In all the cases I know about, the lifestyle changes pursued conscientiously by these people do not constitute in themselves the belief.  Clearly they have formed a view based upon what they have read and heard to support the case for the prosecution; they have decided for themselves what the science indicates and what action they judge to be right for them to take. To that extent , they have made a personal decision based on their conscience and capacity to act. They see it as a moral issue, but is it a “belief”? As far as I can tell, the acts which people feel driven to take  to change their own lifestyles are rooted in a deep sense of responsibility and conscientious objection. What I am less certain of is whether the act of conscience itself evidences the belief, as intended under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Surely acts of conscience are based upon a belief, but are not themselves the belief?

The employment tribunal did find that Mr Nicholson’s belief about climate change amounted to a philosophical belief in terms of the Regulations, so his claim could proceed. The EAT also agreed that the claim should proceed, although it thought the ET had not sufficiently tested the genuineness of Mr Nicholson’s belief, and should have stopped at saying the belief was “capable of being a philosophical belief”.

Apparently, lifestyle choices can be deemed to constitute a philosophical belief if they  are genuinely held, not just an opinion and are coherent, serious and cogent. So that’s all very clear now………

Happy New Year!

This is very close to home for me now. I have been self-employed for 10 years and I still have to compete for work. I routinely present myself to selectors who may have read my CV and who have thought me worthy of a conversation - but I don’t always win the work as much as I used to. It’s no good my being complacent that I have always won work, so why wouldn’t that continue? In fact, the interim and consultancy market gets bigger all the time - there are always fresh, new people coming into my marketplace, with freshly pressed CVs and up to date experience. Complacency is not a competence that anyone can sell.

So, it’s not enough to keep the CV up to date, any more than it is for those 18 year olds to wave their A levels certificates at university admissions tutors. I have to talk the good story that my CV summarises. I have to recall and relate the practical experience that I have acquired and convince the selectors that my skill set meets their needs, that through my abilities and methods I can bring solution to their problems. If I can’t remember my stories of how I have solved problems before and what I have learned, how am I going to convince others that I have value to add to their business?

I am embarking on a new analysis of my work experience and my learning as preparation for future bids. I want to show prospective clients that I do know what I am talking about and I need to bring my CV to life in that 45 minute slot that they offer me.

No more complacency! Do the homework and make your mark!

This sounds okay, and all consistent with free-market Britain, until we think about the services which the individual family does not need, but which the taxpayer is required to pay for: such as child protection, residential care for older people, mobility services. In a civilised and mature society, these things are essential, but no one is prepared to pay a fee for a service they seemingly do not need themselves.

So I worry about where this leaves the social worker, the police officer, the fire fighter, the nurse, the benefits clerk, the housing manager, the care worker,…..even the politician………..those jobs we don’t seem to want to pay for, because we don’t seem to need them personally. The social fabric we all enjoy, that keeps our lives comfortable and safe, has to be woven at a price we no longer feel inclined to pay. The people who do these jobs are citizens too, who want to take pride in their work and who are (usually) committed to their vocation. They are no longer respected by the society they serve, and they are vilified when things go wrong.

So what else can HR managers do to attract people into these jobs. They are not well paid; they are plainly not valued by society (by which I mean everyone who holds jobs other than these) and they are not in the public, celebrity-focused eye. The challenge for HR is to attract the right people to apply for these jobs out of a sense of self-worth, pride and social conscience; to exploit the concept of vocation and to build organisational cultures that uphold and sustain it. They need to create the public service “club” atmosphere, where doing the right thing is applauded and celebrated; to give the servants a sense of well-being and reward that cannot be counted in money, but which sustains them enough to look another day in paradise in the face.

Sounds trite ? A bit “wet”?  Well, maybe. But it’s not sexy to serve democracy, collect taxes, wipe bottoms or deal with the angry dispossessed on a daily basis. We need to try anything at all to protect the social fabric that we still have and will always need. HR has its work cut out to come up with creative and robust solutions. It would help if we all developed a better sense of social responsibility and started to value the public goods we may not need ourselves as individuals, but need as a “society”.

Phrases like ad hoc, ex officio, bona fide, prima facie, inter alia, per se, pro rata, quid pro quo, vis-a-vis, vice versa and via have assumed a recognition of their own, to the extent that many people living here use them, irrespective of their own first language heritage. It seems quite cumbersome to me to obliterate eg, ie, NB and etc, just because they derive from Latin phrases.

I struggle with this linguistic correction on a number of counts. My first reflection is on the irony of the administration of a country, whose predominant population is among the most reluctant people in the world to learn foreign languages, to assert that other peoples living in their midst cannot pickup the meaning of Latin phrases of common usage when inserted into written documents. This strikes me as a pompous, ill-researched presumption that those whose first language is not English are incapable of following the sense of the language when elaborated upon in context. This pomposity is indeed offensive, not the use of Latin. I write as someone who did study languages at university, and so I can identify with living in another country, albeit for a short time, whose first language is not my own. I know first-hand that language is live and dynamic. It is learnt by repeated hearing and imitating, not in accordance with some self-appointed thought-police instruction manual. Words have meaning only in a context, which itself changes organically. According to the Dr Peter Jones, co-founder of the charity Friends of Classics said “This sort of thing sends out the message that language is about nothing more than the communication of very basic information in the manner of a railway timetable.” My thoughts entirely.

It is true that the national literacy level is evidenced as being quite low and public communications should be within the grasp of the general population. It is equally important not to condescend; I believe the phrase “dumbing down” is already well understood.

As a female I understand very well that it is important not to use language which subordinates the one sex to the other. It is important to me also as a social being that words which portray one ethnic or racial groups as inferior to another is completely unacceptable. As a former language student the gender of words in German being linguistically derived as masculine, feminine and neuter does not offend me at all. Nor does it offend me to quote the “man on the Clapham omnibus”. Nor do I believe that Actors are professionally superior to Actresses.

I believe that the label “Paki” intends offense. I recognise that to label people Barbie dolls or Golliwogs is derogatory. I also accept that organisations have a responsibility to forge their own brand and culture and for that reason they may wish to impress upon their employees a specific lexicon and phraseology that beams that out to their audience. However, getting the words right for the different audiences is a tricky business and the risks of getting it wrong, or focusing on the wrong ones, are real. If organisations are serious about being socially in tune, if not politically correct, they need to do more regular research on what is common parlance and what is offensive or difficult language for the different groups they seek not to offend. Moreover they need to keep the penalties for staff who step over this sometimes virtual line proportionate.

*We’re being controlled by a subordinating conjunction of time implying purpose or intent……..

Whilst the Woollies staff conga-ed their way out of the door, I have been watching local government workers quietly walking away with their redundancy notices. It’s hard to see if anyone is safe from this new peril of redundancy and suspension of work. That’s sobering……

I did pick up that the management of BNP Paribas is 39% female, and I am so tempted to extrapolate wildly from this one example to make a point I have for so long wanted to believe: that female management is generally sounder and more rational than that provided by the male. But then, I suppose that’s just hooey……

Or not. A French study called Global Financial Crisis: Are women the antidote? (natty title) published in October found that firms in the CAC40 (FTSE equivalent) with a higher proportion of women in management have indeed shown better resilience in time of financial crisis. I am sure there is a lot of PHD fertility in establishing the causes of such an assertion, as well as in disproving it. Still, I find it encouraging for all those aspiring women who have a permanent headache from banging on the glass ceiling.

Interestingly, Denise Kingsmill CBE, non-exec and board member extraordinaire, has posited another view about the demise of the arrogant and impatient, “you’re-fired” school of management.  Writing recently in a management magazine, she has expressed the view that the Alpha Chief Executive (ACE) is now an endangered species as the need for decency, integrity, openness, engagement and commitment come to the fore to steer businesses through tough times. What is interesting about the ACE is that he relies entirely on the command and control model of leadership, and in this century thus far, this has not proved to be successful. If he hasn’t noticed this outcome yet, I think Ms Kingmill has not exaggerated the rumours about his demise.

When I was working for the then Wolverhampton Polytechnic, I read a jolly book by Howard Jacobson called “Coming From Behind”. Mr Jacobson had been a lecturer at the Poly at one time and had based his book on a caricature of academic life. In the story, one lecturer left his coat on the back of the chair in the office and his room-mate periodically splashed water on it to give the more convincing impression that he had been in work and had indeed come in out of the rain only recently. Of course, the ruse was to veil that fact that he was hardly ever there, just didn’t want to get found out. Only yesterday on the radio, I heard a woman worker in Price Waterhouse Cooper make reference to the fact that this practice of leaving your jacket on the chair was once a more general office habit aimed at creating the illusion of “presentism”. If this practice was real, it was a symptom of a long-hours culture which must have developed in Britain sometime in the 1980s. It was the case that being seen at work for long hours , or at least as long as your boss, was a demonstration of commitment, hard work and toughness - all judged to be male attributes at the time, so women were expected to display the same behaviours if they wanted t be taken seriously for promotion.

Thankfully, taking too long over the job has more recently come to be seen as inefficient, not so clever, not so male. The new role model is of the super-mum, multi-tasking, juggling the school-run as well as the Board meetings, ministering to the measled child whilst emailing off the latest version of that key report on time, and taking a mobile call from the client in Seattle whilst whipping up a soufflé for the dinner party in an hour’s time. She doesn’t work long hours in the office - she works “flexibly” - flexi-day, flexi-week, flexi-year - and the hours she puts in are not measured, not seen.

The Working Time Regulations were introduced under a Health & Safety banner, and maybe for that reason are not really taken very seriously at all. In this country we have a confused relationship with H&S, in that we like to appear to adhere to the European rules religiously whilst laughing about them like giggly schoolchildren behind our hands. We pretend we adhere to the rules about safe working hours, yet we want to hang on to our British opt-out from the European Directive. What we are really doing as a nation is somehow convincing ourselves that it’s the individual’s right, nay privilege, to work long hours as well as be a multi-tasking super-hero - as though we still have to show those wimpish Europeans what True Grit looks like. As an aside, in no other circumstances have I ever thought of Germans as wimps, or inefficient, or not clever……….so I am not sure I can adopt that view over this issue either.

We have lost sight of what makes for a good quality of life, displaying a balanced and contented mind. We should strive in a more holistic way to produce good work, to time and to standard, in return for the wage or fee we receive. We should not wear tiredness as a badge of honour, and we should be bolder (and more grown-up) in exercising judgement about what makes for effective working and healthy living both in ourselves and others.

Sadly, the apathy of the Brits shows itself in the workplace too. I work largely in the public sector, where trade union membership is traditionally much stronger and better organised than in the private sector, yet even there, few turn up to routine union meetings, and only a minority show at meetings called to address specific topics or organisational crises. Redundancy threats have generally aroused interest in union membership, but  at these times, people draw on the insurance policy aspect of trade union organisation rather than any real sense of political loyalty or comradeship.

Some commentators say that Brits have become so obsessed with their celebrity culture that they have no sense any more of the less than trivial. This is clearly nonsense: Brits still worry about their mortgages, their jobs and their children, so why wouldn’t they be as engaged in political or social activity in exactly the same way as the meritocratic Americans are ?  

I don’t know why it is that workers no longer feel any empathy with their trade union activist colleagues, nor display any engagement with collective workplace causes. I do regret that there is something important being lost in a context where the employers have to consult  formally with a small group of, at worst dysfunctional non-representative representatives, or at best struggling representatives isolated from a non-communicative constituency. Good employers will find a way of consulting the wider workforce directly about proposals for change or potential job losses: this means twice the work for managers, not to mention the predictable tension between workforce and trade union feedback.

There’s nothing much that the legislature can do about this - trade union rights and obligations are essential in a rational democratic social structure, and increasingly, individual rights and opinions and preferences are valued and recognised. If only people would engage to make their opinion preferences known either through their trade unions, directly to management or at least through the ballot box. To fail to do this compromises our democratic system and forfeits our democratic control. Then we may get the government and  workplaces we deserve, but we can’t claim to have acted as responsible adults.

Now there is a new piece of work, conducted by Penna Consulting, in association with the CIPD and PeopleMetrics which draws up a new set of generalisations about Generation Y, which differ from the first set of generalisations. The original myths are now debunked, probably rightly so, and it seems that Generation Y  is, after all,  much more like the other generations at work than was originally suspected. Well, well, there’s a turn-up!  It seems they do stay longer in a job than was originally and prejudicially, in my view, supposed; they are not as interested in saving the world and social responsibility as was supposed; and they can concentrate!

I was intrigued by what the Penna report said about my own generation, the Baby Boomers - those born between 1948 and 1963. Apparently, we are the most dissatisfied generation at work. We want new challenges, want to feel engaged (hey, we all want to be loved…..) and we want to work for organisations that show some sense of social responsibility. Maybe.  It does make me wonder if being a Saggitarius holds as much insight for me.

The most significant observation and/or finding in the Penna report was that all generations look at the whole work package and what’s on offer for them as individuals: the job, the work context, the benefits, career opportunities. That of course points to the value of the Total Reward model of resource management, irrespective of the generation gaps - whatever they are. I am concerned that the contract of employment is an effective and honourable one; that people as individuals are treated with respect and encouraged to give their best in return. This has nothing to do with age - and ageism - but is more focussed on recruiting on the basis of matched interests and aspirations than inglorious assumptions and prejudices about  dates of birth.

My son, now studying for A levels, is apparently part of Generation Z. They are supposed to be the most technically “savvy”, but I am not sure what that will mean in terms of personal drive, commitment and ambition. I’d just like the social commentators and observers to leave him out of their generalisations, and for prospective employers to listen to what he has to say and identify with him their mutual interests.

The CIPD economist, John Philpott, has been speculating about the immigration situation in Britain and what it means for employers. He sees the outlook for immigration as the big ‘what if’. At least half the projected rise in UK population is attributed in statistician’s models to “net immigration” yet we are told that the number of people coming here from Eastern Europe in search of work has started to dwindle. Half those who have arrived since 2004 have now gone back home, putting those Polish plumber jokes in some sort of historical context! The important point for John Philpott is that even if immigration continues at a high rate,  Britain’s population is ageing: by 2060 1 in 4 Brits are projected to be aged 64 or above and 1 in 10 aged over 80 (roughly double the current proportions). Employers, as well as social service and health providers, need to wake up to the implications for them of this “inconvenient truth” and re-work their strategic plans accordingly. Workforce planning is not something that managers naturally enthuse about - they need to see beyond their apprehension about HR gimmicks and anticipate their longer term business risks in order to survive.

In the meantime, down on the ground, tribunal claims roll on with some cataclysmic results: an employment tribunal has recently upheld the workplace bullying claim brought by Gillian Switalski. She was forced out of her £140,000-a-year city job in September last year after being bullied and discriminated against by senior management. She could be in line to receive a record £19 million in compensation!

It must feel like the end of the world for some, even without acceleration………

Less favourable treatment constituting race discrimination at work is evident if it relates to the way in which a recruitment exercise is conducted, the terms of the employee’s employment, the opportunities given for promotion, transfer or training, or the access given to any benefits, facilities or services. I haven’t yet heard the details are of the current allegations lodged in the employment tribunal, but the allegations are around how the officer was managed under the direction of the top man, amongst others.

For the purposes of illumination, another case was recently reported of a black African PC of Nigerian origin who brought a claim against Derbyshire Constabulary.

In 2005, PC Bayode brought a claim of discrimination based on the way in which his performance development review had been conducted and alleged “harsh monitoring and over-close supervision by superiors and colleagues”, amounting to race discrimination and/or victimisation. This allegation related to a number of incidents when PC Bayode’s conduct was questioned, and reports were made by colleagues at the request of senior officers. The reports related to a perceived failure to support a colleague during the arrest of a drug dealer and a delay in responding to a bomb threat. No formal disciplinary action resulted.

Some of those colleagues had in fact been careful to jot down contemporaneous notes in their own notebooks, precisely because they feared that PC Bayode might later allege race discrimination. One female PC had recorded sexist remarks made by PC Boyode to her. No formal action was taken against him although he was counselled about his remarks.

In the end, PC Bayode lost his claim in the tribunal and on appeal. It seems that the tribunals assumed that what was written in the notebooks was true, even if this practice of making notes on a colleague is unusual. Even if no action resulted from the entries, they had been read by senior officers who could have been influenced by them. I for one would probably take exception to being singled out for such treatment by my colleagues. Having said that, it seems the WPC did not pursue any complaint of sex discrimination, and I might not have let that go either!