Elaine’s blog

When Mr Nicholson was made redundant, he claimed in the Employment Tribunal that he had been selected on the basis of his belief about climate change. I know quite a lot of people who are convinced of the arguments about the progress and dangers of climate change. I know no so-called “deny-ers” , not in this country at least. I am also aware that amongst my not-very-scientific sample of friends who fear climate change, there are those who  wish to amend their lifestyles to do their bit to limit their CO2 emissions. One friend of mine will not get into a car at all, let alone own one.

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!

The A level results this year were more acute for me because my own son was one of the candidates for a university place. It struck me how competitive the process has become, given the number of 18 year olds and the general push for them to enter higher education.  There’s also a  question mark over whether , for all their education, they will all find gainful employment at the end of their extended studies. It’s not clear whether the work that will be available to them will match up to the qualifications they can already wave in front of prospective employers.  It won’t be whether they can just wave pieces of paper, but whether they can talk about their experiences in a way which matches the employer needs.

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!

We seemed to have moved over a few short decades away from any sense of valuing “society” - I too can recall Mrs Thatcher making clear that no such concept exists, but it was news to me at the time. I heard a social commentator on the radio recently saying that we have moved, dangerously he suggested, from a culture where financial penalties for failing to adhere to club rules have mutated into “fees” for an additional service. The example he gave was where a “fine” for picking up a child late from nursery has turned into a “fee” payable by parents for an out-of-hours service. You can see it, can’t you? Everything has its price.

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”.

I read recently - in the Daily Telegraph, I think - that some Local authorities have ordered employees to stop using Latin words and phrases on documents and when communicating with members of the public.  It’s quite staggering how much the careful and sometimes distorted application of words has become such a business, principally, if perhaps pretentiously, to avoid offending someone somewhere about something. The argument about not using Latin phrases, even those in common usage, is, it is argued, so as not to offend or make life more difficult for those in our communities whose first language is not English. This view disregards the fact that Latin is not the first language of the majority either, but has infiltrated nonetheless.

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……..