HR Health Check

High Performance Consultancy have developed a HR Health Check to enable employers to review their HR Function.

HR Health Check

Please complete our online health check made up of a set of questions which have been specifically designed to evaluate all areas of your Human Resources.

Once we have received your answers we will provide you with feedback on your HR Function, which will include your strengths, weaknesses and a way forward.

If you wish to discuss any of the content then please do not hesitate to contact us on 0844 800 5932 or e-mail us at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

German employers set for new Facebook snooping law

A new law banning companies from using social networking sites like Facebook to vet potential new employees is being mulled over by the German Government, reigniting the debate on whether or not employers should snoop on employees’ private lives.

The German cabinet has endorsed the new legislation, which makes it illegal for firms to film employees and bans them from using private social media activity to vet future recruits, but it has yet to pass through parliament.

Under the proposals, online checks would not be completely out of bounds as employers could still conduct searches on applicants and reportedly be allowed to draw on any information in the public domain, including postings on professional networks such as LinkedIn.

German interior minister Thomas de Maiziere is quoted as saying: “Private social networks are private social networks and not gateways to gaining information on job applicants.”

A survey last year found that a quarter of employers worldwide are checking social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace for information about job candidates. The study by talent management consultancy DDI estimated that 12% of UK employers were checking out candidate profiles or photos before deciding whether or not to interview them.

Michael Rendell, head of HR services at professional service firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: “Employers in any jurisdiction need to tread carefully to avoid accusations of snooping on staff. While in some instances there may be legitimate reasons for accessing information, it will always be hard for firms to argue that they have not been unduly influenced by information obtained.

“Even awareness of basic data such as age and marital status could prompt accusations of discrimination against prospective employees.”

‘Trade unions New politics old problems

The Lib-Con government may have ushered in a ‘new politics’, but the coalition’s economic policy agenda looks suspiciously like a rerun of old-style neo-liberalism. The most recent attempt at this, in the 1980s, resulted in mass unemployment and social unrest. Messrs Cameron and Clegg might do a better job of tackling the record fiscal deficit in a more ‘one nation’ fashion. But this will require a far more harmonious approach to employment relations than their forebears adopted a generation ago and crucially, it depends on how the public-sector trade unions respond.

Margaret Thatcher’s neo-liberalism met fierce union resistance, most notably in the bitter miners’ strike of 1984-85. The clash of ideologies proved brutal but was at least followed by the emergence of ‘new realism as workers adapted to the changed deal. The Blair-Brown governments managed to build on this while also greatly improving the basic individual rights of working people, the positive fruits of which were best displayed in the peaceful co-operation shown in most workplaces when the UK was hit by the worst global recession for more than half a century.

Although there was a rash of actual or threatened labour disputes in 2009, these remained the exception rather than the norm and were confined mostly to businesses where relations between management and staff are still reminiscent of times past notably, Royal Mail and British Airways. The year to December 2009 saw 438,000 working days lost to disputes, a sharp drop from the 759,000 recorded in 2008. The general experience has instead been one of either active or passive acceptance of the need for flexibility in order to safeguard jobs in the face of economic turmoil. Widespread pay freezes or cuts and short-time working make the late noughties recession look very different from past downturns.

Such reasonableness should make me feel relatively optimistic about what will happen now that the economy is starting to recover. But you don’t need to share the acute pessimism of an economist to have a sense that storm clouds are gathering as we approach what are bound to be several tough years for the strongly unionised public sector, with budgets set to be slashed by an amount that would make even the Thatcherites baulk: at least 500,000 jobs are in the firing line.

Although unions in the sector share the objective of serving the public interest, they also aim to extract the best possible outcome for their members on jobs, pay, pensions and working conditions. In the high-spending noughties, public-sector employees squeezed 5 per cent more pay out of their bosses on average than those working in the private sector. Yet despite this the public sector was already relatively prone to strikes before the recession as limited job cuts linked to the post-Gershon efficiency drives bred discontent. Public-sector employees accounted for 94 per cent of all working days lost to labour disputes in 2008, with a strike rate (ie, strikes per 100,000 employees) of 124 compared with only two in the private sector.

Worryingly, it isn’t necessary to look at old newsreel footage to envisage what could be in store, now that the age of austerity has finally arrived. Recent mass demonstrations opposing swingeing cuts in public-sector jobs and pay in Greece offer a contemporary preview and highlight the manner in which public-sector disputes easily take on more of a political edge. One can, of course, look at the apparently fairly stoical response of Irish public-sector workers to similar cutbacks as evidence that a more co-operative and peaceful outcome is possible in the UK. But Irish employment relations have a longer tradition of relative harmony, backed up with a far stronger underlying ethos of social partnership than that sought by governments and employers in this country in recent decades.
Although we may well see examples of co-operation at local workplace level between public-sector employees and managers in the face of adversity, at national level class-war rhetoric is likely to be near the surface. This bodes ill, especially if the minority of union leaders spoiling for an ideological battle with the government can persuade their public- and private-sector brothers and sisters to join them. The contrast between questionably high bonus payments to some staff of banks propped up by huge taxpayer bailouts and at best no pay rise for hard-working public servants hardly helps matters in this respect. Nor does concern about pay inequality in the public sector itself, which is why the government has made a wise move in appointing Will Hutton, a well-known figure on the political centre-left, to front a review on this matter.

I view the portents with trepidation. Experience tells us that strikes rarely, if ever, serve the long-term interests of working people or indeed trade unions, which deserve to play a valuable role in any democratic society. And strikes that cripple the public services inevitably hurt the weakest and most vulnerable in our community.

For the sake of the common good, I pray that I am wrong; that the reason which has prevailed in private-sector employment relations during the recession will be echoed in the public sector; and that the government can cut the fiscal deficit as painlessly as possible. Much will depend on the skill with which ministers handle the sensitive politics of employment relations and, in particular, the degree to which the government makes use of the TUC as a sensible calming influence. Nonetheless, I fear that several years of industrial conflict on a scale not witnessed in this country for at least a generation await us. So don’t be surprised if the 90th anniversary of the 1926 general strike is preceded by its 21st-century equivalent.

The public sector spends more each year on private-sector goods and services than it does on its own paybill. So the government’s cutbacks could put the economy in reverse, writes Brendan Barber:
Most disputes in recent years have been very much down to the specific circumstances of the industry and employer affected. Both of the major recent disputes in which I have played a role as a mediator Royal Mail, now settled, and British Airways, which continues as I write could only be explained with reference to the history of each employer.

Yet workers today are reluctant to strike and rarely do so unless they are really angry. Settlements must rebuild trust and remove the anger, not merely split the difference. That is why it can take a great deal of time and effort not only to achieve a settlement, but also to implement it.

Freedom of association in the workplace is a key human right one that can be made real only if it includes the right to withdraw your labour. The recent judicial murder by the Iranian government of trade unionist Farzad Kamangar shows that it’s still far from a universal right.

But this goes further than simple democratic rights. My core belief is that collective bargaining between responsible unions and progressive employers is a key ingredient of a successful, cohesive and fair society. Negotiations work only when both sides have an incentive to reach agreement and each has some power. Nick Clegg and David Cameron have just had a practical lesson in this in forming a government.

The growth in the gap between the super-rich and the rest of society may have slowed under Labour, but it still helped to feed an unbalanced economy too dominated by financial services and driven by the speculative bubble that has now burst. While the result has been a deep recession, unemployment has not risen as highly as it might have done, owing in part to action from the government, the Bank of England and the G20 and, in part, to trade unions and employers in the private sector. Flexibility is too often a euphemism for easy ‘hire and fire’ practices in the UK, but we have seen many positive examples such as the temporary shutdown last year at Honda. Even in the middle of the difficult BA dispute it should not be forgotten that unions accepted and indeed put on the table pay restraint.

We do need to heal the public finances. It costs money to service the national debt and the higher the debt, the weaker our ability to react properly to a future economic downturn. An inconclusive election did not give anyone a mandate for swingeing cuts in public services. Nor should new ministers do anything that risks recovery. While there was some wriggle room for the business secretary, Vince Cable, in the coalition’s policy statement, the decision to press ahead with £6 billion of cuts this year will not only be bad for public servants; it will also hit the private sector. The public sector actually spends more each year on private-sector goods and services than it does on its own wage bill. And any sense that the economy is going into reverse will hit the confidence of the customers that keep the private sector going.

Instead, I hope that the new government will do everything it can to build a national consensus around an economic recovery plan that not only heals the finances on a sensible timescale, but also reduces unemployment, supports fairness and rebalances the economy away from the dominance of financial services while meeting the challenge of climate change.

I stand ready to engage constructively with the new government and I look forward to meetings with new ministers. There will be areas where we agree and perhaps more where we do not, but it’s the job of unions to put the views of their members to those in power. In turn, it’s wise for those in power to listen, engage and try to build consensus in the national interest where possible, even when there are sharp disagreements in other areas. While I admired much of what the previous government achieved here, there were also times when we had big differences. This is what pluralism is all about, and it should be understood by a coalition government that functions itself through consensus.

But unions relate to government also as the biggest employer of their members and there are going to be any number of difficult issues on pay, pensions and jobs across the public sector. Whether these escalate will depend on how well they are managed and on how public-sector workers react. They will ask whether they are bearing an unfair burden; whether those who did so well out of the boom years are making a proper contribution; whether services are being attacked as part of a wider ideological programme to undermine public services; and whether their rights to be represented collectively are under threat.
Public-sector workers will have been bemused by much of the debate during May’s election. It is a rare organisation that can say that there is no room for using resources more efficiently, but claims that £6 billion can be found, Tommy Cooper-style, ‘just like that’ are unconvincing. Nor does that favourite soundbite of ‘protecting front-line services’ stack up.

The truth is that, even if you could strictly divide public servants into the front line and back office, the former cannot function without the latter. Organisations would soon grind to a halt without an effective HR function, and it was only a few years ago that politicians were boasting of all the support staff they had fired to free up the time of front-line workers in services such as the police. Prolonging this fantasy model of how public services function will do nothing to win over public servants.

Equality Act

Equality_Act_-Factsheet_(news).pdfEquality_Act_-Factsheet_(news).pdfEquality_Act_-Factsheet_(news).pdf

This CIPD factsheet gives an introductory overview of the main changes under the Equality Act 2010. Comprehensive non-statutory guidance has been published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Click file to view full article.

HPC July News Letter

Liverpool Business Awards 2010

The Liverpool business community have cast their votes and we are very pleased to announce that High Performance Consultancy (HPC), have been awarded Business and Professional Service Award 2010. Victoria Brown, Director of HPC was delighted to receive the award on behalf of the company on Thursday 22 July 2010 at the Liverpool Palm House. She was pleased that the hard work, professionalism and extra mile that each team member of HPC brings to the company has been recognised by the Liverpool Business Community. Although we continue to grow across the U.K, I am really proud that our head office is based in Liverpool and we can provide an excellent service to Employers across the Merseyside region.
The event was hosted by Downtown Liverpool in Business (DLIB).

Virtual HR System has now landed

HPC will be launching their virtual HR system at the beginning of August. This will enable all clients to monitor employee absence, holiday allocation, probation periods, appraisals and ensure that all employment law updates are made to your account seamlessly. This product will be supplied to all outsourced clients and your allocated HR Consultant will be in contact with you over the next few weeks, to discuss this transition.
If you are not outsourced and would be interested in discussing this product or any of the services we provide, then please contact Lucy on 0844 800 5932.
Employment Law Timetable Update:

New businesses exempt from national insurance contributions
September 2010

For three years employers that set up a new business outside London, the South-East and the Eastern region are exempt from up to £5,000 of employer national insurance contributions for the first 10 employees during the first 12 months of employment.
Single Equality Act introduced
1 October 2010

The Equality Act 2010 consolidates existing equality law into a single piece of legislation and introduces a number of reforms. It defines direct discrimination as less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic. This widens the scope for associative discrimination. In certain cases, the Act allows claimants to bring a claim for discrimination based on a combination of two protected characteristics. The Act prohibits employers from asking questions about health before offering a candidate a post. It also includes a provision to make regulations requiring employers with at least 250 employees to publish information relating to the differences in pay between men and women.