ben

Five million people in Britain are now self-employed and this continues to grow, soon to overtake the size of the public sector. Although growth of the gig economy is now slowing, there is no doubt that technology is fundamentally changing the nature of work.

Trade unions are used to working with traditional forms of employment – permanent jobs with employment contracts and accessible shop floors – but the workforce is now starting to look very different. Increasingly people are switching jobs, careers and sectors and more and more workers do not have contracts at all. This requires us to think differently about how we approach and represent these workers and, secondly, how we approach and work with an employer, if there is one, so that we are relevant to the needs of modern workers. That’s why at Community we’re taking action to ensure innovation works for workers, on our terms, and that means ensuring good pay, fairer working conditions and decent work prevail through any change.

We’re seeing over 3.9 million workers in the UK such as parents, carers, women and the underemployed who would like additional work to earn an extra income to help their family, or top up their wage. There are legitimate concerns that unions share about the potential for exploitation, but responses differ as to how this can be prevented and how workers who want gig work or to be self-employed can be supported.

At Community, we have joined forces with Labour xchange, an independent platform that connects individuals to employers in an open and fair way. People can sign up and list their availability for work, which businesses then book as and when staff are required. The workers get work on their terms, while businesses get the staff they need, when they need them.

Labour xchange ensures that workers are paid a living wage for their work within 24 hours, meaning people aren’t left in the lurch like we know many self-employed workers are, unpaid and unable to predict and manage their finances. This innovative system has led to increased wages and more security for working people.

Community believes flexibility and fair work are not mutually exclusive. Much research has shown that self-employed people feel working in this way creates more opportunity, encourages transparency, flexibility and innovation. Trade unions need to ensure these workers can be given the opportunity to reap the benefits of gig work as well as mitigating the adverse impacts of low paid work.

There is a great trade union tradition of supporting self-employed workers in the creative and media industries. However, there’s not a great deal of union support for the growing number of self-employed workers in the wider economy.

At Community, we’ve found an increasing number of our members have been leaving traditional employment and going it alone as our traditional trade union offer wasn’t relevant to them. So we looked at the support that we offer and at who else was working with self-employed people, and were introduced to a co-operative called Indycube who provide affordable co-working desk space to self-employed people. 

Working in partnership with them we’ve come up with a package of benefits to support self-employed workers. It includes a factoring service, where in return for a small percentage, a company will pay your invoice on time and then it will chase up the payment from your client.

It’s only by collectivising workers with the backing of a trade union that we’ve been able to access such services and it’s a solution to a problem that millions of self-employed and sole traders face. In the UK today, self-employed workers are owed £26 billion. We want to get that money back in their pockets and back into local economies.

The provision of services for self-employed workers is not new. Organisations such as IPSE and the FSB have offered benefits and services to self-employed people for many years.

However, collective representation and the strengthening of the voice of gig and self-employed workers is lacking outside the aforementioned sector-specific unions. And the reality is that too many of those who face low pay and poor conditions are in these types of employment. So there is a duty on unions to change our normal practices to ensure we continue to fulfil the purpose for which we were created: to empower workers to come together and improve their lot.

Pointing out the problems or concerns around working independently isn’t enough. Trade unions need to recognise that working this way – whilst not always a choice – isn’t solved by saying that everyone needs to be directly employed and involved in a rigid employment relationship with an employer.

Expanding the self-employed and freelance network of users and organising them into a collective group with a voice on the issues that matter to them is why we’re proud to be a modern union for a changing world, by preparing our economy and workplaces for the next generation of workers.

Kate Dearden is Research and Campaigns Officer at the trade union Community

Pay ratio reporting requirements take effect on January 1st

From 1^st January 2019 the new pay ratio reporting requirements, passed last summer and applying to all firms UK quoted companies with more than 250 employees, will be in effect. As part of the directors’ remuneration report, companies will have to publish the ratio of the Chief Executive’s pay to the 25^th, 50^th and 75^th percentile pay levels of all full-time equivalent UK employees. The first figures should be released in annual reports in 2020, covering the figures from 2019. Business Secretary Greg Clark commented that, while most companies in Britain act responsibly. “We do, however, understand the frustration of workers and shareholders when executive pay is out of step with performance, and their concerns are not heard.”

 

Uber employment tribunal ruling upheld by Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal has upheld previous rulings that Uber drivers should be classified as workers, rather than self-employed contractors. This status entitles them to holiday pay and a guaranteed minimum wage. As one of the archetypal ‘gig economy’ professions, the Uber drivers’ case is seen as a key landmark for employment rights across a wide range of similar professions. Nigel Mackay of Leigh Day, the solicitors firm representing the drivers, commented that Uber has yet to give drivers “what three legal decisions have ruled they are entitled to – holiday pay and to be paid at least the minimum wage.” Uber have announced they will be appealing the decision to the Supreme Court, where a final definitive ruling is expected.

 

Government to lower threshold for information and consultation of employees

As part of their response to the Matthew Taylor Review of Modern Employment Practices, the department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy has announced they will be accepting Matthew Taylor’s recommendation to lower the threshold in the information and consultation of employees regulations. Currently 10% of employees have to make a formal request to set up information and consultation mechanisms in order for the regulations to take effect and their employer to be obligated to respond. The government have announced they will be bringing forward legislation to reduce this threshold to just 2%, with a minimum of 15 employees. It is expected that this change could lead to a large increase in the number of companies required to set up consultative bodies with their workforces.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruled in October 2018 that Morrisons Supermarkets were vicariously responsible for a data breach, in which the personal data and bank account details of thousands of employees were posted online by a disgruntled employee. This has led to a major concern on the part of many employers about what they can reasonably do to mitigate the “internal threat” whether it is by human error or malicious intent? 

A 2016 study of 874 data breaches found that less than 10 per cent were conducted by outsiders with stolen credentials – compared with 22 per cent caused by malicious employee activity and a shocking 65 per cent as a result of employee or contractor negligence. With the EU GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) now in force, organisations could be faced with fines of up to €20 million or 4% of annual global turnover for certain infractions. There are also non-financial costs to be considered, such as reputational damage and loss of customer trust.

Robust cyber security involves implementing controls that are based around three pillars: people, processes and technology. This three-pronged approach helps organisations defend themselves from both highly organised attacks and common internal threats, such as accidental breaches and human error. IPA has developed a training programme which is aimed at strengthening this first pillar – people. It is vital that every employee is aware of their role in preventing and reducing cyber threats. At the same time, the specialised technical cyber security staff within any organisation need to be equipped to explain the processes and technology to their non-technical colleagues and – equally importantly, why they need to use them in their daily job roles.  Cyber threats change quickly, and processes need to be continually reviewed to be able to adapt with them and this is why organisations need adaptable employees who are engaged with their organisation and the challenges it faces.

The essence of employee engagement is that given the right circumstances, employees will be prepared to ‘go the extra mile’ in the service of their organisation. The four key enablers (Leadership, Engaging Managers, Integrity and Informed Voice) are well known to regular readers but it is clear that all have a role to play in ensuring any organisation’s cyber security.

An engaged workforce is probably the best friend a senior manager can have when trying to lead their organisation through challenges and change. Supporting it, enabling it, and listening to it, may provide one of the best returns on investment it is possible to make. A workforce that feels they are listened to by management in a respectful way are far more likely to head off a major security incident which could cost the organisation dearly.  Having an engaged and informed workforce also makes it easier to secure buy-in to the cyber security objectives and to ensure colleagues are more likely to listen when organisations explain security protocols to them.

The key challenges for managers, and the areas they need support in include:

• How to engage employees in fighting the cyber-security threat
• How to effectively communicate the importance of cyber security and processes
• Understanding the role of staff involvement in reducing the cyber security threat
• Understanding the importance of training and encouraging adjustments to change peoples’ skillsets

Ultimately, an informed employee voice acts to strengthen organisational resilience. Moreover, an engaged workforce with a meaningful voice will support an organisation undergoing periods of turbulence, either as a result of internal change programmes or external pressures. A disengaged workforce that lacks a proper mechanism for meaningful dialogue will instead exacerbate those pressures as they look for means to vent the frustrations that they have no legitimate means to express.

It is critical, therefore, that managers at all levels become aware of these links between cyber security and employee engagement – if this does not happen, who will be next to face the EAT?

Derek Luckhurst is Training and Development Director at the IPA

IPA have been working with the National Cyber Security Centre at GCHQ to develop a training product around the human element of cyber security. For more advice and information about how the IPA could help you with cyber security issues through workforce engagement, please get in touch via the details below.

[email protected] 

07780 697024

Cybersecurity is now top concern for businesses

The latest survey of 12,000 top executives around the world by the World Economic Forum (WEF) has indicated that cyber-attacks are now the biggest threat to businesses around the world. Following a series of high profile security breaches at companies including BA and HSBC the issue has shot up the list of business leaders’ priorities to take the number one spot. Lori Bailey, global head of Cyber Risk at Zurich Insurance Group and member of the WEF’s Global Future Council on Cybersecurity commented, “Cyber-attacks are seen as the number one risk for doing business in markets that account for 50% of global GDP… this strongly suggests that governments and businesses need to strengthen cybersecurity and resilience in order to maintain confidence in a highly connected digital economy.”

 

Agency workers losing out on rights and pay

A study by the Resolution Foundation has suggested agency workers in the UK are missing out on at least £500m a year in missing holiday pay, as well as receiving around 22p an hour less, on average, than permanent employees doing exactly the same work. While there are genuine benefits of flexibility from agency work for some workers, the average pay penalty was £400 a year per worker compared with direct employees. Top causes included missing holiday pay, lack of auto-enrolment in pension schemes and travel costs, as well as firms violating their equal treatment obligations and imposing covert deductions for things like uniforms.

 

Industrial dispute looms at British Gas over pension reforms

British Gas owner Centrica faces rising anger from its 11,000 engineers over plans to cut worker pensions as part of a £200 million cost-saving exercise, at a time when executive pay at the firm is perceived to remain high. One estimate suggested staff could end up with £190,000 less in their retirement pot over a 15-year period if the plans go through as announced. Meanwhile, Chief Executive Iain Conn enjoyed a 40% pay rise to £4.15 million in 2016 and workers expressed anger over other senior executives who would benefit if share prices rise off the back of the move. Centrica commented that they were consulting with unions and colleagues about the proposals, which were key to keeping the company price competitive with rivals.

We are fast approaching what could be the decisive moment of the entire Brexit process. The House of Commons is due to vote on the Prime Minister’s draft Brexit deal on the 11^th December and, with every indication so far that she is headed for a historic defeat, the possibility of a collapse of the Article 50 process, or even of the entire government, and the associated risk of a No Deal Brexit must seriously be considered. What implications might this have for the UK workforce and what should employers and trade unions be thinking about in such a scenario?

As it stands, the UK is due to leave the European Union by automatic operation of both UK and EU law at 11pm on 29^th March 2019, with or without a deal. Simultaneously, the European Communities Act 1972, which gives legal force in the UK to EU directives, rights and regulations will cease to operate. Thanks to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (colloquially and misleadingly referred to as the ‘Great Repeal Bill’), previous EU regulations, including on employment rights, will be transposed directly into UK law regardless of whether we leave the EU with or without a deal. However, whereas under Theresa May’s deal we would enter a transitional period until at least the end of 2020 and potentially be bound to shadow or maintain equivalence with EU employment rights through that period and beyond (including ECJ jurisdiction to enforce such rights), without a deal no new changes to EU employment rights would apply in the UK after 29^th March next year.

Enforcement of existing rights would fall solely to UK courts and employment tribunals, with no further right of appeal to the ECJ. While in practice there doesn’t seem any reason to think existing rights would not be enforced any longer, we could certainly imagine a potential drop in compliance following the reduction in enforcement infrastructure and lack of EU-level pressure to enforce compliance. More troublingly, there would be nothing to prevent the UK government from acting to repeal significant parts of the Social Europe regulations.

The EU has strengthened both individual and collective workplace rights immeasurably over the past four decades. Examples include stronger rights for working parents and women, guarantees over maximum working time and minimum holidays, protection against discrimination, equal treatment for ‘atypical’ workers and regulations such as TUPE which offer protection for employees being transferred to a different employer or those facing redundancy. In addition, the EU has been fundamental in extending and enshrining health and safety regulations in the UK. Finally, the EU has strengthened rights surrounding collective voice at work via the Information and Consultation Directive and the right to request European Works Councils in large multinationals operating across EU member states.

Many of these protections are much derided by those on the libertarian right, led by the vision of a buccaneering Britain unshackled from the ‘red tape’ of regulation as outlined by the five authors of the 2012 “Britannia Unchained” book; all of whom are now senior government figures including recently departed Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab, new junior Brexit Minsiter Kwasi Kwarteng, two other Cabinet Ministers and a Conservative Vice Chair. Theresa May has promised explicitly that “Existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law – and they will be guaranteed as long as I am prime minister.” With the political situation being what it is, however, such a promise is not perhaps as reassuring at this time as she might have hoped when she made it back in 2016.

A new Conservative Prime Minister from this wing of the party would no doubt be keen to scrap a number of these landmark employment rights, with the Working Time Directive, TUPE and anti-discrimination legislation considered particularly high priority targets. As IPA have previously argued, however, to do so would be a serious mistake. It would inflict major harm on working people and there is little evidence that it would do anything to seriously boost productivity; in fact it might do quite the opposite by encouraging industrial disputes and further undermining employee engagement at a time when morale is likely to already be at rock bottom as a result of economic shocks. Furthermore, the EU would be bound to retaliate against a perceived uneven playing field of employment rights by further restricting our access to the single market and making any future trade deal to escape the economic damage of a no deal Brexit that much harder.

Rather than countenance such a scenario, the government (whoever may lead it in the months ahead) should do everything possible to provide continuity, stability and continued reassurance to working people in Britain that, whatever happens, their fundamental rights at work will not be at risk.

Patrick Briône is Head of Policy & Research at the IPA

[email protected]

0207 759 1004

NHS Workforce risks being further demoralised by hospital car park charging

An article in the British Medical Journal has warned that employee morale in the NHS, already hit hard in recent years, is at further risk from the introduction of hospital car park charging. Figures released earlier this year indicated that around a third of NHS hospitals already charge their own staff for car parking. At the top end, charges average out at around £2 per hour, or the equivalent of an £80 charge for a doctor or nurse working a 40 hour week. To highlight the scale of the issue, new figures this month suggest that the English NHS made a profit of £69.5 million last year from car parking charges levied on their own employees.

 

Over 20,000 Google employees walkout over Sexual Harassment Policy

On Thursday 1^st November over 20,000 employees and contractors of Google across the world walked out in protest against sexual harassment, misconduct, lack of transparency and workplace culture. The move was triggered by the revelation of sexual misconduct allegations against Android co-founder Andy Rubin, who was reportedly paid $90 million to resign from Google and keep quiet about the affair. Google employees in countries around the world, including the UK, issued a set of demands including an end to forced arbitration for issues of sexual harassment and discrimination, commitments to equal pay and opportunity, clearer sexual misconduct reporting process and the addition of an employee representative to the board of directors.

 

Gender pay gap among senior executives may have shrunk significantly in 2018

Research by The Pay Index has found that the UK gender pay gap among senior executives in the UK has almost halved, from a reported figure of -22% in March to -12% in September 2018. The introduction of mandatory gender pay reporting in large firms has shed light on where major disparities exist and there has been growing pressure on employers to eliminate pay disparities. Globally, amid a climate of increased attention and focus on gender pay issues, The Pay Index found the gender pay gap for senior global executives shrunk from 17% to 9%, with an average male executive salary of £396,810 set against a female average of £327,240.

In a previous bulletin article back in October 2016 I outlined several key questions that had been posed to us following the Brexit vote. These included:

• What are people’s concerns relating to the future of their work since the referendum?
• What communication have they had from their employer since the referendum relating to Brexit and what reassurance has this provided?
• How confident are workers that their employment is secure, do they feel that their business will benefit or be harmed by Brexit?
• Do they fear outsourcing abroad?
• What aspects of Brexit are UK workers most concerned about and what would they like to see the government and business leaders doing more of to reassure them?

Arguably, these questions have remained unanswered.

Organisations appear to be unsure of what to tell their staff fearing that a lack of clarity or certainty might make their people question their leadership capability. However, staff all over the UK tell us that they do not expect clarity or certainty but want to know that their leaders are thinking about the strategic implications of a deal or even a no deal. They want to know that their organisations have a Plan A, a Plan B and even a Plan C if necessary even if those are dependent on assumptions that might change as more detail is provided by government. As one person stated, “If we know what the worst is, we can deal with it.” As it is, the communication vacuum is being filled by rumours based on the negative perspective rather than fact.

There are ways this communication gap can be filled quickly. Organisations could consider a fortnightly (or monthly) Brexit session for staff forums and trade unions where factual communication could be filtered through to all employees. Frequently answered questions could be updated regularly. Not everyone will read them or believe them but I suspect that will be the small percentage of people who believe in grand conspiracies. If 95% of employees choose to be informed and take that information on board, that is the best we can hope for.

I believe organisations can be helped to make sure that employees receive clear communication from their leaders and are made to feel properly involved in any important decisions that will be taken about the future of their organisation. Our coaching and training course covers several key interventions:

• Helping senior managers to clarify their messages
• Helping managers to communicate the different options and dilemmas facing them
• Keeping staff informed even when there is nothing new to relay
• Ensuring the facts are communicated and the myths are dismissed
• How to re-assure staff that the organisation will support them
• How to use Social media to separate fact from fiction

Regardless of specific circumstances, UK workers can remain engaged with their organisation even under the most testing conditions. Uncertain times re-enforce the need for a strong strategic narrative and organisations need to tell staff what their plans are. A reluctance from managers to share such information is understandable but this is a time for leaders to show confidence and strength in their planning. This requires knowledgeable and confident leaders supported by skilled line managers. Without that confidence, the strategic narrative does not translate to operational levels and employees are kept in the dark.

It is equally important that the employee voice is informed enough to contribute to solutions rather than a means of simply highlighting problems. This is why it is important to repeat the facts rather than assume everyone has taken in the messages first time. Repetition is not reassurance but it is vital in trying to secure as shared an understanding amongst people as possible.

There is a strong argument that uncertainty amongst workers spreads and grows at an unmanageable rate resulting in reduced confidence in their business, knee-jerk decisions about their future and an unnecessary loss of talent. This is often caused by rumour and a reluctance from staff to ask the questions that would dispel those rumours.

People do not expect reassurance when none can be given and cynicism is often disproportionately represented through the various channels for voice, from formal representative structures through to social media. Uncertain times require a higher level of clarity around all communications whether they are top-down or bottom-up. It is imperative that mangers “tell it like is” and that voice represents the engaged as well as the disengaged.

If we start doing this now, it may not be too late.

 

Derek Luckhurst is Training and Development Director at the IPA

For more advice and information about how the IPA could help you engage with your workforce through Brexit and beyond, please contact:

[email protected]

07780 697024

Workers to keep all tips under new proposals

The government has announced plans to legislate in order to ban employers from deducting money from tips given by customers in bars and restaurants. The move comes in response to a consultation which showed that customers overwhelmingly wanted the full proceeds of tips they paid to go to serving staff. Announcing the move, the Prime Minister said that “the change is part of the government’s drive to back businesses to create good jobs while making sure the system works for ordinary people,” while Shadow Business Secretary Rebecca Long Bailey commented “This is now the fourth policy the Tories have copied from us at their conference, as they desperately try to catch up with Labour.”

 

Apprenticeship levy to pass more to supply chains

The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, has announced an overhaul of the apprenticeship levy at this year’s Conservative Party Conference. Following on from changes in May 2018 which allowed firms to pass 10% of their levy funds on to other firms in their supply chain, this proportion will be increased to 25% from April next year. Alongside these changes the Conservative Party has committed to expand the range of available apprenticeships and open up an consultation process to consider further changes to the levy, following a disappointingly low take-up during the scheme’s first two years, with large firms so far only making use of 10 percent of their available funds.

 

The UK cities most at risk of robot revolution

A new report by the Centre for Social Justice has highlighted the 10 UK towns and cities most at risk of job losses from the fourth industrial revolution. In a sign of a further widening North-South divide, the areas hardest hit are small post-industrial towns in the North of England which are already suffering from low skills, unemployment and poor transport links as a result of previous waves of industrial disruption during the 1980s. Meanwhile the South, London and other major cities will likely benefit from the coming waves of automation and artificial intelligence. The 10 places listed as likely to be hardest hit are Doncaster, Wigan, Blackpool, Mansfield, Barnsley, Bradford, Plymouth, Stoke-on-Trent, Wakefield and Dudley.

At their conference in Liverpool this month, the Labour Party have brought forward a number of radical proposals for reforms to corporate governance, including mandatory employee board representation and mandatory worker share schemes for all companies, public or private, with over 250 workers.

Under the first proposal, at least at least a third of places on all boards, with a minimum of two seats, would be reserved for worker representatives, bringing about a radical increase in the role for employee voice in corporate governance. The second proposal would bring about an equally radical transformation in corporate ownership; all companies with over 250 UK employees would be required to transfer 1% of ownership each year, up to a total of 10% over 10 years, into an “Inclusive Ownership Fund” that would be controlled by workers. These shares would be controlled collectively by the current workforce, giving the workforce at least 10% of shareholder voting rights. In total this would transfer assets worth hundreds of billions of pounds to the ownership of the UK workforce.

These proposals are being floated in response to a series of major crises which have beset corporate governance and the wider UK labour market over recent years. A number of corporate scandals, from Sports Direct to BHS have eroded public trust in UK businesses, which fell another two points in 2017 according to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, to just 43%. Meanwhile, the problems faced by workers and businesses alike in our economy are very real. As Jeremy Corbyn said when announcing these policies on the eve of Labour’s conference, “In workplaces across the country, working hours have got longer, productivity has nosedived, pay has fallen and insecurity has risen.”

While almost everyone would agree with this diagnosis of the UK’s problems, there have been loud challenges from some quarters to Labour’s proposed solutions. The CBI suggested measures such as these would “only encourage investors to pack their bags”. As the Labour Party pointed out in their defence, however, the UK already has the lowest average level of business investment of any G7 nation as a share of GDP – a problem itself partly caused by dysfunctional corporate governance. Research published last year by the Bank of England found that four in five publicly owned firms reported that pressure to create short-term returns has dented investment levels over the previous five years. By giving employees, who generally have a longer term stake in the firm, a greater voice in boardroom decisions, might we not actually rebalance corporate decision making in favour of more long term investment? There is a further wealth of evidence, published by the IPA and others over a number of years, linking both employee voice and employee ownership with greater productivity, increased innovation and improved problem solving, as well as better workplace relations.

That is not to say that there aren’t valid criticisms of these proposals, or details that need to be worked out. There is certainly a risk that, as the proposed scheme does not cover foreign-owned firms, it would simply encourage some major British employers to transfer their stock exchange listings overseas to avoid having to comply. Furthermore, as laid out, Labour’s plans for the “Inclusive Ownership Funds” would cap any dividends paid to workers at a £500 annual payment per worker, with the remainder going to the government. With no accompanying rights to sell their shares, this renders the proposal a form of tax with some associated voting rights for workers, rather than true employee ownership.

Nevertheless these are bold proposals to challenge a culture of poor corporate governance that has been allowed to take hold in too many firms over recent years. The Conservative Party has also proposed major corporate governance reform, with Theresa May promising in 2016 that under her leadership “we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards but workers as well.” However, in the two years since then, concrete policy developments have been slow to emerge after a hostile business response and the watered-down proposals that were eventually published in the 2017 Corporate Governance Reform Green Paper and made their way into the Conservative manifesto for the 2017 general election. Over the past 18 months, while the FRC have reflected some of these ideas in their revised Corporate Governance Code, there have been few signs of progress from the government in implementing any of these promises on a legislative basis. Rather than relying on criticism of Labour’s new plans, the Conservative Party would be better off making good on their earlier commitments and bringing forward meaningful corporate governance reforms of their own before it is too late.

Patrick Brione is Head of Policy & Research at the IPA

Survey reveals potential efficiency gains if managers listen to their employees

The Skills and Employment Survey 2017 has shown clear evidence of a link between employee involvement and organisations’ ability to embrace efficiency-enhancing ideas. The survey found that 28% of those with a line manager who was highly supportive were able to put forward efficiency-enhancing ideas, compared with only 13% of those with a less supportive manager. Overall 70% of employees had taken direct action to implement efficiency-enhancing ideas themselves over the past year, but only one in eight (13%) had put forward such suggestions to management. Professor Alan Felstead of Cardiff University who led the research commented, “The big message coming out of our findings is that workers have great ideas about how productivity could be improved. Growth is unlikely to come from simply increasing the supply of skills; employers need to harness the views of their workforce and treat them fairly.”

 

New Commission launched on future of work

The Fabian Society and Community have launched a new Commission on Workers and Technology, chaired by Yvette Cooper, to explore the impacts automation will have on UK jobs over the next 10 years. Commenting on the launch, Yvette Cooper said “Technological change opens up the possibility of a positive transformation of the labour market, but there are significant risks that work itself could change for the worse. Politicians, trade unions and business leaders must act now.” A survey published to coincide with the launch reveals that under 10% of workers say the government is doing enough to prepare for the arrival of new workplace technologies and only 16% say trade unions in their workplace have been taking steps to ensure technology would improve their working lives.

 

Ford tests motion tracking of employees to reduce stress

Ford has begun a test programme at its Valencia Assembly Plant involving the issuing of motion tracking suits to over 70 employees, in a bid to reduce physical stresses on workers’ bodies during the assembly process. The special suits, normally used by elite athletes, track the motions of workers’ arms, legs, shoulders, head and neck to create virtual profiles of the employees’ movements throughout the day. These profiles are then used to adjust workstations to improve posture and comfort and reduce possible strains. The company is now looking to introduce the system to other European facilities.