The recent demotion of the government's Minister for Disabled People has sparked outrage among disability charities, with many expressing concerns about the implications for disabled workers. The move, which saw the previous minister, Tom Pursglove, replaced by Mims Davies, has been criticised for downgrading the role to an undersecretary position within the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).

Charities such as the Business Disability Forum and Disability Rights UK have decried the demotion of the disability minister's role, calling it a retrograde step. The downgrading of the position to an under-secretary post, combined with Davies' additional responsibilities, has raised questions about the government's dedication to promoting the rights and well-being of disabled individuals in the workforce.

Diane Lightfoot, CEO of the Business Disability Forum, emphasized the need for senior representation of disabled people in government. She argued that for the government to fulfil its commitment to getting more disabled people into employment, there should be someone at the cabinet level who truly understands the barriers faced by disabled individuals both in accessing job opportunities and within the workplace.

The reshuffle raised concerns among disability groups when the role was left vacant for seven days, marking the longest gap without a minister in the post in 30 years - according to disability charity Scope. Zofia Bajorek from the Institute for Employment Studies expressed doubt about the government's commitment to people with disabilities, particularly in light of the employment and pay gaps that persist.

The demotion of the disability minister's role is seen by some as a contradiction to the government's stated goals of increasing employment opportunities for disabled individuals, especially considering recent policies criticized for potentially removing benefits if individuals do not find work.

The Trade Union Congress (TUC) highlighted a growing wage disparity between non-disabled and disabled workers, further underscoring the importance of strong advocacy for disabled individuals within the government. Fazilet Hadi, Head of Policy at Disability Rights UK, criticized the government's approach to the appointment, citing the continuing employment and pay gaps, delays in the Access to Work scheme and a lack of action on reasonable adjustments and mandatory disability workforce monitoring.

In response to the backlash, a government spokesperson defended Mims Davies, stating that she would help disabled people realise their potential at work and tear down barriers for their success. However, disability charities - including the Business Disability Forum and Disability Rights UK - called on the Prime Minister to reverse the decision and prioritise disability inclusion.

The downgrading of the Minister for Disabled People role, combined with the delay in appointment and the broader challenges faced by disabled workers, has ignited a heated debate about the government's commitment to addressing the needs and concerns of this demographic. As disability charities continue to push for more robust representation and policies that genuinely support disabled individuals, the government's actions in the coming months will no doubt be under close scrutiny.

In a recent employment tribunal case, Chris Palmer, a candidate for an HR Manager role at AIMS Markets - a digital capital markets division of the AIMS group - lost a race and sex discrimination case. Palmer claimed that he was not selected for the position due to direct discrimination against him as a white person and / or as a man.

The tribunal, however, ruled in favour of AIMS Markets, stating that the company's aim to improve diversity did not indicate an intention to discriminate against white men.

AIMS Markets, founded in early 2017 by CEO Andrew Clover, experienced rapid growth in 2020. By mid-2021, with only 12 employees and no internal HR post, the company decided to recruit a full-time HR manager. Chris Palmer was among the few selected for a pre-screening interview, during which he claims Managing Director Michael Jones expressed the company's desire to hire "fewer white men."

Palmer went through a pre-screening interview in July 2021, conducted by Michael Jones. During the conversation, Jones mentioned the company's objective of building diversity and expressed a desire to hire "fewer white men." Despite this, Palmer was considered a serious candidate and progressed to the first interview. However, after the first interview in August 2021, concerns were raised about Palmer's seniority, communication style, and salary expectations.

Following his rejection, Palmer alleged that his failure to secure the job was based on his ethnicity and gender. He claimed that Jones had openly stated the company's intention to hire "fewer white men." Palmer also raised concerns about the interview process, accusing the company of merely "going through the motions."

The employment tribunal, led by Judge Tamara Lewis, dismissed Palmer's claims of race and sex discrimination. The panel acknowledged that AIMS Markets aimed to improve diversity but concluded that this did not indicate an intention to discriminate against white men. The judge stated that it is not concerning for an employer to discuss diversity with a candidate for an HR position and aspiring to increase diversity does not imply discriminatory hiring practices.

Palmer presented statistics indicating that the company had hired more men than women since his job was advertised. He suggested that the company had started a process of hiring "fewer men," which was then "reversed" after he raised his discrimination claim. However, the panel found against this argument as they and stated it would be “incredible” that Jones would openly declare an intention to discriminate during an interview.

In this case, the employment tribunal ruled in favour of AIMS Markets, stating that the company's aspiration to be less dominated by white men did not translate into discriminatory hiring practices. The decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between a company's diversity goals and discriminatory actions during the recruitment process. Top of Form

In a groundbreaking move, Lidl GB, the German discount supermarket chain, has set a new standard for family-friendly workplace policies in the UK. Effective from 1st January 2024, Lidl has doubled its paid maternity and adoption leave to an impressive 28 weeks, making it the first supermarket in the country to offer such an extensive benefit. This enhancement goes beyond industry norms and establishes Lidl as a leader in prioritising the well-being of its employees.

Stephanie Rogers - Chief Human Resources Officer at Lidl GB - expressed the company's commitment to supporting colleagues. In a statement, she said,

“We’re deeply committed to supporting our colleagues, not just in their professional lives but also through personal milestones and challenges.”

This move comes after a year of close engagement with employees to better understand their needs, especially those balancing work and family life. The result is a comprehensive set of family leave policies that aim to create a supportive and inclusive workplace, solidifying Lidl's ambition to be a first-choice employer.

One of the notable features of Lidl's enhanced family leave policies is the extension of full pay for over six months during maternity or adoption leave. The move is seen as a benchmark for the industry, encouraging other companies to follow suit and prioritise the well-being of their workforce.

Additionally, Lidl has introduced paid leave for colleagues undergoing fertility treatment. This groundbreaking policy allows employees two full days of paid leave per treatment cycle, with no limit to the number of cycles, demonstrating a commitment to supporting employees on their fertility journey.

Recognising the emotional toll of pregnancy loss, Lidl has introduced five days of paid leave for individuals affected by pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks, inclusive of partners. This compassionate approach acknowledges the need for time and support during difficult moments in employees' lives.

Expanding beyond family-related policies, Lidl has also increased its Compassionate Leave policy to five days, reflecting a commitment to supporting employees facing various personal challenges.

In a move towards creating an even more inclusive workplace, Lidl is in the process of becoming accredited as a menopause-friendly employer. This initiative includes the introduction of various measures, such as menopause champions across the business and a menopause community group to provide support for colleagues affected by menopause symptoms.

Lidl's has seen rapid market share growth in the past year. According to market research firm Kantar, Lidl held a 7.8% share of the grocery market in November, up from 7.4% a year prior. The company's emphasis on supporting its workforce aligns with a growing trend among consumers who are increasingly drawn towards companies that prioritise their employees' welfare.

In a surprising shift, Nationwide has informed its 13,000 staff members, initially promised flexible working, that they will be required to return to the office for at least two days a week from early next year. This announcement comes as a significant change to the building society's "work anywhere" policy introduced during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

During the pandemic, Nationwide took a pioneering stance with its "work anywhere" policy, assuring staff members outside its branches that they would not be compelled to return to the office. This move was aimed at putting employees in control of their work environment, emphasizing social contact, collaboration and creativity as reasons to maintain office spaces.

However, with the appointment of Debbie Crosbie as Nationwide's first female chief executive at the end of 2021, a shift in the organisation's approach to remote work has emerged. The new policy - agreed upon with the Nationwide Group Staff Union - mandates most staff to work in the office for at least 40% of their contract, equivalent to two days a week for full-time employees.

Although the policy is set to take effect from 1st January 2024, a transition period has been established until 1st April 2024, allowing staff who have undergone major lifestyle changes - such as moving homes - to adjust. Employees are also given the option to apply for exceptions to the policy.

The abrupt change in policy has sparked dissatisfaction among employees, with some expressing strong opposition. One employee interviewed by the BBC noted that those who are angered are extremely so. The discrepancy between the initial promise of not forcing employees back to the office and the current requirement has created tension within the workforce.

Nationwide has stated that the society will be monitoring data on office access to understand site utilisation and identify non-compliance with the new requirement. However, they have assured staff that this data will only be used for discussions and not as an absolute measure of compliance.

Debbie Crosbie acknowledged the discontent among employees but emphasized that Nationwide would continue to support various flexible working options, including part-time hours and job sharing. The assurance of flexibility seeks to balance the organisation's needs for office collaboration with the employees' desire for a work environment that accommodates their individual circumstances.

In a recent survey conducted by Acas, it was revealed that a significant majority of employees - a staggering 70% - are unaware that a change in employment law is on the horizon. Starting from 6th April 2024, employees in the UK will gain the right to request flexible working arrangements from their employers from day one of their employment.

As it stands, employees who have completed a minimum of 26 weeks with their employer are entitled to request flexible working. This typically includes options such as flexible start and finish times, remote work, job sharing, part-time work, compressed hours, flexitime, staggered hours and phased retirement. However, the upcoming change will extend this right to all employees from their first day on the job.

To ensure a smooth transition and fair treatment of employees, the law requires employers to handle flexible working requests in a "reasonable manner." This includes assessing the pros and cons of the application, holding meetings with the employee to discuss the request and providing an appeals process. If an employer fails to handle a request reasonably, the employee has the option to escalate the matter to an employment tribunal.

Employers can still refuse a flexible working application if they have a legitimate business reason for doing so. However, this decision must be made transparently, with the employer clearly stating the reasons for rejecting the request. The employee also has the right to appeal the decision.

In anticipation of the upcoming changes, Acas is set to release a new statutory Code of Practice on handling requests for flexible working. This code is designed to guide both employers and employees through the process, offering information on who should accompany an employee during discussions, the importance of transparency in rejection reasons and the proactive offering of an appeal process following a rejected request.

Acas Chief Executive, Susan Clews, said:

"There has been a substantial shift in flexible working globally, which has allowed more people to better balance their working lives and employers have also benefitted from being an attractive place to work.

"It is important for bosses and staff to be prepared for new changes to the law around the right to request flexible working, which will be coming into force next year.

"Acas has just consulted on a new draft Code of Practice, which strengthens good practice on flexible working and addresses important upcoming changes to the law. The final new Code will be published next year."

In a survey conducted by Stewarts Law - the UK's largest litigation-only law firm -  insights into the perceptions of equal pay in the workplace among 2,000 women have been revealed. The report sheds light on the evolving dynamics of gender inequality as women progress in their careers, unveiling a stark contrast in perceptions based on income levels and seniority.

The survey - which was compiled from research conducted by Censuswide, among a sample of 2,008 employed women in the UK aged 16+ (minimum 500 respondents who earn £75,000+) - found that only 52.2% of the respondents felt they were equally compensated compared to their male colleagues in the same role. What's particularly striking is the trend that emerges as women climb the salary ladder. Those earning between £65,000 and £75,000 were less likely (36.7%) to believe they were paid on par with their male counterparts. Interestingly, generally individuals earning over £55,000 were more likely to perceive unequal compensation compared to those earning between £15,000 and £55,000, highlighting a concerning trend in senior roles.

Joseph Lappin, Head of Employment stated:

“Promoting women into senior roles is a key priority for businesses and there remains a lot of work for businesses to do in this regard. Our data shows that women in senior roles believe they are being paid less than their male counterparts. This is worrying. Employers will need to make sure that, unless a pay differential can be justified lawfully, they are not paying men in senior roles more than women performing the same work. If they do they may face equal pay claims.”

Beyond remuneration, the survey delved into gender representation at different income levels. A mere 47.1% of respondents believed there was an equal mix of men and women at their career level. This perception worsened as income increased, with over a third of those earning over £75,000 perceiving an imbalance in gender representation.

While 64.1% of women overall believed there were equal opportunities for both genders within their organisations, this viewpoint was challenged among higher earners (£55,000 or more), with 21.0% expressing dissatisfaction. This suggests a potential disparity in access to opportunities as women climb the career ladder.

The survey also explored transparency around promotion, pay and rewards. A notable 55.8% of respondents felt their companies were open about internal processes and policies. However, among individuals aged 25-34, 34.8% felt that policies in their organisations lacked clarity. The discrepancy was more pronounced among higher earners, where 60.9% of those earning over £75,000 believed policies were clear, compared to only 40% of those earning between £65,000 and £75,000.

A significant finding highlighted the importance of gender pay gap reporting for women when considering employment. A substantial 60.2% of respondents would factor in an employer's gender pay gap when applying for a job, emphasizing the growing importance of transparency and accountability in the workplace.

While a considerable proportion of women expressed willingness to raise complaints regarding equal pay, there exists a lack of knowledge or awareness around how to navigate this process. Over a third (37.6%) of respondents would consider taking their employer to an employment tribunal or court if they discovered pay discrepancies. Notably, younger individuals were more inclined to explore legal avenues, with 47.6% of 16-24-year-olds expressing this willingness compared to 21.8% of those over 55.

Charlie Thompson, Partner in the Employment team added:

“It is sometimes easy to forget that employers do not want to be involved in discrimination disputes – meaning that the employee is often in a stronger position than they may think. An employee has the right to file a claim against their employer if they are not receiving equal pay for equivalent work compared to a colleague. Beyond safeguarding women from workplace discrimination, individuals undertaking a ‘protected act’ under the Equality Act 2010 gain additional protection against victimisation.”

Stewarts Law's comprehensive survey underscores the evolving landscape of gender inequality in the workplace, with perceptions shifting as women progress in their careers. The findings emphasize the need for targeted efforts to bridge the gender pay gap, promote workplace diversity and equity, and empower women to address disparities. Addressing these issues is crucial not only for the well-being of individual employees but for fostering a fair and inclusive work environment for all.

The Chief Executive of insurance giant Aviva - Amanda Blanc - has testified before the parliamentary inquiry on sexism in the City of London, shedding light on the steps her company has taken to address inappropriate behaviour and harassment within its ranks. As the first female CEO of Aviva, Blanc has not only championed gender equality but also highlighted the pervasive issue of sexism in the financial services sector.

During her testimony, Blanc emphasized the importance of creating a workplace culture that safeguards female employees and ensures their careers do not suffer as a consequence of reporting misconduct. Aviva has taken proactive measures, including the dismissal of male employees found guilty of inappropriate behaviour.

Blanc emphasized the need for each company to be accountable for allegations of harassment, stressing the importance of a transparent process that investigates complaints thoroughly.

She told MPs:

“Every individual firm has to be accountable for any allegations such as this, and the women in the firm have to know that there is a process for speaking up; that that process will be acted on; that everything will be investigated; and that the person who did the bad leaves the organisation, not the women.”

Blanc acknowledged the societal dimension of the issue, noting that financial services seem to amplify the problem. Her commitment to combating sexism extends beyond Aviva, as evidenced by her role as the Treasury's Women in Finance Champion, advocating for gender equality across the industry.

Blanc's testimony took place within the context of the ongoing parliamentary inquiry into sexism in the City. The inquiry - initiated by the Treasury committee - aims to assess the progress made in addressing harassment and misogyny within the UK's financial services sector and was launched after a flood of harassment allegations rocked the business world. Shockingly, much of the evidence gathered in private sessions revealed a lack of improvement over the past two decades, with reports of sexual assault, bullying and harassment that continue to plague the industry.

After posting on LinkedIn, Blanc received an avalanche of messages from women in the financial services sector sharing their harrowing experiences. This highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive reform and her call for industry-wide accountability is a crucial step towards fostering a more inclusive and respectful workplace culture. By sharing the responsibility among financial institutions, Blanc believes that progress can be made in eradicating inappropriate behaviour and fostering an environment where women can thri

The team at Reassured - the UK’s largest life insurance broker - recently conducted an insightful study on UK paternity leave trends. The focus was on the UK but compared to international perspectives, shedding light on the experiences of fathers and the varying policies across countries and industries.

The survey, encompassing 250 fathers in the UK, revealed some eye-opening statistics. Perhaps most striking was the fact that only 17.1% of respondents were granted 5 to 6 weeks of paid parental leave, representing less than a fifth of all those surveyed. The majority, it seems, were offered a meagre 1 to 2 weeks of paid leave, a stark contrast to the average global maternity leave period of around 5 to 6 weeks.

Despite the brevity of their leave, a surprising 71% of dads felt that their employers were doing enough to support them in the workplace. Additionally, 66% believed they had sufficient time to bond with their child during their time off. However, 60% expressed a desire for their paternity leave to align more closely with that of their partners.

While the overall sentiment seems positive, 52% of respondents felt pressured to return to work sooner than agreed upon and 41% were denied longer paternity leave than they desired. This suggests that - although some fathers are content with their leave arrangements - there is room for improvement in accommodating the diverse needs of working fathers.

The research also delved into regional variations within the UK, highlighting Manchester as the best city for parental leave, where 41% of parents enjoyed an impressive 9 to 10 weeks off work. Conversely, Norwich and Liverpool emerged as the least accommodating cities, offering just 1 to 2 weeks for a significant portion of parents.

Leeds stood out as a city where the negative impacts of longer paternity leave were particularly pronounced, with 70% of fathers expressing concerns about potential career repercussions. In contrast, London and Birmingham demonstrated comparatively lower levels of anxiety, with 45% and 43% of fathers, respectively, expressing similar concerns.

When examining industries, the study uncovered that those working in charity and law universally felt their careers could be adversely affected by taking longer paternity leave. Sectors like law enforcement, security, recruitment, HR, transport, and accountancy also reported high levels of career impact concerns (67-75%). Notably, the energy and utilities sector emerged as the least affected, with only 13% expressing such concerns.

Comparing the UK to 43 other countries, the study found that the UK ranked 24th in terms of average paternity leave length, offering just 2 weeks with an 18.5% overall average payment rate. Spain topped the list, providing an average of 16 weeks of paid paternity leave at 100% of the salary. Other leading countries included the Netherlands, Portugal, France, and Estonia, each offering longer and more generously compensated paternity leave than the UK.

Analysing industries globally, healthcare proved to be the most generous sector, offering an average of 12 weeks of paternity leave, followed by finance (11.5 weeks), industrial positions (9.6 weeks), tech jobs (7.3 weeks), and cyclical work (7 weeks). On the flip side, real estate provided the least amount of paternity leave, averaging just 1.9 weeks.

In conclusion, the study by Reassured highlights the significant disparities in paternity leave policies both within the UK and globally. While some fathers feel adequately supported, there is a pressing need for more inclusive and flexible parental leave policies to better accommodate the diverse needs and expectations of working fathers worldwide.

In a recent study conducted by HR, payroll and finance software provider MHR, concerning revelations about the detrimental impact of inaccurate payroll on both employees and businesses have come to light. The findings underscore the urgent need for organisations to prioritise accurate and timely payment processes for the well-being of their workforce and the overall health of their operations.

The study - based on surveys of employees across the UK - found that a staggering 46% had missed a bill payment directly due to their employer's inaccurate payroll practices. Whether it was being underpaid or not paid at all, the consequences left workers struggling to meet crucial financial obligations, particularly amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis.

Anton Roe, CEO at MHR commented:

“Payroll errors represent not just a costly mistake to businesses, or a barrier to their growth, but also a real threat to employees up and down the country who will be relying on accurate pay to help navigate the ongoing cost of living crisis."

Financial stress has proven to be a pervasive issue, with 67% of respondents reporting difficulty concentrating at work and a significant 65% stating that their mental health had been negatively impacted in the past year due to financial concerns. This paints a stark picture of the intertwined relationship between financial stability and overall well-being and the direct impact it has on employee productivity and mental health.

Notably, the responsibility of organisations in maintaining the financial well-being of their employees is underscored by MHR's research, revealing that a staggering 88% of UK businesses experienced payroll errors resulting in incorrect or delayed payments in the last year. For nearly half (43%) of these businesses, inaccuracies in payroll operations were identified as the most significant challenge they currently face.

The investigation and correction of these errors were identified by more than half (53%) of businesses as the most time-consuming aspect of their payroll operations. The study highlights the substantial amount of time and resources businesses expend on rectifying payroll mistakes, with 80% of respondent businesses dedicating at least 12 hours per month to address these errors.

This 12-hour monthly commitment translates to a staggering 144 hours per year, equivalent to 18 full days of payroll staff time wasted on error correction. This not only poses a significant drain on productivity but also raises questions about the efficiency and reliability of existing payroll processes within companies.

In response to these challenges, half of the respondent businesses (50%) identified the adoption of new digital payroll technologies as a potential solution to improve their existing payroll practices and reduce the likelihood of errors. However, the study also highlighted a significant obstacle to implementing these changes: a lack of resources, cited by 46% of businesses as the primary reason for not embracing digital payroll solutions.

The revelations from MHR's research emphasize the pressing need for businesses to re-evaluate their payroll processes. As the study suggests, embracing digital payroll technologies may not only enhance accuracy and timeliness but also save valuable time and resources that can be redirected towards more strategic and impactful aspects of business operations.

In a significant move, ASOS - the online fashion giant - has decided to alter its executive bonus criteria, shifting the focus away from diversity targets and placing a stronger emphasis on profits.

ASOS executives will no longer be required to meet diversity targets to receive their annual bonuses. Instead, the criteria will be centred around driving profits, improving share prices and enhancing profit margins.

This change reflects a broader industry trend where companies face increasing pressure to prioritise financial performance and signals a departure from the environmental, social and governance (ESG) movement that has gained momentum in recent years.

The decision to remove diversity targets from annual bonuses aligns with ASOS's commitment to a turnaround strategy, with management emphasising profitability in the year ahead. The company's executives will now have to steer the online retailer toward achieving specific financial milestones to secure their annual payouts.

This shift in ASOS's bonus structure comes at a time when various companies are facing investor demands to deprioritise ESG targets and refocus on profitability. Last year, ASOS did not meet its diversity targets, resulting in executives not receiving their annual bonuses. The company has clarified that its wider diversity initiatives remain intact, with a goal of achieving 50% female and 15% ethnic minority representation at every leadership level by 2030.

The change in bonus criteria is evident in the adjustments made to the structure for the current financial year. Previously, ASOS's annual bonus was allocated based on revenue, adjusted pre-tax profit, adjusted free cash flow and strategic and ESG measures. The strategic and ESG component included diversity, equity and inclusion measures, emphasising female and ethnic minority leadership targets.

For the current financial year, ASOS has recalibrated its bonus allocation, with 75% now based on adjusted EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization), and the remaining 25% tied to targets for closing stock, adjusted gross margin and cost to serve. This adjustment highlights the company's renewed focus on financial metrics.

ASOS, which experienced a near-£300 million full-year loss in its last financial year, is positioning itself for a return to growth in 2025. The company has underlined its commitment to longer-term diversity goals by instead incorporating a diversity measure into its incentive scheme.

While this move by ASOS mirrors broader industry trends, it also raises questions about the balance between financial performance and ESG considerations. Companies are increasingly grappling with the need to navigate this delicate balance, ensuring they address both shareholder expectations for profits and societal demands for responsible business practices.