It may well be a case of watch this space.
©HRAdviseMe™ http://www.hradvise.me/ Email ask@hradvise.me
Just two years after it was created, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was scrapped last month in favour of the new Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Pam Loch and Wendy Hayes discuss whether employers are right to be sceptical.
Last month, in yet another revamp by the government, the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) were merged together to become the new Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS).
Only a few years ago, BERR superseded its predecessor, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) although many still refer to it as the DTI to this day. However, the warm welcome to the latest proposal that had been hoped for has not been forthcoming. In the middle of a potentially deep recession, there have been raised eyebrows and questions asked as to the benefit of such a merger and the merit of additional costs being incurred to implement it. Many businesses are also sceptical about the impact of the merger. So, are businesses correct to question the merit of this merger?
The rationale for change
One of the key aims of the creation of BIS is to improve global competitiveness. In the employment arena it plans to do this by providing better employment opportunities and better skills and training.
Unlike BERR and DIUS, the BIS remit will be to focus on current and developing global issues which the recession has highlighted as a major factor in the UK economy. It will also be responsible for the development of higher and further education and the government’s ambitious plans to expand apprenticeships. Yet some employment experts warn that the merger will further complicate the skills system, which many employers say is already too confusing.
When BERR replaced the DTI it was estimated that it cost just over £200,000. It is likely the costs will be more significant this time around and there has been much criticism of the decision by the government to incur additional costs like this at the expense of the taxpayer.There is of course additional costs for businesses. As well as management having to spend time working out what the changes will mean for their business, there is also a tangible cost to take on board. Some businesses will have to incur direct costs as they may have to spend considerable sums of money reprinting and changing their documentation to reflect the new position. With very few businesses aware of the rationale for the change and unable to recognise the immediate benefits in the middle of a recession, the government has been heavily criticised. It is unclear why the government has decided to embark on yet another reorganisation, spending more money on a merger that does not appear to offer significant improvements for most businesses.
The employer’s perspective
On the plus side however, it is hoped that the merger will help to build the UK’s economy by developing businesses which will in time increase recruitment opportunities.
The government’s key aid to achieving this is a training and development tool called 'Train to Gain'. It is designed to play a key role by focusing on providing aid to businesses which allows employers to receive up to £1,000 towards recruitment costs when they take on a jobseeker who has been out of work for over six months.
Most employers have reduced their funding on training and this is clearly a symptom of the current financial climate. This is exacerbated by the fact that many employers are less likely to recruit and are more likely to be reducing their headcount during a recession. The result is a much reduced requirement for training. Going forward though, the government believes it is crucial to continue to train employees to ensure the businesses remain competitive going forward. To encourage this investment, employers will now have access to training support via BIS.
Time will tell as to whether the merger and the BIS offerings will encourage employers to recognise that in a tough economic environment, it’s important to maintain a competitive advantage and that 'skilling up' their workforce is one important tool to achieve that.
Conclusion
In the current financial climate, few would doubt that providing assistance to businesses and employees is essential. Combining the skills and strengths of BERR and DIUS could add up to a better way to try to ensure UK businesses can compete more effectively in a changing global economy.It's too early though to comment on exactly how the merger will impact on UK businesses. With a Labour government having pushed ahead with the merger at this stage, it’s also possible that a de-merger or more changes could be afoot if there is a change of government at the next election. It will be interesting to see what positive impact this merger can have before the next election, and if the next government will take a different view of what combines best. It may well be a case of watch this space.
©HRAdviseMe™ http://www.hradvise.me/ Email ask@hradvise.me
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Review of Default Retirement Age Brought Forward
The Government has announced in ‘Building society for ages’ that the review of the default retirement age will be brought forward from 2011 to 2010. This decision has been made to reflect the change in economic circumstances since the default age of 65 was introduced.
If a decision is made that the default retirement age is no longer necessary then the changes will not be implemented until 2011 to allow time for employers to review their retirement plans and for employees to consider their retirement options.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
If a decision is made that the default retirement age is no longer necessary then the changes will not be implemented until 2011 to allow time for employers to review their retirement plans and for employees to consider their retirement options.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Statutory redundancy pay increase
The current limit on a week’s pay for the purposes of calculating statutory redundancy payments is £350.
However, in light of the current economic pressures and rising number of redundancies, the Government has announced that a further increase, to £380 per week, will apply as of 1 October 2009. This limit will also apply to the calculation of other types of payment, such as the basic award for unfair dismissal.
Whilst employers may balk at the thought of the increased costs involved in streamlining their businesses, they can take comfort from the fact that the next increase won’t be until February 2011.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
However, in light of the current economic pressures and rising number of redundancies, the Government has announced that a further increase, to £380 per week, will apply as of 1 October 2009. This limit will also apply to the calculation of other types of payment, such as the basic award for unfair dismissal.
Whilst employers may balk at the thought of the increased costs involved in streamlining their businesses, they can take comfort from the fact that the next increase won’t be until February 2011.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Friday, May 29, 2009
Government aims to change “sick note” culture with new “fit note”
The new medical “fit note” has been unveiled by the Government for consultaion over the next 12 weeks.
Managing sickness is always a challenge for employers and it hasn’t been helped by the ‘sick note’ system which makes sickness a black and white issue i.e. you are either fit to work or you're not.
The “fit note” is designed to set out what an employee can do to enable them to stay at work or return as soon as possible.
The “fit note” should be implemented in Spring 2010.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Managing sickness is always a challenge for employers and it hasn’t been helped by the ‘sick note’ system which makes sickness a black and white issue i.e. you are either fit to work or you're not.
The “fit note” is designed to set out what an employee can do to enable them to stay at work or return as soon as possible.
The “fit note” should be implemented in Spring 2010.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Thursday, May 14, 2009
New National Minimum Wage Rates
From 1 October 2009 the adult minimum wage rate will increase from £5.73 an hour to £5.80. The Youth Development Rate (for workers aged 18 to 21) will rise from £4.77 to £4.83 and for 16-17 year olds will increase from £3.53 to £3.67 an hour. The Government has also announced that, from October 2010, they will be adopting the Low Pay Commission’s recommendation that 21 year olds be entitled to the adult rate.
Many businesses may have been hoping that the Government would adopt the British Chamber of Commerce’s proposal to freeze the minimum wage rates given the current economic climate. However, these modest increases will provide benefit to low income earners whilst having a relatively moderate impact on businesses.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Many businesses may have been hoping that the Government would adopt the British Chamber of Commerce’s proposal to freeze the minimum wage rates given the current economic climate. However, these modest increases will provide benefit to low income earners whilst having a relatively moderate impact on businesses.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
ECJ judgment on Heyday's age descrimination challenge
The ECJ has held that the UK's retirement provisions under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 do fall within the scope of the Equal Treatment Framework Directive. The High Court now has to decide whether the retirement of workers at the age of 65 is justified by a legitimate aim and if the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary.
This decision mirrors the Advocate General’s opinion delivered in September 2008 when he confirmed there is no requirement for national law to set out treatment that may be justified and that there was no difference in the Directive between the test for justification in respect of direct and indirect age discrimination.
Hopefully further clarity will follow in time.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
This decision mirrors the Advocate General’s opinion delivered in September 2008 when he confirmed there is no requirement for national law to set out treatment that may be justified and that there was no difference in the Directive between the test for justification in respect of direct and indirect age discrimination.
Hopefully further clarity will follow in time.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Penalties for Employers with National Minimum Wage arrears
From 6 April 2009 employers could receive an automatic penalty if HMRC find National Minimum Wage (NMW) arrears.
Penalties will range from £100 to £5,000 in addition to the arrears of pay owed to the employees. Employers who settle within 14 days of notification will receive a 50 per cent discount of the penalty for prompt payment. A serious offence could lead to a criminal sentence or an unlimited fine.
Investigating officers will be given increased powers including powers to remove the NMW records from an employer’s premises. They will also be able to remove complete records rather than having to determine which part relates to NMW.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
From 6 April 2009 employers could receive an automatic penalty if HMRC find National Minimum Wage (NMW) arrears.
Penalties will range from £100 to £5,000 in addition to the arrears of pay owed to the employees. Employers who settle within 14 days of notification will receive a 50 per cent discount of the penalty for prompt payment. A serious offence could lead to a criminal sentence or an unlimited fine.
Investigating officers will be given increased powers including powers to remove the NMW records from an employer’s premises. They will also be able to remove complete records rather than having to determine which part relates to NMW.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Friday, February 13, 2009
European Parliament Revisits UK's Opt Out
The European Commission has provided its opinion following the European Parliament’s proposal to abolish the opt out from the 48 hour week.
The move to abolish the opt out altogether has been rejected by the Commission as this is not permitted by the Working Time Directive in its current form. However the Commission is “supportive” of phasing this out over time.
The Commission also indicated that whilst there should not be an upper limit on the working hours for those who do opt out, further safeguards were necessary in order to protect those workers opting out.
Other amendments to the directive were considered including a review of the definition of working time and compensatory rest breaks.
It will be interesting to see how the European Parliament and Council address matters following the European Commission’s opinion.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Telephone 01892 773970
The move to abolish the opt out altogether has been rejected by the Commission as this is not permitted by the Working Time Directive in its current form. However the Commission is “supportive” of phasing this out over time.
The Commission also indicated that whilst there should not be an upper limit on the working hours for those who do opt out, further safeguards were necessary in order to protect those workers opting out.
Other amendments to the directive were considered including a review of the definition of working time and compensatory rest breaks.
It will be interesting to see how the European Parliament and Council address matters following the European Commission’s opinion.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Telephone 01892 773970
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
HMRC has published the new rates for statutory sick pay and statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay for 2009/10.
From April 2009:
The standard rate of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay will rise from GBP 117.18 to GBP 123.06 per week; and
The standard rate of statutory sick pay will rise from GBP 75.40 to GBP 79.15 per week.
The rates are subject to Parliamentary approval at this stage.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
The standard rate of statutory maternity, paternity and adoption pay will rise from GBP 117.18 to GBP 123.06 per week; and
The standard rate of statutory sick pay will rise from GBP 75.40 to GBP 79.15 per week.
The rates are subject to Parliamentary approval at this stage.
©HRAdviseMe™ www.hradvise.me Email ask@hradvise.me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)