Latest news with #EmploymentRightsBill
Times
3 hours ago
- Business
- Times
HSBC tells managing directors to return to office four days a week
HSBC has asked its managing directors to come into the office for at least four days a week from October. According to a memo, seen by Bloomberg News, the London-listed bank told its senior managers to 'set the tone from the top'. Approached on Tuesday, HSBC said that in-person interactions were 'essential to how we lead and deliver for our customers'. It is the latest example of a big UK company pushing for higher office attendance amid concerns over productivity since pandemic-era lockdowns caused a surge in remote working. The likes of JP Morgan, Tesco, John Lewis and Uber have all introduced policies to compel employees to show up more. HSBC's memo defines in-office work as work in the bank's offices or with customers, Bloomberg reported. It includes visiting stakeholders and attending conferences, offsite meetings or the equivalent. The bank has acted after shifts of policy at other lenders in the past six months. Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JP Morgan, enforced an end to remote work for the investment bank's employees from March, while Lloyds Banking Group, the owner of Halifax, has told senior staff that office attendance will be taken into account when divvying up bonuses. It was reported in May that HSBC had threatened to cut staff bonuses for those not in the office at least three days per week. • Working from home is here to stay — if workers get their way In January, the advertising agency WPP suffered a backlash after telling its 111,000-strong workforce to return to the office for at least four days a week from April. Staff working from home are being put under renewed pressure as the government pushes through changes to workers' rights under the Employment Rights Bill. The reforms include measures to enhance flexible working rights for employees by making it more difficult for employers to refuse requests. In the US, Jones Lang LaSalle, the real estate and investment group, found this month that more than half of the Fortune 100, the largest companies by earnings and revenue, had demanded workers come in to the office five days a week. HSBC is set to report its interim results on Wednesday. Analysts are forecasting first-half pre-tax profit to fall to about $16.5 billion, down from $21.6 billion a year ago.
The Independent
9 hours ago
- Business
- The Independent
Lords accused of trying to block Labour's zero-hours contract ban for ‘bad bosses'
Peers in the House of Lords have been accused of trying to block key protections for millions of workers as they push through major changes to Labour's Employment Rights Bill. The Lords last week voted in favour of several amendments brought forward by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers which row back on reforms to zero-hours contracts, day-one protections and more. It comes as a blow to the government – which pledged in its 2024 manifesto to end 'exploitative' zero-hours contracts – and sets up a showdown between the Lords and Commons. General secretary of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), Paul Nowak said: 'the sight of Hereditary Peers voting to block stronger workers ' rights belongs in another century. It's plain wrong.' 'They are doing the bidding of bad bosses,' he added, and encouraged the government to 'stand firm.' Under the Lords' amendments, the requirement for employers to offer zero-hours workers a contract would be changed to instead require the worker to ask for the arrangement. Protections against unfair dismissal from day one of employment were also amended, instead bringing the time up to six months. Legislation currently ensures the protections after two years of employment. There were also several amendments to trade union laws voted in, including a requirement for members to actively opt into trade union political funds, rather than opt out. This came alongside another amendment to ensure the 50 per cent turnout threshold for industrial action is not repealed in the bill. The amendments were put forward by Tory peers Lord Hunt, shadow business minister, and Lord Sharpe, alongside Liberal Democrat Lord Goddard. Ministers will address the amendments when MPs return to Commons from summer recess at the start of September. The two houses will then continue to vote on the changes in a process known as parliamentary 'ping-pong' before a finalised version of the bill is agreed upon. Responding to criticism, Lord Hunt said: 'All the evidence shows that workers value and support that flexibility and the diverse job opportunities it continues to create. The world of business – which creates the wealth we need – has repeatedly made it very plain that the Government's proposals go too far and jeopardise that vital flexibility. 'In too many respects the Government's Bill aims to give new powers to the trade unions as organisations, not to the workers themselves, but the Lords amendments would create a better balance. They will protect and create more jobs and serve the working people of Britain well.'
The Herald Scotland
2 days ago
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
More economic trouble is coming. And there's only one escape route
Unfortunately, although politicians say they like economic growth they generally have no idea how to nurture it and often act in ways which seem designed to slow the economy down. The UK Government's latest Employment Rights Bill is a perfect example. There are many things which encourage faster growth: a stable and not stifling regulatory regime, opportunity, social attitudes to wealth creation. In general the direction of travel for these factors is unhelpful but there is another obvious key factor - arguably more powerful than all the rest - which is curiously overlooked. That is the availability of money. For an entrepreneur to turn a great idea into a fledging business takes money and to grow that business into a company which creates jobs and wealth takes more money still. If we look back to the last period of really strong growth in the UK economy, the mid-1980s to about 2007, a lot of favourable factors were at play but the one which mattered most was that money was available in a way which it isn't today. During that time of strong growth Scotland was extraordinarily lucky to have the Bank of Scotland as its key economic facilitator. RBS may have been bigger but it never fostered growth in the same way as the Bank of Scotland did. A business person needing money for growth could go to see their local bank manager, who actually existed and whose job was to grow the bank's business from their branch. If the amount needed was bigger, you went up to the Head Office on the Mound to see somebody, probably called Gavin, Peter or Colin, who took time to understand your business and provided funding to support its growth. There would have been no Stagecoach or Sports Division able to grow rapidly whilst the founders retained control without Bank of Scotland providing finance based not on lending against assets but against the expected cashflows of the business. No public subsidy was involved, no stupid questionnaires to make sure woke targets were being met, just sensible people making commercial decisions which enabled hundreds of companies to get off the ground and grow. Read more It's time to cast aside prejudice and go for the cash Can anyone truly say the Scottish Parliament been a great success? I can't Who will tell the truth? Economically, we are in a mess The financial crisis of 2008 put paid to all that funding for growth and it has never been replaced. What sank RBS and HBOS was not supporting entrepreneurs but the same good old mistake behind almost all banking crises: too much lending against overvalued property. The price of the state bailout though was the dismantling of a support system which had served us well. The UK and Scottish Governments have tried to put in place schemes which provide sources of investment. The SEIS and EIS schemes where investors receive tax relief when investing in young companies is effective, the various government-backed banks including the Scottish National Investment Bank, rather less so. These new schemes provide equity finance whereas most entrepreneurs want debt; they don't want to give up too much control of their companies. Where debt finance is available for companies it now nearly always requires a personal guarantee from the directors of the borrower which acts as a deterrent and negates the whole point of having a limited liability company. What is needed to increase significantly the supply of money to fund growth is to switch the banking system back on as a major provider of risk funding. This won't happen on its own, the UK Government has to give it a shove. The former Bank of Scotland HQ on The Mound (Image: Newsquest) Each of our banks should be given targets for entrepreneurial lending and their progress monitored and reported on regularly. Entrepreneurial lending needs to be defined but its definition should be broad: lending to a company of up to £10million, the company must be a trading company and not own property or land. No personal guarantees allowed. Keep it simple. What the bank should get in return for this lending is that the interest and fees they earn are not subject to corporation tax. One or more banks will see the opportunity to get tax-free revenue by extending loans which are risker in order to help businesses grow. The regulator's instinct to do everything possible to stop such lending must be curbed. Mistakes must be allowed to be made. Not a spectacular initiative for a politician to announce, no ribbons for them to cut but if something like this was introduced it really would help growth.
Daily Mirror
2 days ago
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
Tory and Lib Dem peers accused of 'cynical attacks' on workers' rights - 'get out the way'
The TUC has warned Tory and Lib Dem Peers to 'get out of the way' and 'stop trying to block' stronger employment rights for millions of workers in the House of Lords The TUC has warned Tory and Lib Dem Peers to 'get out of the way' and 'stop trying to block' stronger employment rights for millions of workers. The union body is urging the government to 'stand firm' in the face of what it calls 'cynical attacks' on the Employment Rights Bill. The landmark legislation, which is currently going through the House of Lords, was a key pillar of Labour's election campaign. Spearheaded by Deputy PM Angela Rayner, the workers' rights package will end exploitative zero hours contracts, ban bad bosses from using agency staff to replace sacked employees and give expectant parents bereavement leave if they lose a pregnancy before 24 weeks. READ MORE: New workers rights law - all changes from sick pay to parental leave and how they affect you But the TUC has warned that the Tories and Lib Dems are 'doing the bidding of bad bosses' by trying to water down the legislation in the Lords. It hit out at opposition peers voting to 'attack' teaching assistants' pay and exempt voluntary work on heritage railways from restrictions on employment of children. The Bill will return to the House of Commons in September for MPs to consider the House of Lords' proposed changes to the legislation. The two Houses will continue to vote on amendments in a process known as 'ping-pong' until a way forward is agreed. A recent TUC mega poll revealed huge support across the country – including among Conservative voters – for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 (72%) of UK voters support a ban on zero hours contracts – including 63% of Tory voters, the survey found. And three quarters (73%) of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in the job - including 62% of Conservative. The TUC said peers who are trying to water down the legislation are not just 'out of touch" but are "actively defying" voters across the country. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: "It's time for Tory and Lib Dem Peers to get out of the way and stop trying to block stronger rights for millions of workers. They are doing the bidding of bad bosses by voting to keep workers on zero hours contracts, allowing bosses to sack workers unfairly and attacking teaching assistants' pay.' He added: "Banning zero-hours contracts and protecting workers from unfair dismissal are common-sense protections that the vast majority of the people, including Tory and Lib Dem voters, want to see become law. "These Peers are not just out of touch, they are actively defying their own voters – and the public at large. The government must stand firm in the face of cynical attacks and deliver the Employment Rights Bill in full.' A Liberal Democrat spokesman said: ' Liberal Democrats have always championed stronger rights at work, and it's disappointing that Labour chose to block (/vote against) our proposals to support carers and whistleblowers. 'Unfortunately we fear parts of Labour's rushed bill would be bad for workers in small businesses and family farms. 'They were badly let down by the Conservative Party, and Labour seems to have a blindspot when it comes to farms and small businesses too. We support the bill as a whole and have worked constructively to try and improve it.' The Tories were contacted for comment. ::: Focaldata conducted a poll of 21,270 UK adults for the TUC from Nov 30 to Jan 8.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
Kemi is right. We must clip the BMA's wings
Kemi Badenoch's announcement that the Conservatives would ban strikes by doctors represents a clear break with the consensus of the recent past. It is a determined response both to the Government's slow progress with NHS reform and to the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it much easier for unions to call damaging public sector strikes. At present the 'right to strike' – formally an immunity, dating from 1906, from being sued for breach of contract – is almost universal amongst UK employees. The only significant exceptions are the Armed Forces, the police and prison officers. The military are banned from industrial action in every country in the world, and police strikes have been banned here since 1919. Prison officers have at various times had the freedom to strike, but since the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, brought in by the last Labour government as it happens, that right has been removed. Many countries have wider restrictions on strikes. Civil servants, university staff and many teachers are banned from striking in Germany, for example. Air traffic controllers, fire and rescue workers can't withdraw labour in Czechia. No federal employee can strike in the US, or even belong to a union which asserts the right to strike. We know that the current Government has made a fetish of international human rights legislation, but the International Labor Organization – to which we are signed up – specifically permits strike bans in 'those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health' of the population. This would certainly seem to include our militant resident doctors. In practice complete bans on striking by doctors – not always and everywhere the most militant of unionists, to be fair – are confined to authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. But many more liberal jurisdictions place considerable constraints on the right to strike. In some US states – including New York, Florida and Texas – doctors in public hospitals cannot strike. The same applies in several Australian states, while any industrial action in other states must go through complicated Fair Work Commission procedures. Where doctors' strikes are permitted there are usually requirements for notice and for minimum service levels – the latter is being abolished here by the Employment Rights Bill. In Canada, doctors in some provinces may be obliged to submit to binding arbitration. Mrs Badenoch justifies her headline-grabbing proposal by pointing to the frequency of resident doctors' strikes and their intransigence in demanding another extraordinary pay settlement despite the government stuffing their mouths with gold last time round. 'The BMA is out of control' she claims. That may also be true of some other militant unions – the RMT is gearing up for more action on our newly-nationalised railways, for example – but they do not generally threaten lives. I rather doubt that a new Conservative government would completely ban doctors' strikes, an action which would prompt massive opposition from the trade union movement as a whole and no doubt provoke the now-inevitable explosion of lawfare. But it would certainly be possible to clip the BMA's wings by tightening ballot requirements and reintroducing the power to impose binding arbitration, something which British governments used in the past. More important, however, would be reform to break up the monolithic structure of the NHS. This would have the side-effect of introducing a genuine market for the services of doctors rather than the current bilateral monopoly. Of course, the prospect of a Conservative government in the near future seems as likely as snow in August. Nevertheless Kemi Badenoch has performed a useful service in opening up debate about the future conduct of industrial relations in the health service, while putting Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting firmly on the spot. Reform should join in the action: we have yet to hear anything of significance about their position on the doctors' strike. Labour needs to abandon its ineffectual bleating about the moral responsibilities of doctors and get tough with these strikers, who do not have massive public backing: nobody is bashing pans outside their doors these days. Another capitulation to the demands of the BMA will only produce knock-on demands from other NHS workers, threatening both the prospects for genuine health reforms and the country's dire fiscal position.
