Gender pay gap 'to last 98 years'. Really?

The Chartered Management Institute published a report today which has been drawn from a survey of 34,158 UK executives. The report draws two broad conclusions:

1. Female executives are earning more than their male counterparts for the first time since its records began, albeit only at junior executive level.


2. Average earnings amongst those surveyed suggest that men continue to be paid more on average than women doing the same jobs (£42,441 compared to £31,895), revealing a gender pay gap of £10,546. From this data, the CMI extrapolates that the UK has a long way to go before the gender pay gap is finally closed. It predicts this will eventually happen - in 2109!

So, good news and bad news, then. But hang on... without the raw data, it's very difficult to tell if the survey is comparing like with like. Amongst other things, pay can be affected by the different work patterns of men and women, where in the UK they work, how long they have been in the job and whether they work full-time or part-time. No light is shed on why the disparity might exist, and without that we wonder whether the survey does nothing more than provide a bored subs' desk with a snappy headline and a few column inches filled.

Draft Agency Workers Regulations Guidance Published

Due to come into effect on 1 October 2011, the Agency Workers Regulations will give temporary agency workers the right to equal treatment in comparison to permanent workers as regards basic working conditions.

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills has now published Draft Guidance on the Regulations. BIS is accepting comments on the Draft Guidance until 15 April, with final guidance expected to be published later this month.

You can download the Draft Guidance here.

Synergy Employment Law Solicitors - Spring 2011 Employment Bulletin online now!

Our Spring 2011 Employment Bulletin is available online. You can download it here now!

Limits on tribunal awards go up today

Because of a hefty rise in the RPI index, the maximum compensatory award for any unfair dismissal with an effective date of termination on or after 1 February 2011 is rising from £65,300 to £68,400.

The maximum amount of a week's pay, used to calculate (amongst other things) statutory redundancy pay and the basic award in claims of unfair dismissal is also going up today - from £380 to £400.

You can see the relevant statutory instrument (if you really want to) here.

Miriam O'Reilly Speaks. Only this time, blink and you'd miss it...

Every Sunday in the Telegraph, Sir Terry Wogan offers his musings on some matter or other that's caught his attention during the week. This week he's given his tuppence worth on the Miriam O'Reilly age discrimination case. So far, so unremarkable (although his point of view is more interesting and relevant than most). But our Miriam, clearly scanning the Internet for every mention of her case, hasn't just read Terry's article - she's commented on it, too.

See what she had to say here...

Blogosphere reacts to the scrapping of the default retirement age

Dr Ros Altmann, the Director General of Saga, has managed to get the same article in both the Guardian and the Telegraph today. She is, of course, delighted that the default retirement age is to go. But, as usual, the really interesting bit is the replies that her article is attracting.

The arguments broadly fall into two categories.

On the one hand, by forcing people to retire before at a particular age, you make them stop working, producing and earning. So they end up contributing less in output to the economy and pay less taxes into the pot, meaning the country is less wealthy and the government doesn't have as much money to spend. Which creates more jobs for young and old alike.

On the other hand, increasing the retirement age will not cause the economy to grow (at least in the short to medium term) and will instead increase the supply of workers, driving down wages. The young will have less opportunity to get on the career ladder. And if older workers are at the top of their career income they are more expensive to employ and, if generally less efficient, this may reduce efficiency, competitiveness and the total number of jobs available.

In reality, the precise ramifications of scrapping the default retirement age are just too complex and subtle for any commentator to predict. But from an employment law perspective, the most immediate issue is likely to be how employers will treat a workforce which, as a general rule, may become less productive as employees reach old age. If an employee becomes less able over time but insists on staying put, what then? Most employment lawyers would agree that 'capability' is by far the most difficult 'fair reason' to rely on in dismissing an employee, as it carries an obligation to allow an employee to come up to scratch via support, training, redeployment and so on - all of which can take months. This can be hurtful to an employee and easy for another solicitor to challenge (usually pointing to the employee's most recent appraisal which, more often than not, will be glowing because the employer didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings). So will scrapping the default retirement age promote good industrial relations or become a source of conflict? We suspect this is one where time (and a hefty raft of case law) will tell...

Run on shares in carriage clock factories expected: default retirement age to be scrapped in October

The Government has today published its response to the consultation on phasing out the default retirement age. Fulfilling a pledge in the coalition agreement, from October employers will not be able to force staff to retire at 65.

The Government's intention is that the change will be phased in between April and October, giving firms time just 6 months to prepare and change their human resources policies.

You can view the Government's response to consultation here.