Latest news with #CharteredInstituteofPersonnelandDevelopment
Daily Mirror
12-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Mirror
1 in 4 employers plan job cuts as Rachel Reeves taxes hit
A perfect storm for businesses has tanked the number of companies planning to hire more people April saw Labour's increase on taxes for employers combined with global market uncertainty when President Donald Trump started dealing out tariffs. The perfect storm has drastically swayed hiring and firing decisions within businesses at large, a new survey has found. One in four employers plan to make redundancies in the next three months and the number of employers planning to hire more people this summer has dropped to a record low only surpassed by the pandemic. The retail sector could be especially affected. This is higher than the 21% recorded in Autumn. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) surveyed 2,000 businesses as part of its latest Labour Market Outlook report. The report also found 27% of employers had a redundancy programme in the last 12 months and half offered enhanced packages above and beyond what the law requires. Employers with less than 250 workers were far more likely to offer the statutory redundancy pay. Only one in 10 retail employers plan to increase staff levels over the summer while 30% expect a drop in staff numbers, reports the Express. In response to these staggering figures, the CIPD is urging the government to 'consult with employers and business bodies to limit the potential impact the Employment Rights Bill could have on employer's hiring plans as businesses face mounting external pressures'. James Cockett, senior labour market economist at the CIPD, said: 'It was always going to be a huge change for employers but they're operating in an even more complex world now. 'It's vital the government works closely with employers to balance the very real risk of reductions in investment in people, training and technology with their desire to reduce poor employment practice.' Andrew Griffith MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, said: "Alongside making families £3,500 worse off, Labour's Jobs Tax is crushing confidence, killing jobs, and pushing employers to the brink. Under Labour, the economy has flatlined and with businesses under mounting pressure, things can only get worse. "This report only confirms what we hear daily from the shop floor to the boardroom: confidence has collapsed. Labour can't understand why, because their cabinet has zero business experience.' A Treasury spokesman told the outlet: 'In a period of global uncertainty this government is delivering stability for business. Trade deals with India and the US show the benefits of our cool-headed diplomacy. 'We have provided business rates relief, capped corporation tax, and are protecting the smallest businesses from the employer National Insurance increases. And we've now seen four interest rate cuts since July, making it cheaper for businesses to borrow.'
Telegraph
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
HR industry in crisis as trans ruling deepens rifts
'Are we really too 'woke'?' the boss of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) asked his members in a blog post last year. The topic, Peter Cheese claimed, was one which had 'real importance in the world of work'. It also has meant a busy year for the CIPD, 'responding to the 'anti-woke' pushback'. Yet many in the HR industry say they are not overly impressed. Instead, they wish the organisation, which was set up to improve the wellbeing of factory workers in 1913 and has over 160,000 members, would just stay out of culture war politics. 'You've got the Employment Rights Bill coming in and you don't see a strong opinion from them on that. Yet you do on the 'anti-woke' culture and transgender rights, despite a lot of HR professionals just wanting the sector to be balanced,' says one HR chief who used to work for the CIPD. 'At the same time it is growing its focus on the Middle East, where there are challenges around human rights.' Another HR veteran, who has long been a CIPD member, shares the same frustrations. 'There's always been a level of grumpiness about them – it's a bit like council tax with people asking, 'well, what do I get for it?'' What has changed 'is that they have strayed into campaigning territory – 'what will get us a seat in this discussion on this table?'' says the insider. 'The problem with HR is that it gets into social policy and doesn't focus on driving good business.' After the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman, some of the CIPD's longest-standing critics have ramped up their scrutiny of the organisation. Posting a video on LinkedIn of the cartoon SpongeBob SquarePants running around in circles looking panicked, HR adviser Tanya de Grunwald wrote: 'Live scenes at the CIPD as they realise their 'trans inclusion' guidance has increased risk for their members'. Another person added: 'HR teams who have been using the CIPD guidance have a lot of work ahead of them'. The criticism centres on CIPD guidance which has since been removed, stating that it may legally be classed as discrimination to refuse a transgender person access to female-only facilities. Maya Forstater, who runs gender critical group Sex Matters, argued at the time that its 38-page transgender guide was 'not usable'. The CIPD had claimed that its guide 'makes clear that employers should listen carefully to employees and seek legal advice where necessary'. A spokesman says that its guidance is based on 'evidence and legal frameworks', adding that it is a 'politically neutral' organisation which is valued by members for its objectivity. 'Societal issues have increasingly become politicised in recent years, but these are very real issues affecting people's experience at work and business outcomes so it's right to provide evidence and guidance on them for our members and more broadly,' the spokesman says. Many people disagree. The charity's increased focus on wider political issues has irked some of its members, as well as the wider business community. One UK chairman, who did not want to be named, says they feel the organisation is going the wrong way about attempting to modernise, adding: 'They're trying to be too political, rather than thinking about where HR is going and the next generation.' Heeral Gudka, a consultant who advises companies on their diversity strategies, says this was a hot topic when she hosted roundtable discussions with HR professionals from 10 organisations before the Supreme Court ruling earlier this month. 'One of the topics covered was how the CIPD has done a poor job of preparing HR professionals for belief conflicts in the workplace,' she says. 'Particularly as so many high-profile tribunal cases regarding belief conflicts are related to gender-critical beliefs which garner a huge amount of public interest.' But it is not just its approach to this topic which has aggravated HR-land. One senior HR chief points to the charity's research on 'fat cat' executive pay in the years leading up to Covid, which triggered a public backlash against bosses earning 117 times the average worker. 'They were taking a position on executive pay. But people like myself are responsible for executive pay, so you're criticising the work I'm doing to get column inches,' the HR veteran argues, adding that the CIPD's focus on home working during Covid was another bone of contention. 'They forgot in their guidelines all the essential services that had operated throughout Covid – it was all about how to do work from home, when the largest employer in the country is the NHS. That kind of stuff is where you lose people. 'If you walked into the CIPD building I'd be surprised if there was anyone in there. They're not representing the profession – they've ended up in a marginalised view driven by their own perspectives.' Some believe the recruiters now scouting the market for a replacement for Valerie Hughes-D'Aeth, the outgoing CIPD chairman, will struggle for applicants, arguing the organisation simply feels 'out of date'. A CIPD member points out the irony in the fact it paid out £1.9m in termination and redundancy payments last year – 'not great for the profession for people management'. Senior HR staff admit that they now view the not-for-profit organisation as more of a 'student accreditation body' than a professional one, with one person declaring that 'a lot of the more senior HR community are not senior or active'. It is a view echoed by others. 'If you're a student looking to get qualified then the CIPD is important. People want those letters,' says another HR insider, although he admits he remains a member himself. 'Like lots of people I'm a member because my company pays my membership.' For the CIPD, it will be viewed as a disappointment, coming at a time when the HR industry as a whole is ballooning. The organisation's own figures show that the number of staff in the sector jumped 42pc between 2011 and 2021 – four times the growth rate of the general workforce. What's more, there are crucial issues which need tackling. Workers in Britain are worse off than they were in 2008, according to the International Labour Organisation, with the country lagging behind the rest of the rich world. The Resolution Foundation said this month that Britain had suffered an 'almost unprecedented' plunge in productivity over the past five years, the worst drop since the 1970s outside the financial crisis. With such poor productivity growth, people are asking why the industry body isn't focusing on more relevant issues – rather than worrying about 'wokeness'. A CIPD spokesman says its guidance covers the 'breadth of workplace issues' including productivity and the incoming Employment Rights Bill, adding that member satisfaction is tracked and is increasing. Yet its critics and former colleagues remain sceptical. As the former CIPD staffer asks: 'The original CIPD charter was all about improving the world of work.'
BBC News
25-04-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Redcar and Cleveland Council sick days costing millions
Staff on the sick are costing a council about £2m a year in lost time, according to a new number of days lost per full-time equivalent employees at Redcar and Cleveland Council peaked at 9.66 days in 2023/24, a "significant increase" on just over seven days in authors suggested the findings were due to "the impact of consecutive years of austerity and recruitment freezes", with staff "being stretched ever further".The Labour-led council, which has won a better health at work award, has been contacted for comment. The financial losses were revealed in a report to members of the council's resources scrutiny committee, which added the days lost per full-time equivalent had recently dropped the 12 months to February the figure was 8.8 days, while the council's current, shifting target is 8.5 days lost per full-time equivalent member of report said: "The trajectory of sickness absence steadily increased from 2015/16, with the exception of 2020/21 when staff were shielding - the trajectory then steepened post-Covid."The top three reasons for sickness were given as stress, depression, anxiety and fatigue, along with hospital procedures, time-off required post-op, and chest and respiratory issues. Below other councils In the 12 months to February, 78% of council staff were off between one and 20 days, with 22% deemed to be long-term absent having taken more than three the past year, just under 140 staff were off ill from a workforce of approximately 2, council committee report, said last year's peak of 9.66 days was in fact below two other neighbouring councils – Stockton (10.8 days) and Hartlepool (10.31 days).The report said the council was working to bring down the figures, with a new managing health, attendance and wellbeing policy agreed last year and training provided for all added staff also had access to occupational health, physiotherapy and counselling 2023, a report by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development showed the average rate of employee absence across the UK was 7.8 days per employee per year, which was even higher in the public sector at 10.6 days. Follow BBC Tees on X, Facebook, Nextdoor and Instagram.
Forbes
28-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Visa System Hampering Businesses Seeking Workers, Says U.K. Lawyer
The financial district of London. (Getty Creative) According to a partner at one of the U.K.'s leading law firms, the country's immigration system is 'holding businesses back' in their attempts to recruit the foreign workers they need. The commentary highlights current tensions in the U.K., between the need for more foreign talent to fill critical skills shortages on the one hand, and the political pressure on the government to limit immigration numbers on the other. Writing for 'People Management,' the HR news site run by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, David Winnie, a partner at law firm Gilson Gray, outlines the ways the U.K.'s current system for skilled labor immigration is getting in the way of businesses trying to recruit. These issues broadly emanate from the way the Skilled Worker Visa (SWV) system works. The SWV was established to manage skilled labor immigration in the wake of the U.K.'s exit from the European Union, after which the country stopped benefitting from the free movement of workers from around Europe. The system sets minimum salary thresholds for potential foreign workers in various sectors, with particular exceptions and carve-outs for jobs in sectors deemed critical. The system in theory ensures minimum standards while also allowing businesses to recruit the workers they need, thereby supporting Britain's economic growth. In practice, however, businesses and immigration advisers have found the system often difficult to navigate, preventing businesses from recruiting. 'While (the scheme) sounds reasonable and it was set up with the right intentions,' writes Winnie, 'the system is highly complex and convoluted.' Where the scheme gets difficult, says Winnie, is the finer details of calculating whether a worker's salary meets those minimum standards, taking into account hours worked, the particular sector and other benefits included in the employment package. Compounding matters, he says, is a series of recently-introduced regulations from the Home Office (the U.K. ministry responsible for immigration), which have proven difficult to keep up with. Getting all the details right is very important, as failure to properly follow the rules - even inadvertently - could mean employers are fined or even stripped of their ability to hire more foreign workers. Winnie's post highlights a point of tension in the U.K., where immigration is a very sensitive political issue. There is enormous pressure on the government to reduce the overall amount of immigrants coming to the country. The government then has a fine line to tread between making sure the country's businesses and economy overall are getting the workers they need, while at the same time trying to head off the political damage they may receive by being seen as letting in 'too many' people. As it stands, it is clear the U.K. still does not have nearly enough workers as it needs, with massive shortages long reported across many key sectors. David Winnie's expert commentary outlines how the inefficiencies in the existing system are only exacerbating that problem. 'Whatever your views on the politics of immigration, the fact is that we don't have enough skilled workers in the U.K. to grow our economy,' he concludes. 'Unless the shortcomings of the current system are addressed – and hopefully they will be in future updates – many businesses could be hindered from reaching their full potential.'
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The sneaky ways shirkers are avoiding the return to the office
As the tide continues to turn against remote and hybrid working, employees are resorting to increasingly crafty ways to eschew the return to the office-based nine to five. Since the mandated times of working from home during the pandemic, many of Britain's workers discovered the ease with which they could carry out their jobs remotely – all while putting a wash on. For a time, employers were similarly happy with the arrangement, but home and hybrid working has since become the scapegoat for issues over falling productivity. The solution? Forcing workers back to their desks. Almost two thirds of HR leaders say there is an increase in expectations for employees to return to the office, according to data from research firm Gartner. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development's 2025 Labour Market Outlook survey found that 30pc of large private sector employers are planning to mandate more days in the office, with 17pc of employers in the public sector doing the same. Elsewhere, 2024 LinkedIn data shows that fully remote jobs advertised by the biggest corporations had fallen 6pc year on year. Indeed, top corporate bosses have made headlines with their increasingly strict approach to office work. Last year, Boots executives demanded a return to full-time office work, JP Morgan has demanded that all workers return five days a week (with no managerial discretion on how this works), while Amazon has announced plans to stagger a return to full-time office work. It's not an easy sell. Many employees have based their lives around the assumption that their hybrid working patterns would remain. The number of 'supercommuters' with journeys of 90 minutes or more is on the rise, according to figures from People Management, with almost half of these having moved away from their offices since the pandemic. Families have organised childcare on the basis of one or both parents being around a certain number of weekdays, and even fine-tuned their budgets that will struggle to stretch to fund more commutes. Such are people's attachment to flexible working that a third of young workers have said they either plan to disregard requests to return to the office, or will seek a new job if they're forced back, according to a study from TopCV. Others are turning to methods they hope will remain below their management's radar. For one, Amazon's latest approach to managing office attendance – giving managers data on days employees attended the office but not for how long they did attend – is ripe for such disregard. With managers not knowing how long employees have spent in the office, the retailer could see 'coffee badging' – where employees show face briefly (enough time to get a hot drink) before heading home. As Gary Cookson, the founder of Epic HR consultancy, explains, such an approach is fairly common. He says some employees are currently sidestepping in-office policies with digital attendance systems that can be gamed by swiping in, but then leaving immediately, with some even connecting to the office WiFi – to suggest they have 'been in the building' – from the car park before driving off. In his view, there's 'barely any enforcement' of hybrid attendance, perhaps because managers are not keen to crack down or, in some cases, because staff are utilising other HR policies to side-step office policies. The pattern, where employees engineer their own unofficial working pattern is often referred to as 'hushed hybrid'. 'Managers and employees take advantage of other policies that allow for the flexibility that a return-to-office mandate takes away,' Cookson says, adding that many businesses changing from more flexible work structures to mandated stricter patterns are hardly likely to create 'happy, engaged' people. Paul works at a major publishing business that mandates two or three days a week in the office. But he argues that with flexible start and finish times, to allow employees to beat rush hour, as well as inconsistent management of hybrid mandates across departments, bosses struggle to track who's adhering to the policy. 'Many employees disappear without telling anyone,' he says, attempts to enforce office attendance more strictly. 'No one is properly keeping tabs on whether you're turning up for 30 minutes, a full day, or your contractually obliged number of days in office,' he says. He adds despite pressure from HR leadership and top bosses, nothing much is changing – and he's concerned other work perks could be at risk if his colleagues continue to flout the rules. 'With more focus on being in for the contractually obliged number of office days from the top bosses, some [who don't come in] could ruin the balance for all of us.' Like Paul, Sarah's financial services employer has mandated a specific number of days in office, but managerial ambivalence to the policy – as well as the ability to game the appearance of whole day attendance system by signing in through a hotdesk sign-in app – means it isn't strictly enforced. 'Managers who have kids or high workloads can't be bothered checking on your office attendance,' she says, adding that kids are often the perfect get-out-of-office excuse. '90pc of the time, saying my kids have a club or I need to do the school run is honest, but sometimes I just can't be bothered to come in – kids are the perfect excuse.' Similarly, others are using home-centred excuses to play hooky from the office. Danielle works for an education provision business and says she's made up fictitious medical, delivery and at-home repair appointments to work from home. 'I say appointments are at awkward times of the day, or I'm waiting for someone to turn up and fix the boiler, or I fake an illness so I can leave the office halfway through the day and then work from home,' she says. 'A big delivery is also a great excuse, as is saying I have big project work and I need quiet,' she says. While Tim, who works for a university, says he won't make up reasons for not coming in, he will exaggerate real events to take work-life balance back into his own hands. 'Is the boiler broken? I need some days at home to sort it out. Kid sick? I need to work from home to look after them. Employees need to get the most out of every illness and inconvenience,' he argues. 'You're not asking your employer, you're telling, and as most companies will have policies around illness and emergencies you're using their HR policies against them.' In Tim's view, this doesn't have a downside to the company. 'If your workload is complete each week then it doesn't matter,' he says. The clash between enforcing new working patterns and ensuring employees' rights are kept in tact leaves HR departments in a tricky situation. Idris Arshad, head of people at Asthma + Lung UK, understands that working structures have caused heated debates for three years, with the argument currently being won by proponents of returning to the office. The key, he says, is making sure companies have good reasons behind these changes – and that they're properly explained to all employees. 'But organisations have got to say why they're [heading back to the office], why it adds value,' Arshad says, adding that any shift should give employees time to adapt, as well as 'strong reasoning so employees don't try to flout the rules'. Arshad continues that if reasons for any change are administered and communicated effectively then the onus is on the employee to decide if they want to adhere to the new rules, or move elsewhere. He says: 'You can try your luck at evading it, or find another employer that meets your needs.' Arshad adds that employers should understand how those who rally against in-office or hybrid mandates might rupture a sense of fairness within the business. 'There's a sense of injustice for those following the rules if others are perceived to have the choice about their working arrangements.' Elsewhere, Amanda Trewhella, employment director at law firm Freeths, adds that employers who don't enforce their own rules are only going to cause more problems in the future. 'If a company has a policy with a minimum number of days but then doesn't check whether it is being complied with, it makes it difficult for them later down the line to start being stricter,' she says, adding that, despite this issue, employers could have recourse to disciplinary action if an employee refuses contracted working patterns. Indeed, a recent Tribunal case saw a loss whereby a flexible working request to work fully remotely was rejected by an employment judge. Financial Conduct Authority manager, Miss Wilson, requested to work away from the office full-time, but a judge concluded that her employer was right to identify weaknesses with remote working – despite Wilson saying her performance was unaffected. Some employees might agree with the judge. As Paul says: 'I signed a contract saying I would be in at least 40pc of the time …it's not that difficult.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
