I spent much of last week stuck in front of the TV watching BBC3's live series, Up For Hire, which set out to tackle the growing and very real problem of youth unemployment. Set over four nights, with live shows as well as pre-filmed segments, it presented its mission of getting young people into work, showcasing real-life experiences as well as offering paid work placements through industry partners such as Greggs and The Hilton Group. It sounded promising, even interesting, so on Monday night I plonked my bum on the sofa with some Dairy Milk, and started to watch. I'd already failed miserably to answer many correct questions on either University Challenge or Only Connect, so I was quite ready to watch other people suffer instead.
Based around the work placements for 4 young unemployed people, the show arranged for Ben, Kirsty, Chris and Sasha to experience a 40-year career in the space of a week or so. Starting out on minimum wage at Crealy Adventure Park in Devon, we saw tears, tantrums and badly made burgers as our two grads, single mum and teenage unemployed lad tried to get into the swing of the work. Over the course of the four days, they progressed through to management (of LUSH stores), and then onto being MDs and CEOs of corporations such as Liberty and AOL. In between these filmed clips, we were treated to a live audience debate (my favourite was the girl told she should be prepared to move for work even though she was searching for work in London... if you can't find a job there, where is better?!) and some words of wisdom from both entrepreneurs (James Caan, Richard Reed from Innocent) and celebs (Edith Bowman, Greg James). Even the deplorable Katie Hopkins from The Apprentice many moons ago showed up to wind up the audience. Although she was actually quite sensible, much as I hate to admit it, pointing out that "Micky Mouse" degrees such as Media should be removed and that academic excellence should be the sole aim of the degree system. The audience and presenters (the somewhat out of his depth Richard Bacon and Tina "I don't have to do anything except read out comments from the website" Dahely) debated issues such as relocating to find jobs, and whether degrees are necessary. We were also treated to filmed interviews of candidates who had applied for work placements through the BBC3 website, and told which ones had been successful. In between, there were little snippets of CV and interview advice from random advisors.
You know what? It was interesting, but not earth shattering. At the end of the series, we saw all four of our young 'uns being offered jobs, three by the people who'd mentored them as MDs, and one by a contact she'd met via her placement. What I found interesting that, despite all the advice offered on CV writing, interview techniques and so on, it was good old networking that got them roles. It's not what you know, it's who you know - and most young people never get the chance to meet the types of people who can give them a leg up in the career department, which leaves a slightly sour taste in the mouth. On the other hand, there were plenty of happy youngsters who had won placements for 3 or 12 months with household names such as Timpsons and Greggs, after applying through BBC3's website and acing their interviews. It does rather beg the question - why does it take the possibility of appearing on TV to push someone to apply for a minimum wage job serving cakes to customers,but hey ho, what do I know about it? Maybe the show goes to prove that young people need to reassess their expectations, and can't always get their dream job even as graduates.
As expected, the subject of self employment was brought up, as an alternative to spending months or even years searching for non existent jobs in your sector. This was pushed as a good way for young people to become employed, and obviously at a time when they have less to lose than later down the line, when mortgages and families need to be considered. What with the Young Apprentice having started over on BBC1 now, copying the new Apprentice format of winning cash towards starting a business rather than a job, maybe more young people will be looking at alternative ways of earning a living...
Although the show did address many of the problems surrounding youth unemployment, and offered solutions and advice for many, what it didn't - for me - achieve, was to explore the reasons so many young people are unmotivated and disenfranchised, and what can be done about that. It's all very well being a graduate on a work placement arranged by a TV show, and then be offered a good job on the back of that, but what about the long-term unemployed? The studio audience seemed to be made up mainly of graduates who had been out of work for a few months, and who had none of the issues affecting the long-term unemployed, disabled or disaffected youngsters from the wrong side of the tracks, and showed a pretty one-sided (read: middle-class) view of the issue.
Having said that, for all the recent graduates - and motivated non-graduates - still in the job market, the show offered a lot of useful advice and encouragement, as does the website. Check it out :)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00k9c3r
For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk
Tuesday 25 October 2011
Thursday 25 August 2011
Failed IT projects lead to big business failures...
I read an interesting article from Computer Weekly the other day, claiming that "failed IT projects demolish big businesses and executive careers". According to researchers from Oxford University, senior executives are losing jobs and businesses are collapsing due to unfinished, or failed, projects. With IT projects estimated as 20% more likely to run out of control than other projects, with 1 in 6 increasing their average budget/ cost by 200%, this is a real worry for businesses. More complex projects can become unpredictable, with this often not understood by the project managers, and both public and private sectors are suffering from these oversights. With managers focusing on average performance rather than variability, many IT projects seem doomed to fail.
Massive companies - such as Airbus, Levi-Strauss, Tollcollect and Hershey's - have all been on the brink of collapse because of out of control IT. In 2009, BT Global Services lost £1.2bn due to cost overruns on big contracts with the NHS and Reuters. In the same year, the £234m "C-Nomis" IT system for prisons failed. It was continuously assessed as proceeding to time and budget, but in fact wasn't. The National Audit Office concluded that the technical complexity had been "significantly underestimated." The system had gone the same way as many other failed government IT-based change programmes, making the same mistakes along the way. IBM were sued only last year for a failed virtual PC server project, and in 2009 HMRC sucessfully claimed over £71m in damages from ERS for the muck-up they made of the Tax Credits system, which led to thousands of families being overpaid.
So what IS it causing these large-scale failures? Is it leadership, project management, over/under estimating... or incompetence? Duncan Haughy of Projectsmart.co.uk says that "the biggest problems that projects face are inadequate definition, scope and planning." Is this true of IT? Seems like it. So how do we avoid these pitfalls? Reinder Otter of Capgemini has these rules to follow for a successful outcome.
1) Freeze scope - enforce release management rules.
2) Keep requirements SMART.
3) Involve stakeholders and users at the start.
4) Keep things simple with the right funcionality.
5) Avoid bad management - someone must have an overview at all times and manage any gaps or overlaps between suppliers, stakeholders and customers.
6) Balance quality and cost.
And another one I would add - learn from past mistakes.
I suppose that, at the end of the day, not all projects are created equal, but they can all equally fall by the wayside.
I'm just glad that my biggest IT project involves turning on my laptop and checking my emails...
For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk
For more IT news, try www.computerweekly.co.uk
Massive companies - such as Airbus, Levi-Strauss, Tollcollect and Hershey's - have all been on the brink of collapse because of out of control IT. In 2009, BT Global Services lost £1.2bn due to cost overruns on big contracts with the NHS and Reuters. In the same year, the £234m "C-Nomis" IT system for prisons failed. It was continuously assessed as proceeding to time and budget, but in fact wasn't. The National Audit Office concluded that the technical complexity had been "significantly underestimated." The system had gone the same way as many other failed government IT-based change programmes, making the same mistakes along the way. IBM were sued only last year for a failed virtual PC server project, and in 2009 HMRC sucessfully claimed over £71m in damages from ERS for the muck-up they made of the Tax Credits system, which led to thousands of families being overpaid.
So what IS it causing these large-scale failures? Is it leadership, project management, over/under estimating... or incompetence? Duncan Haughy of Projectsmart.co.uk says that "the biggest problems that projects face are inadequate definition, scope and planning." Is this true of IT? Seems like it. So how do we avoid these pitfalls? Reinder Otter of Capgemini has these rules to follow for a successful outcome.
1) Freeze scope - enforce release management rules.
2) Keep requirements SMART.
3) Involve stakeholders and users at the start.
4) Keep things simple with the right funcionality.
5) Avoid bad management - someone must have an overview at all times and manage any gaps or overlaps between suppliers, stakeholders and customers.
6) Balance quality and cost.
And another one I would add - learn from past mistakes.
I suppose that, at the end of the day, not all projects are created equal, but they can all equally fall by the wayside.
I'm just glad that my biggest IT project involves turning on my laptop and checking my emails...
For more about Mobilus, go to www.mobilus.co.uk
For more IT news, try www.computerweekly.co.uk
Friday 17 June 2011
I spent an awful lot of autumn blogging about The Apprentice, I know, and promised I'd stop - but this new series has once again got me hooked and I can't resist. The candidates are from the same old mould as the last god-knows-how-many lots, but still as entertaining as ever. I am enjoying Jim's evil machincations, Susie's sulky pouting, and Natasha's irritating nasal whine. The tasks are, as ever, pointless and unrealistic, but serve their purpose - to provide us with an hour of amusement at the expense of the Apprentice crew as they balls up big time. We don't want them to succeed, surely - we want Lord Sugar to treat them with the contempt they deserve. The format is the same, but the reward has changed this year. Instead of winning the (frankly dubious) honour of working for Lord Sugar, the contenders get to go into business with him. Sugsie intends to show that you don't need a lot of money to start a business... by injecting £250,000 of his own cash into the venture. Interesting stuff from someone who famously declared that small businesses should stop expecting funding and go it alone. Hmmm. If he can do it, and all that...
Anyway, this got me thinking about swapping employment for self employment and running a business rather than working for the man. With jobless benefit in May increasing by 19,600 (more than double the forecast), it seems that there is not enough employment to go around. Increasingly, this means that people are choosing to start their own businesses rather than compete for the few jobs that may be out there. In the 6 months prior to April, self employment reached a record high of 4.03 million. With a million of them out of work, its the twenty-somethings leading this trend, with the number of self-employed university leavers jumping 46% in the last 6 years, and 4/10 London undergrads already having set up their own business whilst studying. Research by Enterprise UK shows that over half of 14-19 year olds aspire to run their own business.
It's not just the youngsters looking for alternative ways to make a living. We have the "mumtrepreneurs", the stay-at-home mums setting up and running successful businesses from home, which fit in with their kids as well as making them a nice was of cash. Marla Nelson from Coventry, for example, set up her own marketing consultancy last year after being made redundant. The over-50s are also increasingly going it alone, with more of them than ever becoming self employed or starting a business, often with the help of PRIME, who are linked to Age UK and offer support and advice. A4E, based in Yorkshire but operating nationwide, provide redundant and unemployed people with training and support, and last year helped 2,000 people into self employment. With the recession leaving people out of work or unhappy with work, many workers disillusioned with their jobs have decided that they prefer to be their own boss. And they've been kick starting the economy ever since. With David Cameron hailing the next decade as "the age of the entrepreneur", and laucnhing the new Enterprise Allowance to help the unemployed into business, this may just be a taste of things to come.
I can see why BBC have changed the objective of The Apprentice - going into business is what young people (and us older people!) aspire to nowadays, helped in no small part by programmes such as Dragon's Den and The Apprentice. It remains to be seen how successful this new format will be, and how the winner will get on with Lord Sugar in the driving seat. As long as we get to see the "what happened next" show (my favourite part of Dragon's Den), I'll be happy. I just wonder how long the honeymoon period will last...
To find out more about Mobilus, visit us at www.mobilus.co.uk
Anyway, this got me thinking about swapping employment for self employment and running a business rather than working for the man. With jobless benefit in May increasing by 19,600 (more than double the forecast), it seems that there is not enough employment to go around. Increasingly, this means that people are choosing to start their own businesses rather than compete for the few jobs that may be out there. In the 6 months prior to April, self employment reached a record high of 4.03 million. With a million of them out of work, its the twenty-somethings leading this trend, with the number of self-employed university leavers jumping 46% in the last 6 years, and 4/10 London undergrads already having set up their own business whilst studying. Research by Enterprise UK shows that over half of 14-19 year olds aspire to run their own business.
It's not just the youngsters looking for alternative ways to make a living. We have the "mumtrepreneurs", the stay-at-home mums setting up and running successful businesses from home, which fit in with their kids as well as making them a nice was of cash. Marla Nelson from Coventry, for example, set up her own marketing consultancy last year after being made redundant. The over-50s are also increasingly going it alone, with more of them than ever becoming self employed or starting a business, often with the help of PRIME, who are linked to Age UK and offer support and advice. A4E, based in Yorkshire but operating nationwide, provide redundant and unemployed people with training and support, and last year helped 2,000 people into self employment. With the recession leaving people out of work or unhappy with work, many workers disillusioned with their jobs have decided that they prefer to be their own boss. And they've been kick starting the economy ever since. With David Cameron hailing the next decade as "the age of the entrepreneur", and laucnhing the new Enterprise Allowance to help the unemployed into business, this may just be a taste of things to come.
I can see why BBC have changed the objective of The Apprentice - going into business is what young people (and us older people!) aspire to nowadays, helped in no small part by programmes such as Dragon's Den and The Apprentice. It remains to be seen how successful this new format will be, and how the winner will get on with Lord Sugar in the driving seat. As long as we get to see the "what happened next" show (my favourite part of Dragon's Den), I'll be happy. I just wonder how long the honeymoon period will last...
To find out more about Mobilus, visit us at www.mobilus.co.uk
Thursday 21 April 2011
Let's Get Britain Working!
Incapacity Benefit has been in the news again today, with reports that over 80,000 people in the UK are claiming it due to alcohol or drug addiction, or obesity. A quarter of these alkies, druggies and fatties haven't worked for a decade! Obviously, the British tax payer isn't completely happy about having to foot for bill for what could be seen as, essentially, a lifestyle choice. The government has revealed plans to shake up the system and get these people back into work, rather than allowing them to remain on benefits indefinitely. Everybody claiming Incapacity Benefit will now be retested to ensure they meet the criteria to continue paying, or move onto Jobseekers Allowance and be encouraged (or forced, as some see it) to look for work. Last year, IB was replaced by Employment and Support Allowance, in which all ill and disabled people are assessed to ascertain their fitness for work. But what about these addicts and obese claimants? Can their "incapacity" indeed be classed as an illness, or are they just a drain on society? If you look at those addicted to alcohol, drugs or food, then yes - we could say they have made these choices and should be paying for their addictions out of their own pockets. But if we consider - as many do - addiction to be a form of mental illness, then they are, in fact, suffering from a disability and as such, whilst in the grip of the addiction, incapable of working. And let's face it, how easy can it be to hold down a job if you ARE an alcoholic or a drugs-user? I think obese people get less sympathy as their addiction is rarely as serious, and we feel that there is nothing stopping them from getting or keeping a job. Yet in some circumstances, manual labour, or driving for example, a person's size would preclude them from being able to do the job. There are a lack of treatment facilities in the UK to help addicts recover, and the government haven't addressed this issue yet. However, Chris Grayling (the Employment Minister) says that private and voluntary organisations have pledged £580m to treat addicts and prepare them for employment. Even so, it may be too little. Some addicts may find the pressures of work too much, and others may find it nigh on impossible to even get a job after being unemployed for years due to addiction. In today's job market, these people stand even less chance of finding employment than the general population.
In a climate where the unemployment figures stand at 2.48m, finding a job isn't easy for anyone. And women are at more of a disadvantage than men - the amount of out of work women rose in March by 14,000, where the amount of unemployed men fell by 31,000. With the rate of Jobseekers Allowance standing at a paltry £64.30 for the over 25's, it makes sense for people to get back into work post haste, although there are concerns that people on income-based Jobseekers Allowance worry about being worse off in lower-paid jobs. So what to do, and where to find these jobs? With a report by Gumtree finding that 50% of people are concerned about losing their job, the competition is fierce. Lucky for us all, then, that The Mirror has launched their "Get Britain Working" campaign. According to them, this week they have found 10,118 jobs up for grabs. Sounds impressive, huh? These include: 70 jobs with DHL; 550 graduate positions; 70 jobs with DFS; 44 at Sainsburys and 2,320 on Fish4Jobs (who The Mirror have teamed up with on this campaign, forming a "one stop job shop"). Helpful articles such as tips for young jobseekers and starting your own business are also on their website at www.mirror.co.uk/getbritainworking. Sounds good so far. In the last 5 weeks, the paper claims that it has located 284,735 jobs, including 37,00 IT jobs. Do we believe it though? Personally... no. Has The Mirror taken into account multiple postings of the same job, on different websites? Plenty of companies advertise through several channels for the same role, using boards such as Monster, Jobsite and Reed. The same goes for recruitment agencies, where one role is worked on by different companies. How many jobs on the most popular sites are repeated by a number of different agencies - often with identical wording. And a lot of the jobs found by The Mirror are in specialist areas such as IT, or social care... making them inaccessible for the majority of readers. Whilst the campaign is a good idea, I think it's a little misleading, to claim that they have found such a huge number of jobs. But good on them for giving it a go, and if it only helps a few people, then they've done their job. In this current climate, anything's better than nothing.
And as one of those lucky people still in employment, at least I can look forward to the long weekend knowing that I have (vaguely) earned it. Happy Easter!
In a climate where the unemployment figures stand at 2.48m, finding a job isn't easy for anyone. And women are at more of a disadvantage than men - the amount of out of work women rose in March by 14,000, where the amount of unemployed men fell by 31,000. With the rate of Jobseekers Allowance standing at a paltry £64.30 for the over 25's, it makes sense for people to get back into work post haste, although there are concerns that people on income-based Jobseekers Allowance worry about being worse off in lower-paid jobs. So what to do, and where to find these jobs? With a report by Gumtree finding that 50% of people are concerned about losing their job, the competition is fierce. Lucky for us all, then, that The Mirror has launched their "Get Britain Working" campaign. According to them, this week they have found 10,118 jobs up for grabs. Sounds impressive, huh? These include: 70 jobs with DHL; 550 graduate positions; 70 jobs with DFS; 44 at Sainsburys and 2,320 on Fish4Jobs (who The Mirror have teamed up with on this campaign, forming a "one stop job shop"). Helpful articles such as tips for young jobseekers and starting your own business are also on their website at www.mirror.co.uk/getbritainworking. Sounds good so far. In the last 5 weeks, the paper claims that it has located 284,735 jobs, including 37,00 IT jobs. Do we believe it though? Personally... no. Has The Mirror taken into account multiple postings of the same job, on different websites? Plenty of companies advertise through several channels for the same role, using boards such as Monster, Jobsite and Reed. The same goes for recruitment agencies, where one role is worked on by different companies. How many jobs on the most popular sites are repeated by a number of different agencies - often with identical wording. And a lot of the jobs found by The Mirror are in specialist areas such as IT, or social care... making them inaccessible for the majority of readers. Whilst the campaign is a good idea, I think it's a little misleading, to claim that they have found such a huge number of jobs. But good on them for giving it a go, and if it only helps a few people, then they've done their job. In this current climate, anything's better than nothing.
And as one of those lucky people still in employment, at least I can look forward to the long weekend knowing that I have (vaguely) earned it. Happy Easter!
Friday 25 March 2011
Competency based interviews... Are they really that scary?
I thought today I'd talk about something serious (for once!), and I've been looking at competency based interviews this week, so here goes...
I blogged about The Apprentice FAR too much last year, so won't bore you by rabbiting on about it any more, but it's the most farfetched form of competency based interviewing imaginable. Programmes such as this, and the new Masterchef format, rely heavily on getting candidates to prove their suitability and aptitude from the very start. In real life, we can't get candidates to sell sausages or audition in top notch restaurants to prove their worth, but we can engage them in a competency based (or situational/ behavioural) interview to see what's what.
A competency based interview is a style of interviewing often used to evaluate a candidate's competence, particularly where you may have several candidates with the same level of technical skill. Companies are using these interviews more and more as part of the selection process, as they give valuable insights into an individual's preferred style of working and help predict future behaviour. Employers can gauge how well candidates have dealt with a situation or aspect of their role, and how they may react in similar circumstances. These interviews are invaluable for recruiters... but nerve-wracking for interviewees!
Questions are usually based around qualities such as adaptibility, client focus, communication, problem solving and teamwork. Examples may be: Tell me about a time when you altered your own behavior to fit the situation; Give an example of how you provided service to a client beyond their expectations; Describe a situation in which you were a member of a team and conflict arose within the team - what did you do? These are all vital aspects of a role, and the way in which candidates have reacted gives a good idea of their suitabilty for the new role, and whether they will fit within the company culture and way of working.
It all sounds very daunting, but candidates CAN prepare for these interviews. Rehearsal can make all the difference, and should never be underestimated. Search on www.amazon.co.uk for "competency based interviews" and there are hundreds of books written on the subject, to help candidates get ready for the big event. So, how to prepare? Firstly, identify the competencies for the job, e.g. team working, project management, commercial awareness - look at the job spec! Research the company to gain and idea of their mission statement and values. Think about some of your achievements in the past and how you would categorise them. For example, how have you proven leadership skills? - by mentoring a junior member of your team, perhaps. Successfully coping with stress on the job comes under self-management. Delivering a project on time shows success in goal setting and achievement. Think of the most relevant examples that your prospective employer might be interested in, and make sure they are specific, starting clearly: What the situation was, what you did, your motivation and - critically - the outcome. Don't waffle, keep to the point, and prove your worth. These interviews can be a really useful tool for you to think about your key skills and competencies, and big yourself up a little - even if you're not successful at interview, you know what you're all about and will be ready for the next one. And good luck!
For more information and interview tips, check out www.blog.giraffejobs.co.uk
Find out more about Mobilus at www.mobilus.co.uk
I blogged about The Apprentice FAR too much last year, so won't bore you by rabbiting on about it any more, but it's the most farfetched form of competency based interviewing imaginable. Programmes such as this, and the new Masterchef format, rely heavily on getting candidates to prove their suitability and aptitude from the very start. In real life, we can't get candidates to sell sausages or audition in top notch restaurants to prove their worth, but we can engage them in a competency based (or situational/ behavioural) interview to see what's what.
A competency based interview is a style of interviewing often used to evaluate a candidate's competence, particularly where you may have several candidates with the same level of technical skill. Companies are using these interviews more and more as part of the selection process, as they give valuable insights into an individual's preferred style of working and help predict future behaviour. Employers can gauge how well candidates have dealt with a situation or aspect of their role, and how they may react in similar circumstances. These interviews are invaluable for recruiters... but nerve-wracking for interviewees!
Questions are usually based around qualities such as adaptibility, client focus, communication, problem solving and teamwork. Examples may be: Tell me about a time when you altered your own behavior to fit the situation; Give an example of how you provided service to a client beyond their expectations; Describe a situation in which you were a member of a team and conflict arose within the team - what did you do? These are all vital aspects of a role, and the way in which candidates have reacted gives a good idea of their suitabilty for the new role, and whether they will fit within the company culture and way of working.
It all sounds very daunting, but candidates CAN prepare for these interviews. Rehearsal can make all the difference, and should never be underestimated. Search on www.amazon.co.uk for "competency based interviews" and there are hundreds of books written on the subject, to help candidates get ready for the big event. So, how to prepare? Firstly, identify the competencies for the job, e.g. team working, project management, commercial awareness - look at the job spec! Research the company to gain and idea of their mission statement and values. Think about some of your achievements in the past and how you would categorise them. For example, how have you proven leadership skills? - by mentoring a junior member of your team, perhaps. Successfully coping with stress on the job comes under self-management. Delivering a project on time shows success in goal setting and achievement. Think of the most relevant examples that your prospective employer might be interested in, and make sure they are specific, starting clearly: What the situation was, what you did, your motivation and - critically - the outcome. Don't waffle, keep to the point, and prove your worth. These interviews can be a really useful tool for you to think about your key skills and competencies, and big yourself up a little - even if you're not successful at interview, you know what you're all about and will be ready for the next one. And good luck!
For more information and interview tips, check out www.blog.giraffejobs.co.uk
Find out more about Mobilus at www.mobilus.co.uk
Friday 25 February 2011
Pay rises for IT workers... but what about the rest of us?
According to a report in Contractor UK, pay rises are 'only a matter of time' for IT workers. Apparently, IT directors are concerned about retaining key technical staff, and this could lead to IT departments having to increase pay in 2011. Obviously, they want to hang onto key techies before they're poached by higher-paying competitors, and this is driving pay increases. Retention is a concerning issue for as many as 85% of IT directors - which is good news for contractors who can use this to drive up their daily rate. Although, according to CW Jobs and JobsAdwatch, there may be a 'slowdown in overall IT recruitment activity in the current year." However, software houses and outsourcing consultants used the month of December to add contractors to their teams, and this may be set to grow this year.
Not such good news for council workers, though - they are feeling 'betrayed' over wage freezes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, George Osborne promised that public servants on £21,000 or below would get an extra £250 a year from this April. Now, more than one million workers have been told that, in fact, they won't be receiving this increase. Employers (local authorities etc) say that a £6.5 billion funding gap is to blame, and the Treasury claims that they only meant those directly employed by the government to benefit. The unions have stepped in, with Brian Sutton of GMB saying that Mr Osborne "reneged on a promise to low paid workers." This freeze will hit home helps, social workers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, to name but a few. Sutton added that local government could have kept this promise. He went on to claim that, with inflation taken into account, this freeze adds up to a paycut for those on low wages, as 70% of council workers earn under £21,000.
Next up to fight for fairer wages are 154,000 agricultural workers across England and Wales. The union Unite told Defra that these workers deserve a decent wage to counter inflation, as well as a public holiday to commemorate Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April. Many farmers and farm workers are struggling to manage on less than the average weekly wage, due to the rising cost of fuel, food and inflation, with 1 in 4 rural families living below the poverty line. Unite say that farming needs to be seen as a professional occupation, yet farmers are struggling to recruit skilled workers. Negotiations begin in June.
So, for those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate a pay rise - what do we do if we reckon we're worth it?
Well, don't be nice to your boss - a study published last year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found this definitely doesn't get you a payrise! Those Risk-averse employees, who try to please their employers, are more likely to compromise and cave into management wishes when it comes to negotiation time. Those who never discuss salary at appraisals or interviews hardly ever get a rise. More aggressive employees earn an average of $5000 (£3200) more a year - which works out at an extra $600k (£385k) more over 40 years, based on an annual increase of under 5%. Good news for us girls - women were found to be just as competitive as men, despite earlier indications to the contrary. Those who prepare for the negotiations - who learned about their market value, did their homework on the organisation, and inquired about previous offers - are able to use more competitive strategies and get the rise they want. This was an American report, however, and whether we more modest Brits will ever be able to throw off our self deprecating modesty and demand more money is yet to be seen.
Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my negotiation skills. Alternatively, I could always just get on with the work I'm already being paid for...
Not such good news for council workers, though - they are feeling 'betrayed' over wage freezes in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Last year, George Osborne promised that public servants on £21,000 or below would get an extra £250 a year from this April. Now, more than one million workers have been told that, in fact, they won't be receiving this increase. Employers (local authorities etc) say that a £6.5 billion funding gap is to blame, and the Treasury claims that they only meant those directly employed by the government to benefit. The unions have stepped in, with Brian Sutton of GMB saying that Mr Osborne "reneged on a promise to low paid workers." This freeze will hit home helps, social workers, dinner ladies and refuse collectors, to name but a few. Sutton added that local government could have kept this promise. He went on to claim that, with inflation taken into account, this freeze adds up to a paycut for those on low wages, as 70% of council workers earn under £21,000.
Next up to fight for fairer wages are 154,000 agricultural workers across England and Wales. The union Unite told Defra that these workers deserve a decent wage to counter inflation, as well as a public holiday to commemorate Workers' Memorial Day on 28th April. Many farmers and farm workers are struggling to manage on less than the average weekly wage, due to the rising cost of fuel, food and inflation, with 1 in 4 rural families living below the poverty line. Unite say that farming needs to be seen as a professional occupation, yet farmers are struggling to recruit skilled workers. Negotiations begin in June.
So, for those of us lucky enough to be able to negotiate a pay rise - what do we do if we reckon we're worth it?
Well, don't be nice to your boss - a study published last year in the Journal of Organizational Behavior found this definitely doesn't get you a payrise! Those Risk-averse employees, who try to please their employers, are more likely to compromise and cave into management wishes when it comes to negotiation time. Those who never discuss salary at appraisals or interviews hardly ever get a rise. More aggressive employees earn an average of $5000 (£3200) more a year - which works out at an extra $600k (£385k) more over 40 years, based on an annual increase of under 5%. Good news for us girls - women were found to be just as competitive as men, despite earlier indications to the contrary. Those who prepare for the negotiations - who learned about their market value, did their homework on the organisation, and inquired about previous offers - are able to use more competitive strategies and get the rise they want. This was an American report, however, and whether we more modest Brits will ever be able to throw off our self deprecating modesty and demand more money is yet to be seen.
Anyway, I'm off to brush up on my negotiation skills. Alternatively, I could always just get on with the work I'm already being paid for...
Friday 11 February 2011
Sexism and Sacking - when's a joke just a joke?
There's been such a lot written about the Andy Gray and Richard Keys sexism debacle, so I won't go into the details much. For anyone who has been living on Mars for the past couple of weeks, the scallywags got into a lot of trouble when they made disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee during a private conversation after a game at Sky Sports. It all kicked off from that point, leading to Gray's dismissal and Keys' resignation.
There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?
Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?
So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?
So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.
But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?
There have been comparisons drawn between these comments and those seen regularly on ITV's Loose Women, with many people feeling that there is not much difference between Gray and Keys' comments, and the usual "men are useless" jokes made by the Loose Women team. Those defending the ladies' sexism say that their comments are made publicly, and in a sense of humour, banter and mockery. So is it worse to make a sexist comment in private? Or is it the same as a broadcastable one? Should we be punished for making a private joke? When will the Thought Police step in?
Sexism is seen as a worrying trend in broadcasting, an industry where women are in the minority. Female broadcasters complain of being treated unfairly, and having had sexist comments directed at them both publicly and privately. Men will be men, sure, but where do we draw the line? Jeremy Clarkson has said that his Top Gear co-star Richard Hammond could, in theory, be sacked for sexism after making a risque joke to a female paramedic whilst being treated in South Africa. He goes on to say that anyone who agrees with this lacks tolerance. Do they? Or is he just a dinosaur who likes to say whatever he wants and anyone who is offended written off as intolerant?
So, what about all this sexism sacking malarky? Fair do's, or political correctness gone mad? Well, it all comes down to the Equality Act 2010, which states that 'harassment or direct discrimination' is wrong in the workplace. Employers are therefore liable if they fail to act upon, and prevent, harassment or sexist behaviour. According to Clarks Legal, legal experts, employers can adopt a zero tolerance policy relating to discrimination, harassment or misconduct (even if there is no complainant, which sounds odd). However, most tend to issue a warning, giving the offender the chance to act upon it. It transpires that, in fact, Andy Gray was given a warning, but blew it by later making an inappropriate comment to a female colleague. According to www.Direct.Gov.uk, there has to be 'fair reason' for dismissal. If sexism counts as harassment, and harassment as misconduct then, yes, it is fair to sack someone for being sexist. The trouble with high profile cases is, however, that they rarely act as a benchmark for other cases. Would an office worker be sacked for making a private, sexist joke to a colleague? Or would it be laughed off by anyone in earshot?
So what does this all mean? Should we get fired for making a joke? Who complains about these things, and why - is it always serious enough to warrant complaint, or do people overreact? Is it better to walk away from a situation, as Keys did, or stand your ground? Andy Gray was given the chance to improve his behaviour, and chose not to, so paid the price for that. All he had to do was apologise and stop being such a sexist pig, and he would have been fine! Although he did receive a nice little payout from Sky, and now works for TalkSport, so hasn't been punished too harshly. It's a difficult one to call, but it seems that the television world is finally coming to terms with the fact that sexism - under the banner of harassment and discrimination - is no longer acceptable and should be punished in line with legal requirements. It's no bad thing, if you ask me, as long as the offence is genuinely covered under the Equality Act and not over-exaggerated in order to make an example of anyone.
But then again, I work for an all-woman company, so the only sexism I have to deal with is against men... and that's different... isn't it?
Friday 28 January 2011
Bogus bonuses?
It's banker bonus season again, and the press is full of articles, reports and general grumbles about the whole thing. As a nation, we seem to have a huge problem with the bonuses, not in small part due to the fact that we, the taxpayers, have had to bail out some of the banks after the hideous financial crash in 2008. A survey done last year showed that 2,800 bankers received over £1 million as bonuses, and Stephen Hester (RBS Chief Executive) is in line for £2.5 million. In total, City bonuses could reach £7 billion.
So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.
Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.
At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.
So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!
As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...
So, what exactly is it about the bankers bonuses that gets our goat? Is it the size? We can argue that the country needs a functioning banking system, and if banks need to incentivise their investment bankers in order to turn a profit, the why not? After all, surely banks are fundamental to the economy? Bankers have a contract which includes bonuses. We would be unhappy if our employer suddenly stopped paying us our contractual dues, and bankers no doubt feel the same. If you can't beat 'em, you can always join 'em as a City slicker... But do bonuses make for better bankers, or just encourage greed? It seems that tax payers feel they are being hurt - in this economy, in its current state because of bankers, we are facing job cuts and pay freezes, whilst the people responsible for the situation are getting paid huge bonuses.
Another bone of contention to some Brits is the salaries and bonuses paid to our footballers. Not only do they command massive transfer fees (the largest on record being that of Cristiano Ronaldo in 2009 from Manchester Utd to Real Madrid, for a whopping £80,000,000), they also demand huge salaries. Reports suggest that Wayne Rooney is currently on £230,000 per week, although it is thought to be closer to £200,000. Nice work if you can get it. Which most of us can't. Unlike the bankers' bonuses, footballers are privately funded through clubs, who obviously make their money from selling tickets, merchandise, kit etc. So does this make us more accepting of their payouts? Not necessarily. There is some feeling that what footballers do isn't, well, worthy - not in the same way that, say, doctors or teachers are. Many people are also of the opinion that footballers in this country don't work hard enough to justify their huge salaries... look at the appalling shambles we call the World Cup team. Things aren't helped by the fact that lots of footballers are, well, a bit chavvy, and so seem less deserving of their vast sums than others may be.
At the moment, with bankers' bonuses being once more in the headlines, the ill-feeling is preserved for them and them alone. Seen by many as spoilt middle-class toffs who've ripped off a nation to pay for their Porsches, bankers are getting a very raw deal right now. Apart from the massive bonuses, that is. The morality of footballers' high wages has been long debated, with two distinct camps - the ones who think it's an outrage, and the ones who think footballers deserve their high wages and support them thoroughly through buying season tickets and each new strip. Somewhere in the middle are people (like me) who just don't care either way.
So how do we determine who is "worth" more? The bankers, the footballers or neither? If someone can turn a loss-making bank into a profitable one, don't they deserve recompensation for this? - after all, if they're not paid enough, they won't stick around. If a privately owned company wants to pay one of their footballers over £200k a week, where's the harm? If they are perceived by the organisation to be worth their weight in gold - or bonuses - then surely that's the main thing. After all, we all have an employment contract which clearly states our rights to a basic salary, plus any benefits and bonuses. Footballers and bankers have the same rights. Realistically, in any company, there will always be someone earning more than us, and someone earning less. I may work as an executive for a company, earning a nice tidy basic and the opportunity to receive a bonus based on company performance. The same company may employ a cleaner at just over basic wage, with no bonuses available. Who is the more worthy? I play a part in the running of the company and generating income, and get a deserved salary for it. The cleaner also has an important role, but won't get as much as me. I certainly don't feel that I should earn more than a nurse, or social worker, or teacher - but I might. It all boils down to one thing... money making. He who generates income gets paid more than those who don't, or who are dependent on public funds to pay their wages. Moral it ain't, but for those of us with no vocation to improve the world, it's great!
As for me, I will never be a footballer or a banker. Luckily, I have one son who aspires to investment banking, and one who's just started football training, so watch this space. They can use their bonuses to look after their old mum...
Thursday 13 January 2011
Older... and wiser?
Yesterday's news reported the removal of the Default Retirement Age (DRA), which will be phased out between April and October this year. No longer will employers be able to force retirement at the age of 65, which is good news for older workers and the removal of what is an unacceptable, ageist practice.
Age has been in the news quite a lot recently, thanks to Miriam O'Reilly. The former presenter of Countryfile, she has just won her case of ageism against the BBC after 14 months of wrangling. Claiming she was dropped from the show in favour of younger presenters, although 68-year-old John Craven was kept on, O'Reilly presented her case for ageism and sex discrimination, the latter of which was not upheld. Prior to being removed from Countryfile after eight years as a presenter, she was asked whether it was time for botox and advised to beware of wrinkles. The BBC - already accused of ageist practices after replacing Arlene Phillips (Strictly Come Dancing) and Moira Stewart with younger models - have apologised, and said they would like to work with the freelance broadcaster in the future. They will also be paying out an undisclosed sum as compensation. Whilst O'Reilly's case has been successful, for many workers across the UK, ageism is still a cause for concern.
A report last year by the CLG (Department of Communities and Local Government) indicates that hundreds of thousands of mature workers face ageist attitudes from recruiters. More older people are now seeking work due to changes in the benefits system - as Incapacity Benefit is becoming Employment Support Allowance - and an estimated 750,000 more mature workers will be re-entering the job market over the next 3 years.
Although Age Discrimination laws came into effect in October 2006, and businesses were forced to review their recruitment processes, prospective candidates still feel they are discriminated against because of their age. A survey of over 50's showed that 4% felt they had been refused a job due to their age. Interestingly, even more than this - 5% - of 16-24 year olds felt that THEY had been refused a job for being too young. It seems that ageism is out there, for the young as well as the old. Young people face discrimination in work too - they often feel they aren't taken seriously and are passed over for someone more mature. It cuts both ways, it seems.
Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.
I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...
Recruiters have to be particularly careful when advertising roles, to make sure nobody can accuse them of being ageist. Phrases such as "young and dynamic" or "recent graduate" should be avoided, as should words such as "junior" and "mature". Asking for a certain number of years experience in a role is okay as long as the job description specifies this, but it can make younger people feel they would not be considered and a lot of recruiters prefer to use phrases like "extensive experience in..." to skirt the issue. Interviewers should also be aware that certain questions (e.g. "How do you feel about taking on this job at this stage in your life?") are not legal under the Age Discrimination laws, and should steer away from any mention of age. We personally no longer provide dates of birth on CVs, to ensure that this is not a part of any shortlisting process. Obviously, looking at a person's CV can still tell you about their age - dates of education, for example, or the length in roles, indicate how long someone has been out of school and working. We may never be able to completely mitigate the risk of ageism being used in the recruitment process, but we can do our best. After all, the best person for the job is the best person for the job no matter what their age, and recruitment is all about finding that person, not discriminating against them.
I'd like to think that ageism is dwindling, and that we have more awareness of it thanks to Miriam O'Reilly and others like her who have fought for the right to be recognised as professionals regardless of their (advancing) age. Just in case, though, I'm saving up for my botox. And, p.s., I'm quite happy to retire at 35, let alone 65...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
