2012 maternity pay rates
by Katie White, May 15th, 2012
Beyond the babygrows and infinite supply of nappies seemingly necessary when starting a family, there’s the financially terrifying prospect of maternity leave slashing the household income.
Some women are lucky enough to work for organisations that pay more than statutory maternity pay. (Check your employment contract or your staff handbook to find out.)
But most people are only entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay (“SMP”). This is payable at two rates:
- In the first six weeks of maternity leave, you will be paid an “earnings-related rate”. This is 90% of your normal earnings per week.
- For the other 33 weeks of maternity leave, your pay will either be what is known as the “prescribed rate”, or the earnings-related rate, whichever is lower. The prescribed rate is set by the Government and usually revised each year.
Since 1st April 2012 the weekly rate for SMP (as well as statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay) has gone up from £128.73 to £135.45. Those who do not qualify for this allowance, or are self employed, are usually entitled to maternity allowance. This social security benefit has also increased by exactly the same amount so it’s also £135.45 per week.
Of course the changes are less than spectacular. £6.72 per week extra is unlikely to have a dramatic affect for those going through a significant drop in income. Yet in many countries, including the USA, there is no legal requirement for paid maternity leave and it continues to be the exception rather than the rule.
What can you buy with £6.72?
- 5,700 value brand nappy bags
- 800g Johnson’s baby powder
- 112 own-brand nappies from a popular British supermarket
- 11 pots of Cow & Gate cauliflower cheese baby food 4+months
- 1 Lady and the Tramp babygrow
Employers can prevent a serious bout of Olympic flu
by Katie White, May 3rd, 2012
With the Olympics only 85 days away, requests for time off may have already come flooding in, but the problematic possibility of an inflated sickness rate remains. It’s an unfortunate fact that sickness absence in the workplace often increases when large sporting events are televised during work time.
A few potential reasons spring to mind:
- Individuals who have genuinely had a minor illness, find their enthusiasm to swiftly return to work impeded by a desire to stay home and watch televised coverage; and
- Some of those who have been given a last minute ticket, forgotten to request leave or simply been refused time off for an event decide to “pull a sickie”.
Suspicion that an employee has taken sickness absence without proper reason is a tricky matter to handle, so here are some tips:
- A well drafted sickness absence policy should, amongst other things, cover the process for investigating any absence that is suspected to be disingenuous. The policy should deal clearly with the consequences of false claims. You can cross refer this with your disciplinary policy if you wish.
- Communicate your absence policy to all managers and staff in advance of the big events like the Olympics. It is crucial that policies are followed consistently across an organisation.
- Investigate! If you have suspicions that someone has falsely called in sick, do your research. This comes under your disciplinary procedure, rather than the one mentioned above regarding sickness absence. Some cases are going to be simpler than others. The employee who claimed 24 hour flu, but later posts pictures of cheering on the men’s 100m final on Facebook, is an easy one to pin down. Others may be more difficult and a return to work investigatory meeting with them to discuss the absence can be a good starting point. Be careful that you do no single out specific employees, but aim to treat everyone the same.
- Handle it appropriately. If you discover that an employee has falsely taken sickness absence, implement your disciplinary process.
- Consider alternative ways to avoid employees resorting to calling in sick. You may want to consider flexible working, or allow unpaid leave. Some businesses with appropriate facilities may consider having lunch time screenings of major events.
Taking the biscuit
by Katie White, April 23rd, 2012
Cookie tracking deadline looms with much still needed to be done
Many of you may have noticed some changes recently when surfing the internet. A trip to Google during February would have seen some little messages appearing informing you that they are altering their privacy policy and terms of service, and particularly how they are using data that users enter into their site. These changes will have partly come about due to the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 which came into force in the UK on 26th May 2011.
A 12 month ‘lead in’ process was granted in order to allow businesses to comply. On 26th May 2012 therefore, the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office is going to impose an EU directive designed to protect internet users’ privacy.
What are the changes?
From the 26th May onwards, sites must provide “clear and comprehensive” information about the use of cookies. The general idea is that upon visiting a site which intends to use cookies, the website host will have to tell you that cookies are contained in that website, explain what they are doing, and give you the option to reject any being stored on your device.
What is going to happen?
The method for adapting to the new laws may depend on the sophistication of the website concerned. One possible option is that a pop-up box will appear containing a notice that the site wishes to place cookies on your computer, with a tick box to confirm that you are happy to accept them – an ‘opt in’ method. Another possibility is that the site will publish a privacy policy, which will set out how they intend to track their users which will tell you how to opt out.
BT have plumped for the pop-up box method, which appears on the screens of first-time visitors to its site. Instead of specifically requiring users to opt-in, it states that unless the user actively seeks to change their settings, they will have consented to its “allow all cookies” default rule. This option is likely to be popular amongst businesses, as feedback has shown that when presented with the opt-in method, most users would chose to refuse to allow cookies to track them.
Who will it affect?
From statements made by the ICO, it does seem that the rules will not be without exception. They have indicated that the rules will cover cookies used to:
- provide information to advertisers;
- count the number of unique visitors to a page; and
- recognise when a user has returned to a site to adjust the content that is subsequently displayed.
However, it says exceptions are likely to be made if the cookie is only being used to ensure a page loads quickly by distributing the workload over several servers, or is employed to track a user as they add goods to a shopping basket.
Should I care?
It depends.
A study has shown that there are on average 14 tracking tools per webpage on the UK’s most popular sites. Privacy solutions provider Truste suggests that a user typically encounters up to 140 cookies and other trackers while browsing a single site. Truste have said that 68% of the trackers they analysed in a recent study across the UK’s 50 most visited organisations, belonged to third-parties, usually advertisers, rather than the site’s owner.
Cookies have been around for ages, and can be very useful. They can, for example, store data such as user names and passwords on websites so that you do not have to enter these each time you make a visit.
Cookies have developed over the years however, and one example of how so called “third party” cookies can be used, can be seen after you have visited a shopping website such as John Lewis and browsed through some of their products. Cookie tracking allows a marketing department (not necessarily that of the retailer itself) to collect data about the products you have viewed, and then automatically populate banner advertising on other websites that you visit. Such use, which basically allows retailers to target adverts that appear on your screen specifically based on what you have looked at in the past, have become successful business generators. Marketers are rightly concerned about the new legislation and the impact it may have upon sales.
If you like having a reminder of your previous browsing, or being shown similar products that may be of interest, then the chances are that you might want to think twice about opting out of cookies when invited.
If you are the owner of a website that uses cookies, the potential level of the fine outlined below means that you really should care.
What next?
Research carried out by KPMG on 55 major UK based-organisations has shown that many sites are yet to add a feature which complies with the new legislation by asking for the users’ consent. Of these 55 organisations, a huge 95% of them were still not compliant with the new law at the end of March 2012.
Those who fail to implement the new rules properly could be fined up to £500,000.
Time will only tell how heavily the regulators are going to enforce breaches of the rules. For the time being, all owners of websites that use cookies should actively seek to do what is necessary to abide by the rules in good time for the 26th May 2012.
Important change for Apprentices
by Katie White, April 17th, 2012
In the latest wave of employment legislation updates coming into force this April, the government has made some amendments to the arrangements a business must make when taking on apprentices.
True apprenticeships are work based training programmes, where anyone over 16 years old can earn a wage and work alongside experienced staff to gain job-specific skills.
When an employer takes on an apprentice, that person joins the employer’s business under a contract of service for a fixed term. In the past, when taking on an apprentice, there were minimal requirements for the contract itself, with the legislation only requiring that the agreement entered into was in the “prescribed form” which had the ability to vary in form from provider to provider.
This has now changed, and the bar has been raised. The Apprenticeships (Form of Apprenticeship Agreement) Regulations 2012 came into force on 6 April 2012 and specify that the prescribed form must contain the basic terms of employment required to be given to employees under section 1 of Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA). In addition, the apprentice must also be given a statement as to the trade or skill for which they are to be trained.
Whilst these changes are probably not dramatic, they do help define the employer/apprentice relationship and its aims.
By Katie White
Olympic Games 2012: Handling multiple requests for annual leave
by Katie White, January 31st, 2012
With only months to go until the commencement of the Olympic Games 2012, many employers are finding that the requests for annual leave during the weeks of the 27July – 12 August and 29 August – 9 September 2012 are starting to come in.
For those businesses based in London, the London 2012 Organising Committee are hoping that 30% fewer people will be coming in to work during the Olympic Games, so that the transport system can cope. The expectation is, therefore, that a great deal of people will be taking annual leave during this time.
Dealing with multiple requests for leave during a short space of time can be tricky for employers so plans should be put in place now.
There are various options for dealing with Olympic Games related requests for leave:
- ‘First come first served’. Many employee handbooks will already have this stated as the general procedure when booking any form of holiday, but, if not, this is likely to be a popular approach. There is a choice as to whether or not to publicise a policy or just make an announcement when the allotted spaces are taken. Bear in mind that if using this approach that it will be important to be able to distinguish between requests made on the same day.
- Take a draw. Employers may wish to send a memo to staff, notifying them that all holiday requests for the Olympic Games should be made by a certain deadline. Requests may have to be separated out by department/team. As such, a decision will have to be made about the maximum number of staff that can be absent at any one time in each department/team. If the number of requests is within that maximum, everyone is happy. If they are over, a draw will help decide who is to be successful. It might be worth carrying out the draw in front of the staff so that no accusations of ‘fixing’ ensue!
- Consider flexible working. As an alternative to rejecting multiple requests consideration could be given to flexible working for the weeks of the Olympic Games. Such an allowance could mean that employees make up the time by coming into work early,leaving later, even working at the weekends.
- Allow unpaid leave. Employers may be faced with a situation whereby people have booked tickets/secured volunteer places, and do not have sufficient annual leave to cover their proposed absence. Allowing unpaid leave could be a solution.
Employers should bear in mind that some staff may have no interest in the Olympics at all, and a restriction on their allowance to take leave at a particular time in favour of those who want to watch the Olympic Games may leave them feeling disgruntled. The big problem is that the first batch of games do, of course, occur at the peak holiday period. In order to be fair to all, no matter what the reason for requesting a consistent approach is crucial and absence requests should all be treated in the same way.
By Katie White
Employment nightmares of an Olympic nature
by Katie White, January 19th, 2012
There are now less than 200 days to go until the Olympic Games 2012. 6.6million tickets have been purchased, all volunteer places have been confirmed and my clients tell me requests for time off work are already flooding in.
Excitement aside, the games are going to present some challenges for employers. Concerns may include:
- Lots of employees wishing to take annual leave at the same time.
- The difficulties that come with conflicting commitments with those employees that have signed up to voluntary work.
- Employees hoping to view events from the comfort of their office – openly or otherwise.
Those employers who haven’t yet faced a flurry of requests might want to brace themselves now.
In the run up to the world’s largest sporting event I will be publishing a series of short articles for employers.
I will be discussing ways of dealing with requests fairly, outlining the issues around volunteers and suggesting ways of dealing with under performance, as well as the loss of bandwidth with all that live streaming.
If you’d like to see a particular problem covered in this blog please drop me a line by email: kwhite@mayowynnebaxter.co.uk or leave a comment below.
By Katie White
Sickness costs borne by employers estimated at £9 billion per year, time for a review?
by Katie White, November 25th, 2011
Sickness absences are said to cost the economy around £15 billion a year, predominantly in lost output. For employers, the financial costs of sick pay and other indirect costs of managing absence are estimated at £9 billion per year, and in turn, the State is said to spend £13 billion annually on health-related benefits.
With the number of days of work being lost due to sickness absence in the UK currently standing at a staggering 140 million per year, an independent review has been published by the Government, examining the current sickness absence system. The aims of the review were to assess the current actions of employers, individuals and other parties in relation to sickness absence, and to draw conclusions which could minimise the loss of work resulting from sickness absence and reduce the costs and problems that come with it.
The conclusions drawn by the review are that the current sickness absence system is failing not only itself but the people and businesses affected by it. It comments on the lack of support for bringing individuals back into the workforce when they are off sick, and suggests that the system does more instead to push people out of the job market and encourage inactivity rather than proactive behaviour. These problems are thought to add significant costs to businesses, and it is suggested that two measures should be taken.
Firstly, it is suggested that an Independent Assessment Service (IAS) should be introduced to provide assessments on sickness absence and the effect of long term absence on human function, plus advice about how an individual on sickness absence could be supported to return to work.
Secondly, the following points should be considered:
- Fit note guidance should be revised to ensure that judgements about fitness to work are not job-specific.
- Tax relief should be provided for expenditure made by employers to keep sick employees in work, or speed their return to work. This could include expenditure for matters such as medical treatments or vocational rehabilitation.
- The Percentage Threshold Scheme, which compensates employers for very high rates of sickness absence, should be abolished. It is said that this scheme costs £50 million a year and reduces incentives to actively manage sickness absence.
- The current obligations to keep records under Statutory Sick Pay should be abolished with a view to reducing the administrative burdens on employers. This is thought to potentially save employers up to £44 million.
- The Government’s ‘Employers’ Charter’ should be updated to address legal uncertainty and misconceptions around sickness absence management.
- Further research should be carried out into why a significant number of people claiming ill health benefits who come straight from work appear not to have been paid sick pay by their employer before signing up for benefits.
- The introduction of a new “job-brokering” service to help long-term sick employees find new work (where appropriate) before they fall onto the benefits system.
The feeling remains, as it has for some time, that work is good for your physical and mental health. Not only that, it seems clear from this report that it could be good for the nation’s pocket. The review states that its recommendations could save around £400 million a year for employers, up to £300 million a year for the State, and boost economic output by up to £1.4 billion.
The Government will respond to the review in due course.