Wednesday, October 1, 2003
Regional accent survey — as seen on ITV News, Monday night.
According to a new survey almost a third of UK directors think that a strong regional accent is a disadvantage in business, with directors of small companies and those in the financial services sector most likely to discriminate against regional twangs.
The survey found that businessmen with an accent from the Home Counties or Scotland, or with an American or Continental European accent, are perceived as being more successful than businessmen with accents from any of the English regions. In particular, having a Liverpudlian, Birmingham or West Country accent appears to be a distinct disadvantage. The research clearly suggests that there is still a prejudice about business competence based on accents. The survey by The Aziz Corporation, the UK’s leading independent executive communications consultancy, reveals that over half (57%) of UK directors still perceive a businessman from the Home Counties, who speaks in the ‘Queen’s English’, to be more generally successful than one with another UK regional accent. However, 47% of directors also consider businessmen with an American accent to be more successful compared to those from the other UK regions. The survey also highlights some interesting stereotypes about accents. Those with American or Scottish accents are considered to be hardworking and reliable by 31% of their British peers. But Scottish accents are more likely than American accents to be identified with honesty and trustworthiness.
Khalid Aziz, chairman of The Aziz Corporation, said:
“our survey highlights a nationwide obsession with accents and what we think they tell other people about us. Although regional accents are more widely accepted in the media, and to a certain degree in business, this survey shows that in the workplace, a distinctive twang may still hinder individuals. The key is to avoid using localised vocabulary, which others may not recognise. We would advise individuals to consider softening broad accents — not get rid of them”.
Editors note:
Our immediate concern was the impact that this last statement would make on the grounds of being discriminatory. With this in mind we contacted Khalid Aziz for a statement—
“Accent shouldn’t be an issue. But problems associated with articulation and structure of communication make it an issue. In short it’s the difference in being understood and not misunderstood.”
above: The research clearly suggests that there is still a prejudice about business competence based on accents.
Employment contracts
There are a few factors that have been on the agenda here; including long term sick employees being entitled to holiday pay, equal treatment of fixed term workers (Fixed Term Employees Regulations), requests for flexible working and constructive dismissals and TUPE transfers.
In an important case, the EAT decided that an employer was not entitled to deduct overpaid holiday pay from employees who are leaving in the absence of a relevant agreement in the Working Times Regulations Act, unless there is a specific clause in the employment contract that applies to this.
Long term sick employees are entitled to holiday pay because the requirement states that an individual must be a worker, not that they actually be working. If they are covered by a contract of employment they are a worker. The entitlement to annual leave arises by virtue of regulation 13 of the Working Time Regulations if the claimant is or has been a worker during the whole or part of a leave year. Nothing is said that work needs to have been done.
However, if an individual wants to get this holiday, regulation 15 requires that notice be given of at least twice the length of the intended holiday, or, if the contract of employment provides some other notice requirement then that must be observed. Interestingly this rule does not apply to that portion of an employee’s contractual right to paid holiday that exceeds the statutory minimum.
Fixed Term Employees Regulations is to be implemented this October and protects fixed term employees from less favourable treatment. Treatment of a fixed term employee is viewed in comparison with a comparable full time employee (engaged in broadly similar work), unless it can be justified as objective.
More
CIPD Announces Shortlist for Excellence in People Management award
The six finalists for the CIPD/People Management award, which is presented to organisations who can demonstrate best practice in the field of people management, have been announced.
The list of entries range from successful change programmes to the introduction of flexible working arrangements and include organisations from industry and the public sector. The six finalists are: BMW UK Manufacturing Ltd, Motorola, Land Securities Trillium’s - Project Warren, INA Bearing Company Limited, GTBB Joint Venture and Ashridge Consulting on behalf of Norwich Primary Care Trust.
The CIPD People Management Award was launched in 1995 and is designed to celebrate and recognise excellence in the field of people management and development. The Award highlights organisations that have managed positive changes through the effective implementation of innovative practice and is a joint venture between the CIPD and People Management magazine.
Remember, it’s not too late to attend The CIPD Annual Conference and Exhibition, 22-24 October 2003, Harrogate International Centre
The annual conference, organised by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, will feature over 100 speakers from around the world including Sven-Goran Eriksson on How to Get The Best out of Your People; Professor Susan Greenfield on Tomorrow’s World of Work; Bear Grylls, mountaineer, on Reaching for the Top, Sir Adrian Cadbury on The Challenge of Corporate Social Responsibility and Jeffrey Pfeffer on The Doing-Knowing Gap.
Key themes include creativity and innovation, the law, managing change, recruitment, retention and motivation and strategy. More
HSE Seeks Feedback on First Aid at Work Regulations
Under the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981, every employer - and every self-employed person too - has a duty to make provision for first aid in their workplace. The HSE has just published a discussion document seeking opinions on the regulation of first-aid at work.
The discussion document addresses questions such as — is the current legislation the most appropriate and cost effective way of delivering first-aid provision to employees? And why are many employers experiencing challenges in understanding their duties under the Regulations?
There is no legal requirement for employers to make any provision for members of the public or others on their premises. However, with an increasing number of ‘public areas’ such as shopping centres or transport interchanges, there is confusion among employers and the public about whether there is or should be any legal responsibility to provide first-aid to other than employees.
This is the first full review of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981. An Approved Code of Practice (ACoP) and HSE guidance support the Regulations. The ACoP was revised in 1990 and again in 1997 to simplify the structure, clarify the requirements and to give employers more flexibility to make their own assessment of first-aid needs and provision. More
Employment disputes to be resolved at work, not at a tribunal
Plans for a radical overhaul of dispute resolution procedures were published by the UK’s Employment Relations Minister. Employers and employees will be required to follow a process to ensure that disputes are discussed at work and relieve the burden of employment tribunals.
The three-step process outlined will require:
- the problem to be set out in writing with full details provided to the other party;
- both parties to meet to discuss the problem; and
- an appeal to be arranged if requested.
Use of these procedures is set out in draft regulations, flowing from the Employment Act 2002. They require all employers to have procedures in place to deal with disputes by October 2004, after which, in most circumstances:
- employees will not be able to make claims to employment tribunals about grievances unless they have previously raised a formal grievance at work; but
- employers who dismiss staff without using the statutory procedure face an automatic finding of unfair dismissal against them.
Employment Minister Gerry Sutcliffe said:
“Disputes at work are expensive, stressful and disruptive for both employers and employees alike. But early, constructive discussion can produce solutions before problems escalate and working relationships breakdown. We want to establish new minimum standards that will help employers and employees resolve disputes before it is too late. We are consulting early on these draft regulations to allow businesses plenty of time to adjust to these changes.”
Many employers already have fair and comprehensive disciplinary and grievance procedures and will not be affected by the proposed regulations. These measures will help employers without procedures, often smaller businesses, to solve disputes when they arise.
The public consultation on the draft dispute resolution regulations will close on 29 October 2003.
The consultation document can be downloaded as an 85-page PDF More
Accident Group Faces More than 1,000 Unfair Dismissal Claims after Text Message Sackings
‘Where there’s blame there’s a claim’ specialists Accident Group is facing 1,300 claims for unfair dismissal, in what is thought to be one of the biggest group actions of its kind. Many of the 2,500 staff were told by text message when the firm collapsed back in May 2003.
Solicitor Brian Slater - who is representing the ex-staff - is reported by the BBC as saying the firm has broken the law by not consulting workers over the job losses:
“The Government rule says workers should be entitled to a 90-day consultation period if there is going to be a redundancy of this size. But, of course, that’s no good if they send a text message at the end of the company’s life to all of the people and they’re left with no consultation at all.”
The case has attracted considerable attention from the national press, not least because of images of Accident Group director Mark Langford sunbathing on his luxury yacht which appeared in newspapers last week.
Editors note:
Taking the above article in to account it is clear that the implications of not being proactive in communicating with staff are very high, financially and otherwise. Professionals need to empower themselves by staying informed of new legislation as it is continually changing.
In the September issue of Office Management Monthly we covered the penalties for failing to inform staff of management and business changes. Employers could face fines of up to £75,000 if they fail to comply with the Information and Consultation Directive, according to the DTI. The Directive comes into force in March 2005.
Pregnancy Discrimination at Work
Pregnant women still continue to face problems at work, according to survey results during Tommy’s (the baby charity’s) National Pregnancy Week.
The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) published the findings to coincide with the launch of Britain’s first ever investigation into pregnancy discrimination at work.
The EOC’s investigation - ‘Pregnant and Productive’ - will run until February 2005 when the EOC intends to make formal recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Commission will be carrying out substantial new research as part of the investigation.
This will include a survey of employers to assess their knowledge of their legal responsibilities in relation to pregnant employees and to identify examples of good practice, and interviews with employers who have acted in a discriminatory way against pregnant women to explore the circumstances and outcome of the discrimination.
Patricia Hewitt, Secretary for State and Minister for Women comments:
“Employers who discriminate against pregnant women are breaking the law and could be liable to pay compensation. They are being foolish and harming their own businesses by excluding talented women from the workforce.”
The Agency Worker’s Directive proposal
In the UK there are estimated to be 700,000 agency workers on temporary assignments at any given time, i.e. around 2.8% of the work force and certain basic employment rights such as national minimum wage, working time regulations and health and safety legislation have been specifically applied to agency workers.
The proposal takes a similar approach to existing directives, negotiated by the EU Social Partners, on Part-Time Work and Fixed-Term Work. The stated aims of the proposal are to improve the quality of temporary agency work by applying an equal treatment principle to temporary agency workers and to establish a suitable framework for the use of temporary agency work in the EU. It applies to workers employed by temporary work agencies and posted to client companies to work under the supervision of those client companies.
The proposal would require significant changes to the current UK legislation, principally to incorporate the non-discrimination obligation. At present the pay and conditions of agency workers are set by the agency according to market principles or collective agreements, generally without reference to conditions in the enterprise to which they are temporarily assigned.
The proposal argues that the directive would improve the working conditions of agency workers and therefore increase the supply of agency workers. The Government is concerned that the directive should not cause a decrease in demand for agency workers, with negative consequences both for agency workers and user enterprises in terms of employment opportunities and flexibility in the labour market. Agency work can provide a useful way into the labour market, particularly permanent jobs, for workers. It can increase labour market flexibility in ways, which benefit both business and workers. It can also offer workers who want to control or vary their patterns of work greater choice than permanent work. The present UK regulatory framework offers a balance between flexibility and protection for agency workers, which the Government would wish to ensure the proposed directive, is broadly compatible with. More
Employers are Anti Anti-discrimination Practices
December will bring about further anti-discrimination legislation further protecting the rights of employees at work and putting more pressure on employers to be open minded and breed an open minded company culture, however recent research shows that 57% of businesses are potentially completely unprepared, and 18% are unsure.
Employers are responsible for protecting their employees from direct discrimination, abuse and harassment and they need to be aware of the areas where they could potentially unintentionally discriminate as well. This would include allowing employees of all religions to take their own recognised religious holidays, providing benefits to an employees spouse regardless if they are the same gender or the opposite, throwing an annual celebration that the whole company recognises and so on.
Although the definition of sexual orientation can easily be defined, the Regulations do not make it easy to clearly define a religion or belief.
Employers need to be proactive in their approach to the new anti-discrimination in order to remain robust and be attractive to job seekers. More
Archived issues
Copyright © Office News Express, 2010. All rights reserved. Thank you, dear reader, for reading. Take me to the top.