The not so 'Great Resignation'

There has been a lot of talk about ‘The Great Resignation’ in the media and HR circles. However, for some sectors, this is not new and certainly predated the pandemic.

I have been doing some HR work this month. If I thought the rail sector had its problems, sorry challenges, mentoring an HR director in the social care sector reminded me what real challenges are! Scotland’s health and social care partnerships (HSCPs) described the challenges of increased demand and staffing shortages as “unprecedented”. And that is reflected in the organisation I have been helping.

The available data does appear to show a general increase in workers looking for new jobs, even if the actual number of resignations are less dramatic. Surveys show a doubling of the normal rate, which at £25,000 a worker in recruitment and training costs, has cost and efficency impacts on employers.

There are several explanations for this ranging from COVID to Brexit. However, a US perspective in The Conversation highlights a different point. Most advanced economies have shifted from productive sectors like manufacturing to a service-based economy. This is significant for turnover because most jobs in service-based industries require generalised occupation skills that are often easily transportable across companies. This is true across various professions, from accountants and engineers to truck drivers and customer services representatives. Therefore, it is relatively easy for employees to move between companies and maintain their productivity.

This is not news in the social care sector, which has the additional challenges of low pay and a job that, while it has its rewards, can also be emotionally and physically demanding. I sat in on a discussion with care workers recently, and there was an obvious difference between older workers who said they would probably struggle on and younger workers who were actively looking for less demanding and better-paid jobs. This reflects my experience doing focus groups for UNISON over many years, and if anything has got worse. Looking at the recent UNISON Scotland survey, 96% reported that their workplace was suffering staff shortages and 90% were concerned about the safety of colleagues and service users. One-third were thinking of leaving, and 57% were close to burnout.

A lot of hope is being invested in the creation of a National Care Service (NCS). In the short term, this is misplaced as organisational change at this scale takes a lot of time. There are also other concerns about the Scottish Government’s direction of travel for the NCS, which I outline in the latest edition of Scottish Left Review. These include the scope of the new service, funding and centralisation. Even the workforce reforms are pretty vague when there is a broad consensus on these. The organisation I have been working with would welcome the reforms recommended in the Feeley Report.

One tricky HR issue we looked at was vaccination. I have to say that I struggle to understand why some workers in the sector refuse to be vaccinated. However, having been through this issue before with flu jags, I am not surprised. Many care workers still do not get sick pay (although there is a sticking plaster scheme in Scotland) and have to take unpaid leave if they experience any temporary side effects. More significantly, for those who are vaccine-hesitant, mandatory jags are likely to be the straw that takes them out of the sector. Despite my personal view, I am not convinced that compulsory vaccination as in England is the right approach. Mandatory vaccinations can only operate in a high trust environment that simply doesn’t exist in many parts of the sector. Persuasion, not pressure, and improving workers’ pay and conditions are the key factors to help to overcome vaccine hesitancy.

Working from home is not an option for care workers, but it has been an issue for HQ functions. A report to Glasgow City Council says office occupancy rates are currently less than half of the UK average, while transport occupancy rates are around 65-70% of pre-pandemic levels. This is already having an economic impact as I see many of the sandwich shops I used to frequent have closed. Most workers want some flexibility in their working patterns, and many employers recognise this with hybrid models of working. What many middle managers said was impossible before the pandemic has now become the new normal. It is not without its problems, and intrusive monitoring is one of them. I had an ‘interesting’ conversation with one middle manager who wanted to introduce such a system. Frankly, if you don’t trust your staff enough work without these, you really need to look at your management skills.

So, spare a thought for those doing some of the most difficult and challenging work in the post-pandemic world. It isn’t easy, and some joined-up public policy would help.

Why the robot workplace damages workers and their organisations

Obsessive and unnecessary recording and reporting at work increases costs and places undue stress on staff. Coupled with new monitoring systems, workers are being turned into robots, before they are actually replaced by them.

Two different discussions with members, one private sector employer and another in an NDPB (quango), highlighted for me the waste that can develop when employers allow reporting systems to spiral out of control.

The story was similar in both organisations. Workers told me that they spend a quarter and a third of their time providing reports on what they are doing, in different formats, to different parts of the management structure. The main departments responsible for generating these reporting demands have grown exponentially, while front line staff are under huge pressure, coping with increased demands on delivering the service.

(Drakalogia)

What particularly irritates staff in the NDPB, is that they take the same data and have to input it into the computer system and then put parts of the same data into two different spreadsheets. There is no smart systems working, or any indication that management have any insight into the waste this approach causes.

Looking at the annual reports of both organisations, I can see no qualitative evidence that all this reporting has had any noticeable impact on their public reporting. It is a regular feature of Audit Scotland reports that there is insufficient data to judge this and that. In the public sector this is sometimes used as an excuse for expanding data collection. It's a point we often make in response to Audit Scotland reports and something they ought to reflect on.

Taking this one step further, we have John Harris in the Guardian writing about a novel and new film on the fictional (for now) Circle Corporation, whose leaders want privacy and autonomy to count for almost nothing. Workers are under constant monitoring and a system of endless appraisal by their peers, who feed into a system called Participation Rank – or PartiRank, for short.

The details of their online and offline lives are judged according to “an algorithim-generated number” that measures their activity. “It’s just for fun,” a company high heidyin tells the story’s principal character. But, of course, it isn’t, it's just one more example of the passive-aggressive ways of Silicon Valley that appears to be spreading to Scotland.

Both my examples involve administrative jobs. However, similar intrusive work monitoring takes place in the huge warehouses run by online retail giants, and driver deliveries. Sports Direct and Amazon are well known examples, and there was a story last week that one in ten workers in another retail warehouse had been so ill that they had to be sent to A&E.

I have long been irritated at the use of the phrase 'human capital'. It's as if HR departments feel they need some numbers to put them on a par with the finance department. Even I had a phone call the other day from a company wondering why I hadn't taken up their invitation to 'get on board' with the 'science' of HR metrics. After a five minute lecture from me about the difference between people and robots, they probably regretted the call! I see one company is trying to sell robots to undertake care tasks. I am sure our long suffering elderly care service users, just can't wait for this quality interaction!

The latest buzz highlighted by Harris is 'people analytics'. Some systems are straightforwardly intrusive: Worksnaps, takes repeated screenshots of workers’ computers, count their mouse-clicks and take webcam images. BetterWorks uses a Facebook-like application that depends on employees publicly posting their supposed workplace goals, and regularly issuing “cheers” and “nudges” to their colleagues. “In the office of the future,” says the chief executive of the company responsible, “you will always know what you are doing and how fast you are doing it". I can't wait!

There are now tracking apps for phones that can log the whereabouts of staff 24 hours a day. A US-based company called Humanyze (really!) is working with British businesses including a high street bank and the consulting firm Deloitte, as well as parts of the NHS. They say: “Humanyze’s badge can track physical activities in real time, capture ‘nonlinguistic social signals such as interest and excitement’ without recording actual words, locate wearers and their proximity to other wearers, and communicate with other electronic devices.”

Harris concludes: "Judging by the way the idea is sold, the people responsible, for reasons that speak volumes about the tech world’s endless naivety, they see it as a kind of super-efficient utopia. Anyone with a grasp of what makes us human should surely recognise it for what it is: Stasi capitalism, apparently furthering its dominance at a terrifying speed, with only the faintest murmurs of protest."

There is another way for those employers who recognise that their workforce consists of diverse talented individuals who want to do a good job. A study by the ILM has found that more than half (53%) of employees would consider leaving their job if the structure and culture of their organisation didn't change. According to the research, lack of employee empowerment is the root cause of much dissatisfaction in the workplace.

Nearly three-quarters (74%) of staff surveyed said they wanted more freedom in their roles, but a third (34%) said their work was overly regulated, and that they were forced to work within overly controlled structures. 64% of staff surveyed said they struggled to do 'fit in' with their organisation. Despite two-thirds (66%) of employees wanting to have a greater say in their everyday working lives, just 24% said they felt their line managers fostered collaboration.

John Yates, group director at ILM, said overly authoritarian workplaces should be “a thing of the past, people today want to work for flexible, fun and friendly organisations. Organisations need to be flexible, allowing employees to pursue career ambitions and manage conflicting home life pressures as much as possible, and encourage creativity – injecting passion and new ideas into the workplace.”

I can think of a growing number of organisations that need to recognise this and change their systems, behaviours and culture - urgently!

Delivering fair work and effective employee voice

Fair work and employee voice are key elements of an economic strategy for Scotland. There is even a welcome cross party consensus developing.

I was giving evidence to the Scottish Parliament's Economy Committee today on the issue of fair work and employee voice. UNISON welcomes the Scottish Government’s recognition, through the Fair Work Convention and Labour Market Strategy, that a more progressive relationship between employers and their representatives can increase productivity and growth in a way that is inclusive and fair. 

The principle is becoming almost a cross party consensus, given Theresa May's recent rhetoric and establishing an inquiry led by Matthew Taylor. Even George Osborne recognised that subsidising low wage employers made no sense, hence his 'living wage'. Botched implementation, but the principle was right. Labour's 2020 Workplace Initiative has the potential to be even more radical.

Poor work drives negative outcomes way beyond the labour market. Insecure work, long hours and low pay impacts on families and communities and is a key driver of inequality. More than half of households in poverty in Scotland are in work. We know from international evidence that unequal societies do worse on every measure.

At today's session I suggested three stages to help deliver fair work.

As a first stage we should identify poor employment practice. That means naming, shaming and prosecuting employers who don’t meet the legal minimum standards such as the National Minimum Wage. It also means speaking out against poor employment practice such as exploitative zero/notional hour contracts.

The second stage is to promote good employment practice. I would point to NHS Scotland’s PIN policies and staff governance framework as a model approach. These go beyond collective agreements and offer practical guidance on a wide range of issues.

The Scottish Living Wage is an obvious example of positive employment practice and good progress has been made in extending accreditation in Scotland. Particularly in the hard to reach SME sector. While the Business Pledge is not unhelpful, we should be wary of ‘badges’ that don’t come with rigorous accreditation and monitoring. 

Good employment practice should also recognise the needs of all workers. Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect. The ability to work without prejudice is a fundamental right, regardless of your background, gender, colour, disability or sexual orientation. Everyone should also be able to work without suffering harm. Each year in the UK, up to 50,000 people are killed by work and around two million people are either made ill or more ill because of their work.

The third stage is to deliver on fair work policies. UNISON Scotland supports the devolution of employment law, which would remove some of the constraints on government action. However, action can be taken using devolved powers including:

Public procurement. The new statutory guidance on workforce matters is an important step forward, but it needs to be properly implemented. 

Sectoral Bargaining.  There is a strong relationship between collective bargaining coverage and low wage work. The Scottish Government could promote sectoral collective bargaining in areas where it has the most leverage, including social care and childcare. These are sectors with many poor working practices. For example the recent 'Early Start' report identifies that 80% of childcare staff in the private and voluntary sector are paid less than Scottish Living Wage.

National Workforce Framework. The Christie Commission highlighted the necessity for a joined up vision for the public sector workforce. A National Workforce Framework could prevent wasted effort reinventing the wheel on issues like staff transfer, pensions, secondment and common procedures. This could include a staff governance framework, similar to that adopted by NHS Scotland, and a common approach to training and development .

This three stage approach means government should take a robust stance on poor practice and set out what good practice looks like with sufficient practical guidance. Then adopt a series of practical steps to ensure Fair Work is delivered using the levers available to the public sector. Ambition is good, but it must be followed by practical action to deliver Fair Work.

Trade Union Bill and Scotland

The Trade Union Bill is an unwarranted interference in devolved public services and will wreck the modern approach to industrial relations in Scotland.

Today's STUC conference was a first opportunity for the movement in Scotland to give detailed consideration to the UK government's latest attack on employment rights. The Bill, through minimum ballot thresholds and restrictive procedures, seriously curtails the possibility of legitimate strike action and even protest. It also attacks the ability of unions to represent their members (via facility time) and raise subscriptions (through employer check-off/DOCAS) from members. Unions are also to be burdened with more 'Red Tape' and be charged for it, from a government that claims to want to reduce regulation! There is a useful TUC Briefing and activist pack that sets out the provisions.

The conference started with a session on the Bill's provisions and followed on with sessions on organising approaches, industrial relations and legal issues. I contributed in the panel session and covered Scottish legal issues, our approach to industrial relations and campaigning.

At this early stage of the legislative process (Bill has only had its First Reading) we should start by examining the scope for a different political/legal approach in Scotland. It is difficult to get this legislation into Holyrood because employment law is reserved. There is a specific reservation in Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, 'Employment rights and duties and industrial relations'. The Bill largely amends TULRCA 1992 which is included in the list of legislation covered.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Government's delegated powers memorandum says the Bill is reserved and therefore no Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) is required. There is no consideration of the interplay with very different Scots contract and criminal law. In my view that is challengeable and we should seek to persuade the Scottish Government and Parliament to claim that there should be an LCM. This would create an opportunity for different approach in Scotland.

Some aspects of the Bill such as strike ballots, Certification Officer etc are all clearly reserved. However, the provisions on facility time and DOCAS are more about public administration which is devolved. This is reinforced by the policy justification which focuses on public spending and the fact that these provisions only apply to the public sector.

There is also scope for challenges under the Human Rights Act. The ECJ has given member states a wide 'margin of appreciation' given the different industrial relations systems in Europe. However, some of the proposals are so extreme that they may not be regarded as 'proportionate', the key ECHR test. In addition, the Scottish Government and public bodies have human rights obligations which justify them resisting this legislation.

We also need to consider the Bill in the context of Scottish industrial relations. As the recent 'Working Together' review showed, there is a distinctly different industrial relations culture in Scotland and this is being taken forward in the Fair Work Convention. This is particularly the case in the public sector - the target of this UK legislation.

We know from polling that Scottish public opinion is more strongly against many of the Bill's provisions and that is reflected in political positions, with all but one MP in Scotland opposing the Bill. The idea that a UK Government can direct the detail of industrial relations in a Scottish council, health board etc is simply wrong post-devolution.

It's not just trade unions who can see the damage the Bill will do to industrial relations. It could result in more small disputes, wildcat strikes, other forms of protest. As ballots will only have a four month life span, this may result in more intensive disputes that will be all the more difficult to resolve.

The Bill also strengthens the case for devolving employment law. We argued this case before this Bill and we do so because of the different approach in Scotland, not just because don't like the current UK Government.

Finally, we must take our arguments against the Bill to our members and the wider public. The UK Government's case isn't even consistent. For example, DOCAS is used for many purposes, some encouraged by government such a payroll giving, credit unions, sports clubs etc.

We should build support on the threat to wider employment practice as well as the Bill's provisions. This is because the Trade Union Bill is aimed at weakening workers ability to resist bad employers.

The New York Times report on Amazon has sparked a lot of interest on poor employment practice The Herald followed it up with a story of one Fife worker's experience at Amazon. Will Hutton in Sunday's Observer analysed the role of corporations concluding, 'once firms cherished their employees, now they are disposable'. Or as Ian Bell in The Herald put it, 'A vanishingly small minority is waging a war for control over the majority'.

Issues like widening corporate pay, work intensification, insecure work and low pay are increasingly becoming understood by a wide range of employees, not just lowest paid. In many ways the shock over the Amazon story was that it all happened to white collar staff in a HQ setting.

This isn't just bad for workers, it's bad for the economy. The Tory party is in hock to the hedge funds and corporations that promote a failed economic model. As Will Hutton points out, growth, productivity and investment has crashed during the twenty years of this corporate dominance. Professor Keith Ewing today aptly described this as a 'global virus'.

There will be a lot of discussion in the coming months on how the trade union movement should respond to the Bill. A number of campaign events have already been organised. Legal arguments can inform political argument, while recognising it's not the full answer. Imaginative action on a number of levels will be required. A starting point is to examine the legal and political options, emphasise the different Scottish industrial relations culture, and campaign on our arguments including the wider context about world of work.

In simple terms this Bill is about destroying trade unions at the behest of the UK government's corporate funders. The Tories are saying you shouldn't belong to a union and if you do we will make it virtually impossible for you to take collective and political action to defend your job, pay and conditions. The public sector is being targeted because unions campaign against their planned destruction of public services, but they will come for the private and voluntary sector next. It's time for us to mobilise the majority to wrest control back from the minority.

 

 

Why this election matters for workers rights

This election matters for workers rights. The ConDems have organised a race to the bottom and if the Tories win this election we can expect at lot worse. In contrast, Ed Miliband left the STUC today in no doubt that Labour has a positive alternative.

While headline unemployment figures have fallen, underemployment and insecure work has increased. The growth of part-time work, zero or nominal hours contracts, self-employed workers and agency jobs expose the reality of working life. Precarious work damages families and hurts the economy.

Zero-hours contracts have come to represent the Tories approach to work. There are at least 60,000 workers on zero-hours contracts in Scotland, although the actual numbers are likely to exceed 100,000. To that we have to add many more on nominal hour contracts. Far from Ian Duncan-Smith's 'flexible working', zero-hours contract workers don't know from one week to the next how much money they will earn. This makes it next to impossible to plan caring responsibilities, find other work, pay bills, register for in-work benefits and get a mortgage or even a bank account.

Over 40% of new jobs created since 2010 have been self-employed. This doesn't indicate an upsurge in entrepreneurial spirit, but rather the use of bogus self-employment. Workers are classified as self-employed so they can be sacked without warning, do not receive holiday or sick pay, have reduced benefit entitlements and may be denied access to employment tribunals. Average income of self- employed people has fallen by 22% since the financial crisis.

Hard-won employment rights have also been attacked. The cut to consultation periods for collective redundancy mean that it is now even easier to sack staff. Huge cutbacks to the number of workplace visits by health inspectors and deregulation is making workplaces more dangerous.

The qualifying period for unfair dismissal has increased to 2 years, depriving millions of workers of any legal protection in the workplace. Tribunal fees have cut the number of applications to employment tribunals for those who do qualify by 77%.

Trade unions and collective rights are under threat like never before. Strong trade unions are vital in the fight to tackle low pay and job insecurity and collective bargaining must be strengthened.

Anti-trade union laws have restricted the ability of unions to represent their members. From the victimisation of trade unionists by employers to government attempts to restrict facility time and check-off for union representatives. Not to mention the absurd and largely ignored, waiving of employment rights in exchange for shares. Blacklisted construction workers have received no compensation while the companies involved have been awarded lucrative Scottish Government contracts.

On Blacklisting, zero-hours contracts a much else, it has been the Labour led Westminster, Scottish Affairs Committee, chaired by Ian Davidson MP, that has done much to expose these scandals.

If the Tories are returned to government we can expect an ever increasing number of zero-hour contracts. All-out attacks on trade union rights with continued cutting of facility time, introduction of strike thresholds and removal of collective bargaining agreements. In addition to falling wages for the worse off while the wealthy continue to receive tax cuts and soaring bonuses.

While Labour's work manifesto is certainly not everything we would wish, it does demonstrate a vital change of direction. Labour will abolish employment tribunal fees, tackle blacklisting in the construction industry and look at ways to ensure proper facility time for union representatives.

Labour will maintain check-off arrangements in government departments where it has already been scrapped and defend unions’ rights to organise. They will ensure fairness in levels of health and safety protection at work and deliver proper recompense for people who have contracted asbestos-related diseases as a result of their work.

Labour will end exploitative zero hours contracts and abolish the loophole that allows firms to pay agency workers less than permanent staff. There will also be new flexible working rights for parents. Labour will reinstate third party harassment in the Equality Act to ensure that people are protected from all harassment and bullying at work, as well as requiring large companies to publish their gender pay gap and strengthen the law against maternity discrimination.

Today, at the STUC Ed Miliband delivered a passionate speech on these issues. It was warmly received by delegates who want to hear much more of this from Labour. Scotland succeeds when working people succeed was the message and a fairer workplace is the key to achieving that.

 

 

A new framework for industrial relations in Scotland

The 'Working Together' Review has set out a positive new framework for industrial relations in Scotland.

Last February the Scottish Government commissioned an independent review of progressive workplace policies and practices in the public and private sectors in Scotland. It was Chaired by Jim Mather and had a broad based membership from employers, trade unions (including UNISON's Lilian Macer) and academics. The aim was to identify best practice to promote collective bargaining and innovation in the workplace.

In many ways the strength of this report is in the description of industrial relations in Scotland today. It dispels many of the myths about relations between unions and employers, highlighting the positive relationships that rarely get media coverage. Scotland does of course benefit from significantly higher union density than the rest of the UK, but this report goes further in setting out the range and depth of industrial relations practice. This is helpfully illustrated with case studies and examples from a range of sectors.

The Review Group identified a shared ambition to embed progressive workplace practices to boost innovation and productivity and deliver successful organisations, sustainable business and economic growth, high-quality jobs and a more equitable society. This is reflected in the key themes for action that include:

• investing in the capacity of union members and staff - and enhancing employer capacity in the same way - to deliver economic, social and civic benefits;
  
• investing in dialogue and communication about fair work to achieve a broader and deeper recognition of the benefits that accrue from unions and employers working together, and a shared commitment to progressive workplace policies;
  
• fostering real opportunities for unions, employees and employers to work together which embeds these values more systematically and maximises the benefits of shared knowledge and distributed leadership;
  
• a willingness to resource, evidence, share and learn from what works.

There are 30 recommendations in the report that seek to deliver practical actions in support of the key themes.

They recommend that there should be a new strategic stakeholder body to provide leadership and support the development of better industrial relations. The model is to be promoted through procurement and the other policy levers of government. Practical measures that I particularly welcome, include recognition of the valuable role equality and green union representatives can play in the workplace. A number of UNISON projects have shown the value of these and the proposed environmental workplace fund would aid the development of green reps.

For the public sector there is a recognition of the merits of the NHS partnership model and the benefits of a degree of common best practice. This reflects the Christie recommendations and UNISON's case for a national workforce strategy. Extending worker directors to all public bodies is also welcome and the Scottish Government has an opportunity to deliver on this in the Food (Scotland) Bill.

The basic premise behind these recommendations is that the economic and social challenges and opportunities facing Scotland are more likely to be addressed successfully in an environment where unions play their full part. Those in trade unions who cling to the Marxist school of industrial relations, or the 'race to the bottom' employers, won't find a lot in this report to encourage their approach. However, most employers and trade unions in Scotland will welcome this report and look to the Scottish Government to translate their response to the recommendations into action.

 

Posted with Blogsy

CIPD survey paints a bleak picture of the pressures on the public sector workplace

The CIPD quarterly employee outlook survey offers an insight into employee attitudes in the workplace. The latest report highlights a marked increase in negative perceptions of senior managers, particularly in the public sector. It also reveals that almost a third of employees believe that their current performance management systems are unfair, again particularly in the public sector.

Only a third of employees feel engaged in the business. Job satisfaction levels (+42) are slightly up with employees in the voluntary sector the most satisfied with their jobs (+48). Job satisfaction has decreased in this survey in the public sector (+37), although still up on 2013 levels (+25).

Attitudes towards line managers remain positive, with 64% of employees strongly satisfied or satisfied. However, this survey sees a fall in ratings for senior managers. Confidence in particular has fallen by 5% and trust in senior leaders and perceptions of consultation have fallen by 4% each. Employees in the public sector remain the most negative about their senior managers and there have been some substantial decreases in this survey. The biggest decreases are in relation to senior managers treating employees with respect (down 12%), trust in senior leaders (decrease of 11%).

More employees reported that they believe their organisation’s performance management process is fair (39%) rather than unfair (30%), but these are very low figures demonstrating little confidence in these systems anywhere. Employees in the public sector were even more likely to believe their performance management process is unfair (33%).

The proportion of employees reporting excessive pressure at work every day or once or twice a week in spring 2014 remains high at 41%. Employees’ satisfaction with their work–life balance has remained at the relatively high level of 58% in this survey. However, it is women (63%) who are significantly more likely than men (52%) to enjoy a better work–life balance. The public sector is now the least satisfied sector.

Spring 2014 sees a slight drop in the overall number of employees saying it is very likely or likely that they could lose their job as a result of the current economic context. Employees’ fears over losing their jobs are highest in the public sector (23%) and lowest in the private sector (13%). There is increasing concern in the voluntary sector over job losses. These numbers show that workers are not convinced by rhetoric around the economic ‘recovery’ and does not bode well for economic confidence in the longer term.

Overall this survey shows a pretty depressing picture of the UK workforce. The fact that the public sector comes off worse in almost every section is a reflection of the constant UK government attacks on workers in the sector.

Welcome boost to campaign against zero-hour contracts

The Labour Leader Ed Miliband met trade unions in Scotland today before launching the findings of the independent Pickavance Review into how to help employers compete on higher wages, skills and productivity – rather than on exploitative zero hours contracts.

Last month I gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on this issue and their subsequent report is an excellent analysis of why enforced zero-hours contracts are bad for workers, the economy and the delivery of public services.

Ed Milband reflected those findings today when he said:

“Zero hour contracts have spread like an epidemic across our economy. The Government’s own figures say they have increased three-fold since 2010 and some estimates suggest there are one million people on these contracts across the UK including at least 90,000 here in Scotland. Sometimes, they can provide short term flexibility for employers and employees alike. But we know most employers don’t use them and for good reasons: the widespread use of zero-hours contracts is incompatible with building a loyal, skilled and productive workforce. And we also know a minority of employers are misusing zero hours contracts as a crude way of cutting costs or managing staff. “It has left too many people not knowing how they will make ends meet from one week to the next, and unable to plan for the future. “

The key recommendations from today’s report include giving new legal rights to employees on zero hours contracts:

• To demand a fixed hours contract when they have worked regular hours over six months with the same employer

• To receive a fixed hours contract automatically when they have worked regular hours over a year - unless they decide to opt out

• To be protected from employers forcing them to be available at all hours, insisting they cannot work for anyone else, or cancelling shifts at short notice without compensation.

He made it clear at today’s meeting that the report is the starting point for a dialogue on this issue, as we made a number of detailed points about how this plan could be strengthened. However, the important point is that he gets the principle and is prepared to make his position clear.

It also fits in well with Labour’s developing narrative that we need to develop a high wage, skilled and productive economy – not engage in a race to the bottom. A message that I see the crumbling CBI has not yet grasped! The Scottish Government might also want to think about this in the context of their plans to cut Corporation Tax.

UK political leaders have a bad habit of coming to Scotland to tell us about all the terrible things that will happen if we vote for independence. Thanks, but we can spot the weaknesses of both campaigns pretty well ourselves. So it was refreshing to hear the Labour Leader make the positive case for the union with a practical policy initiative. More of this would be very welcome!

Work, employment, skills and training - where next for Scotland?

Labour market issues have been given very little attention in the independence debate. So today's launch of an ESRC funded research report on 'Work, Employment, Skills and Training: Where Next for Scotland?' is very welcome.

I was interviewed along with 67 other stakeholders as part of the research, so I was particularly interested in the report's findings. The complexity of the issue is illustrated by the multi-level governance with the EU, UK and Scottish Government all having a role, or in some cases shared responsibility. Given the shocking levels of productivity in the UK, it is surprising that skills utilisation in particular has not been given more attention.

Education, training and skills is probably the field least impacted by independence, because most is already devolved and Scotland has a very different system from the rest of the UK and England in particular. Professor Ewart Keep highlighted the structural focus on youth unemployment in Scotland, while in England there is little more than hand wringing. Advice and guidance services have collapsed in England, although I would argue they have been devalued in Scotland with too greater reliance on web based services. College regionalisation has come with significant cuts and it is too soon to judge its efficacy. The research also showed something of a disconnect on workforce development, particularly in 'unsexy' sectors like retail and social care. What the Scottish approach does provide is an ability to think collectively, rather than everything being left to the vagaries of the market.

Welfare to work and employability has similar challenges to the rest of the UK, with the concentration of disadvantage in geographical areas and amongst young people. While there was some support for the principles of welfare reform, the impact was actually adding to the barriers to getting people into work - not just getting them off benefits. The pressure is simply handed down to local services. There was a clear consensus in Scotland that there are problems at the bottom end of the labour market that will not be solved with benefit sanctions.

The research highlighted the importance of linking employability and health, strengthening employer engagement and more evidence of what works. There is a need to join up fragmented UK and Scottish provision and labour markets - a strong argument in my view for devolving many of these services. Not just to Holyrood, but also down to local level - recognising the risk of fragmentation of service and the loss of economy of scale. There is also a debate about how to incentivise employers either through the tax system or regulation.

On employment and the workplace, the report sets out the challenges including low pay, gender segregation and economic growth. The strength of the report is the focus on creating good jobs through job quality and design - with an understanding that employees are a source of innovation. There may be less clarity about how to make this happen, but options include using government as an exemplar and the use of procurement.

There is limited capacity in HR and organisational development and a less than cohesive employer voice, essential if the proposed social partnership model is to work effectively. Employer concerns about greater regulation and partnership in the research were more pragmatic than ideological. However, the White Paper model also requires a different model of capitalism in Scotland and there is little indication that the Scottish Government is ready for that radical journey. While there may be insufficient action on these issues in Scotland, none of this has even reached the UK government agenda! The research found that debates on the workforce in Scotland occupy a very different ideological space.

One conclusion is that whatever the outcome of the vote, much of the Scottish direction of travel is already fixed and unlikely to change. As the report says, “the new model is now on the table”, even if the detailed road map is missing. The Mather Commission may fill in some of the gaps.  It therefore remains open to debate if the proposals in the White Paper or greater devolution will remove the remaining barriers to progressive change.

The full report will be on the Future of the UK and Scotland website soon.

Great workplaces tackle absence better than systems

The best approach to tackling absence is to create great workplaces to work in - not rigid management systems and targets.

Today, I was speaking at a MacKay Hannah conference on ‘Tackling Absenteeism in the Public Sector in Scotland: Prevention and Health Promotion’.

Angela Cullen from Audit Scotland set the scene from their published report on Scotland's public sector workforce. This showed that the workforce has been cut by 7% since the crash, down to around one in five of the total workforce. Council staff have taken the brunt of cuts. The workforce is ageing significantly with young people the biggest losers, down by 25%. Over one third of staff are over 50 and that is the biggest growth area with potential skill and knowledge risks for public services as they come closer to retirement. They have extracted data on sickness absence from their recent report into a useful new publication on their website

Fred Best from Work 4 Wellbeing made the business case for taking measures to improve wellbeing at work. More than a glossy document and a bowl of fruit! Poor data is a problem with 18% of sickness absence reported as 'other' due to IT system limitations. A key message was the cost of presenteeism that can cost 50% more than absence - £105bn in 2010. Workplace conflict costs UK business £33bn per year, taking 20% of leadership time and losing 370m working days. Investment in wellbeing can save £4 for every £1 spent. Behind these statistics is the real human cost of ill health.

Roddy Duncan from the office of the Chief Medical Officer outlined Scottish Government initiatives to create healthy working lives in a very challenging environment - ageing workforce and austerity cuts. Long term absence is a particular issue with 51% of long term absentees in Scotland being disabled. The healthy work strategy is based on premise that work is good for health and workplaces should promote health and wellbeing of the workforce.

Dame Carol Black's independent review of sickness absence was referenced by several speakers. That emphasises that worklessness is harmful for most people. Equally useful is the work of The Scottish Centre for Healthy Working Lives.

My presentation was on the reality of the ‘sickie culture’ in the Public Sector: policies, support and management. I started by debunking some of the myths about sickness absence in the public sector. It may be cliché that the only certainties in life are death and taxes, but there are others. For me, one is the Daily Mail asking me to respond to the latest CBI claim that public sector workers have a 'sickie culture'.

The main response to the headline data is that the two sectors are not comparable workforces. The public sector is an older workforce with more women and with major occupational differences. For example, staff in the care sector are 45% more likely to be sick. Public sector staff also tend to work in larger organisations with sick pay agreements and better recording systems. One consequence is that public sector staff have more long term sickness absence but less short term absence than in the private sector. Overall, public v private is simply irrelevant to the debate, you need to look at other factors.

We do know that there is greater and growing presenteeism in public sector. A CIPD survey showed 39% in the public sector compared to 26% in the private sector. Unpaid overtime is also more common in the public sector - 1 in 4 compared to 1 in 6 workers in the private sector. All of this is reinforced in a UNISON Scotland survey we published last year.

Instead of a puerile public v private debate we need to focus on positive absence management. This is my list of measures:

• Agreed absence management policies with proper training
• Regular reviews of data at safety Committees
• Less reliance on formulas and triggers
• Measures to facilitate and promote employee health
• Involvement of quality, independent, occupational health professionals
• Minimise workplace stress
• Employee assistance programmes for personal or workplace problems.
• Maintain contact during long-term sickness absence
• Structured return-to-work plan with adequate adjustments and support.

There was some discussion about the new government occupational health assessment scheme. This is right in principle, but I suspect it will become an ATOS style tick box exercise. Sickness absence rules and targets in the public sector can be very similar - chasing short term solutions at the expense of more sustainable long-term solutions. We also need to recognise the impact of later retirement ages on particular occupational groups.

My main message was that if you are serious about tackling absence you need to focus on making workplaces great places to work in. The speaker from Investors in People described this as the soft stuff, but in their view still absolutely vital. A friendly, varied, fair and supportive working environment is more effective than any set of absence management rules.

The myth of the sickie culture and reality of unpaid overtime

The myth of the 'sickie culture' is buried with the latest Office for National Statistics (ONS) data on sickness absence.

These statistics show that the average number of days lost to sickness absence has fallen by almost 40% since 1993. TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said:

“These figures prove that there is no such thing as a ‘sickie culture’, with the number days lost to ill-health falling as employers get better at managing sickness absence.

Average sickness rates in Scotland are 2.2%, about mid-table for the UK. Lower than East Midlands, Wales and the North-East, but higher than London and the South-East. Low sickness rates in these areas reflects the younger workforce and higher proportion of senior jobs.

Of course managing sickness absence is not all good news. As UNISON  Scotland surveys of sickness absence show, there is the growing culture of presenteeism – where unwell staff are pressurised into coming work by their bosses. This can prolong illness, spread germs and cause unnecessary stress throughout the workplace. A particular concern in public service workplaces like hospitals and in social care.

A recent CIPD survey found that when looking at presenteeism, employees in the public sector were more likely (39%) to say they had seen an increase in their workplace than employees in the private sector (26%).

Stress is also under recorded in sickness absence data. Many conditions caused by stress are recorded in terms of their physical manifestation rather than the underlying cause. If we want to see sickness levels brought down even further, we should be concentrating more on prevention.

Higher sickness absence rates amongst women and in repetitive jobs may suggest that flexible working, carers leave, better health and safety and imaginative job design could all contribute to lower sickness absence.

On the subject of working hours this Friday (28 Feb) is 'Work Your Proper Hours Day' - the day when those who do unpaid overtime would start to get paid if they did all their unpaid work at the start of the year. 

The TUC has published a new analysis of official figures that show the number of staff doing unpaid overtime has gone up in the public sector over the last decade, but has held steady in the private sector. 

Unpaid overtime is more common in the public sector, with more than one in four doing unpaid overtime compared to around one in six of workers in the private sector. More than a quarter (27.4 per cent) of public sector staff did unpaid overtime of at least an hour a week in 2013, up from 24.8 per cent in 2003. The average amount of unpaid overtime done by these staff is 7 hours 42 minutes a week – 18 minutes less than in 2003.

The increase in unpaid overtime across the the public sector over the last decade is almost entirely driven by more than a quarter of a million extra women doing hours for free. In 2003 a smaller proportion of women (24.3 per cent ) in the public sector did unpaid overtime than men (25.8 per cent). Women have now overtaken men with a big 3.9 percentage point increase in the numbers doing unpaid overtime to 28.2 per cent. The proportion of men doing unpaid overtime has barely changed in the last decade (up 0.1 percentage points to 25.9 per cent).

TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady said: “Times are tough for public sector workers. As the cuts bite and fewer staff find themselves having to take on more work, unpaid overtime inevitably grows. Some of the increase will be down to the professionalism and commitment of staff who want to provide decent services. But there is also evidence of bullying and excessive management pressure in some workplaces. It is not surprising that morale is so low across the public sector. Hours are up, workload has increased, pay has been frozen, pensions cut and jobs insecure as public sector staff know that 60 per cent of the cuts are still to come.”

So this Friday, make sure you work your normal hours.

Employment and constitutional change

This evening I participated in a ‘Question Time’ event organised by Brodies Solicitors on the subject ‘Beyond 2014 – The Future of Employment in Scotland’. I was pleased to do this event as employment considerations have been sadly missing from the constitutional debate so far.

So what might employment look like after 2014 if Scotland was independent? As with most issues we need to see what the White Paper later this year has to offer. However, there are some hints in the Scottish Government’s recent paper on the economic case for independence. They highlight the importance of integrating policy levers to end the current disjointed approach. This might enable action on a living wage, gender and worker representation on company boards and tax incentives to encourage firms to take on more workers. They point to the example of other countries in Europe that have better benefit systems that allow people to move more quickly back to work and fiscal incentives for training and skills. They also offer the prospect of some form of social partnership and bringing employment related matters under an Employment Rights Authority on the Irish model.

All this sounds promising if a little vague. Exploring mechanisms isn’t quite the firm offer trade unions would want to see. When it comes to the detail of employment rights Scottish ministers have been somewhat vague when pressed. The Yes campaign’s response to the STUC Just Scotland initiative was equally vague on labour market reform, pointing to the opportunity to take a different path from Westminster. It’s a delicate balancing act keeping your business backers on board while appealing to the workers at the same time!

On a more practical level we can draw some conclusions from our experience of employee relations since devolution. On the whole I would describe them as positive across all the administrations since 1999. The Memorandum of Understanding with the STUC has underpinned a positive level of engagement between the trade unions and government at all levels. The recent statement on the constructive contribution made by workplace unions to economic growth is a document that you would be unlikely to see emanating from the present UK government. The partnership model in NHS Scotland has been described as probably the best model in Europe in a recent academic study. The Scottish Living Wage, civil service facility time and minimising compulsory redundancy have all been positive aspects of employee relations in Scotland. Of course it hasn’t all been plain sailing. The current pension disputes and pay policy have looked pretty much the same in Scotland. Only this week I was addressing the Scottish Government’s approach to regulation that uses similar language to that the UK Government uses to justify undermining employment and safety legislation.

Of course either side can take comfort from these examples. They have been delivered under devolution, but could also reflect a different, more collective approach in an independent Scotland. UNISON’s Fairer Scotland – Devolution paper sets out the case for devolving more powers including safety, labour market regulation and equalities. While the driving principle is subsidiarity, the paper admits that there is a case for simply doing things differently. And that is ever more pressing when you have a UK Government undermining the UK’s already weak safety and employment laws.

Important though the mechanisms of employee relations are, employment depends on wider economic and social policy considerations. The questions at tonight's event reflected those concerns ranging from immigration, taxation, pensions and Europe. As I and others have highlighted elsewhere, there is a real contradiction between the low tax business model and greater social justice. Jim McColl and Nicola Sturgeon can’t both be right and this is something the Yes campaign is going to have to reconcile if they are to develop a credible case for independence. Equally, the No campaign has to offer a vision of extended devolution that addresses how Scotland can develop a more integrated approach to employment issues.

Much more work for both sides on this issue and thanks to Brodies for promoting the debate.