The People Bulletin

The Ministry of Justice has confirmed that it has sacked four officials and issued final warnings to three for misbehaving on social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. A further 40 staff have been reprimanded for internet and email offences. At the same time, Scotland Yard has launched disciplinary proceedings against 28 police officers for breaching the rules on social networking sites.

The information came from a Freedom of Information request by technology consultants LEWIS Communications over misuse of social networking in the past 18 months. The Metropolitan Police has confirmed that access to social networking sites for personal reasons is not permitted during working hours to any member of police staff although a number have access for professional reasons, having obtained the required senior management permission. It also confirms vetting enquiries ‘may look at any source of information that will assist in determining whether the vetting applicant is suitable for the vetted post applied for.’

The MPS Information Code of Conduct sets out the policy on the use of MPS information and information communication and technology systems and is rigorously enforced.

Keith Crosley, director at email security specialist Proofprint make the point that these law enforcement agencies are hardly alone in having dealt with such abuses. ‘People post a wealth of information about themselves and their employers on Facebook,’ he observes. The MPS highlights employee safety in its code: ‘It is suggested that staff do not disclose their position as an MPS employee or officer…..one should avoid disclosing personal details which may be used for identity details. Do ensure that the privacy settings available on social networking sites are used.’

Facebook’s 350m users have to manually alter the status of all content uploaded on the site to prevent them being automatically made public – a move that has caused an outcry among civil liberties campaigners.

Matt Rhodes, of society media agency FreshNetworks makes the point that allowing employees to use social media is opening up a new communication channel. ‘It is like the conversation with a friend in a cafe, just taken to new levels, reaching more people and being significantly more shareable. This should be a risk for all firms. We don’t need reminding of the examples where employees have posted a video that has embarrassed their employer, or a Facebook status that has lost them their job. Firms need a policy on social media and part of this policy should be guidelines for their staff.’

Rhodes goes on to refer to a statement made by ESPN, a US sports cable TV network, observing that the biggest threat to organisations from social media networks is failure to have a policy on their use. He highlights the core elements of the ESPN one as sensible and relevant to most employers and makes some helpful comments.

• Don’t run your own websites or blogs that talk about sports content. This is not to be unexpected for a business that produces sports content. They should, however, make sure they are harnessing any enthusiastic employees and giving them a platform to write their own thoughts in a place that benefits ESPN too, such as an ESPN blog.
• You are representatives of ESPN even out of working hours. This is a sensible policy that most firms have already had – to remind people that even when they are not at work people will see them as representing the firm and so they shouldn’t do anything to discredit it.
• Show respect for your colleagues and for fans. In this case the fans are the customers and it is sensible to remind people not to embarrass or otherwise harm either them or fellow colleagues.
• Content posted by employees needs to conform to ESPN editorial guidelines. It is difficult if employees talk about things in one way at work and another out of work but both are visible and shareable on the web.
• Do not discuss internal policies, processes, decisions or debates. What goes on in the office, stays in the office and some things probably shouldn’t be shared.

Warren Wayne, employment law partner with law firm Bird & Bird LLP adds: ‘With the modern Blackberry culture, it can be difficult for employees to make a firm distinction between their own time and their work time and this often also leads to a blurring of the lines around how they use their personal PC’s and work PC’s. Work time is increasingly being defined by the context in which staff are dealing with tasks or information, rather than the working day simply being defined by the clock. The safest thing for employees is for them never to assume that their online activity is completely separate from their work identity. But employers also need to help staff understand the boundaries by having policies and by being clear about the standards they expect.’

A useful background to social media and its function as a communications tool is available from the Chartered Institute of Public Relations and can be viewed here.

The Skills Funding Agency opens for business in April 2010, routing around £4bn of funding to further education colleges and other providers in response to customer (employer and learner) choice on programmes such as Train to Gain.  What this means is that training providers will receive funding as they attract customers rather than a block grant based on estimates of expected demand. This has followed the publication of the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills strategy for skills, Skills for Growth, on 11 November 2009, in which it commits to:

• creating a modern technician class through more advanced apprenticeships;
• investing in skills in the sectors on which future growth and jobs depend;
• empowering individuals through skills accounts giving people ‘consumer choice’ and better information about courses;
• the introduction of light touch monitoring arrangements for our best providers; and
• simplifying the skills landscape, working with UKCES to implement their recommendation to reduce the number of separately publicly funded agencies by over 30 in the next three years.

One of the biggest quangos, The Learning and Skills Council, will be broken up into a number of smaller ones, each with their own back office function.  The idea is that a single contractor for all publicly funded post-19 education and training (not higher education) will deliver a faster response to user demand and feedback.  It will operate through the following services:

• National Apprenticeship Service (NAS). This has complete responsibility for the apprenticeship programme.
• Employer Skills Services. This is designed to match skills services to all sizes of businesses in all sectors via Skills Funding Agency managed services, such as Train to Gain and the National Employer Service.
• Adult Advancement and Careers Service. This is a universal advice service for individuals both in and out of work.
• Learner Skills Services. These include Skills Accounts, funding FE colleges and providers, integrated employment and skills services for the unemployed, offender learning, informal adult learning etc.

However, there is widespread concern that many of the key personnel from the LSC, including its chief executive, will merely transfer to the new agency and there will be no infusion of new ideas and some wasteful duplication.

The EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, has complained to Kevin Brennan, the Skills Minister, on grounds that the upheaval would be worth it if the new structure would deliver substantial improvements.  But, it says ‘It is unclear how this new agency will be substantially different from the old one without the culture change that is really needed across the organisation. Therefore, a further reshuffle which results in many of the same people undertaking the same roles under new titles would be the worst of all worlds. And if we are to develop world class skills we need a system that is responsive to the training needs of both employers and individuals.’

Tom Richmond, policy adviser at the CIPD agrees that the new structure is not exactly user-centric.  He told The People Bulletin:

‘The creation of the Skills Funding Agency is supposed to help bring about a ‘demand-led’ approach to the funding for training courses, but the early indications are that the Skills Funding Agency will in fact retain considerable power over which courses get funded, It is employers and learners, not quangos and government departments, who know what skills and qualifications this country needs.  Unless the Skills Funding Agency reflects this simple truth, the UK will struggle to meet the considerable economic challenges that lie ahead.’

http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/skills-for-growth
www.dius.gov.uk/further_education/fe_reform/skills-funding-agency-transition

Employers breathed a sigh of relief when, on 20 January 2010, the Court of Appeal rejected Miss Eweida’s claim that she had been discriminated against indirectly on grounds of religious belief by British Airways PLC.

The claimant, a devout practising Christian worked part time as a member of the check-in staff for BA since 1999 and has to wear a uniform because her role is customer-facing. The role also involved shift work. She complained of a number of incidents between 2003 and 2006 which she said showed anti-Christian bias by BA.

Up until 2004, her uniform included a high-necked blouse, and she wore a silver cross on a necklace underneath the blouse. British Airways redesigned the uniform in 2004, which included provision for an open neck, but prohibited any item of ‘adornment’ around the neck. Between 20 May and 20 September 2006 she came to work on at least three occasions with the cross visible under her uniform, but when asked to conceal it complied. However, on 20 September 2006 she refused and was sent home by her employers. She remained at home, unpaid from that date until the following February and launched grievance procedures. There was significant media attention – much of it hostile to BA and this led the airline to reconsider its uniform policy and amend it on 1 February 2007. This amended policy permitted staff to display a faith or charity symbol with the uniform. Miss Eweida returned to work on 2 February 2007 and is still an employee of BA.

She brought a number of claims against her employer, including claims under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 of direct and indirect discrimination and harassment. The Employment Tribunal dismissed these and found no evidence BA had done anything other than attempt to enforce its contractual uniform policy. Neither was it able to support the claim that she had been discriminated against on grounds of her religion – the policy did not single out Christians – all personal jewellery had to be concealed by the uniform.

The Court of Appeal was left to decide whether there had been indirect discrimination against Ms Eweida on grounds of her religion or belief. Because there was no identifiable section of the workforce (not even a small one) that would have suffered a particular disadvantage by not being able to display the jewellery, this claim failed as well, with Lord Justice Sedley commenting: ‘This case has perhaps illustrated some of the problems which can arise when an individual (or equally a group) asserts that a provision, criterion, or practice adopted by an employer conflicts with beliefs which they hold but which may not only be shared but may be opposed by others in the workforce. It is not unthinkable that a blanket ban may sometimes be the only fair solution.’

Tim Marshall, national head of employment at DLA Piper observes:

‘Cases of indirect discrimination in this area will always turn on their specific facts, and employers must still take care to ensure that dress codes do not negatively impact on members of a particular faith. A dress code will not be indirectly discriminatory if it is only to the disadvantage of someone holding a subjective personal religious view, or other belief. Where a dress code or other policy or practice does disadvantage a group, the employer will have to consider whether the dress code is justified, i.e. whether there is a genuine and important reason for its policy and whether there are any less discriminatory alternatives which could reasonably be implemented.’

See ‘Get a haircut’ is not sex discrimination, says the EAT, The People Bulletin, 20 January 2010.

See also ‘Dress down tribunals’ by James Williams, The People Bulletin, 2 December 2009.

www.dlapiper.com/global/publications/detail.aspx?pub=4816/

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/80.html

The UK will officially recognise Workers Memorial Day to commemorate thousands of people who have died, been seriously injured or made ill through their work, announced Yvette Cooper, the secretary of state for work and pensions on 28 January 2010¹.

This follows the government’s consultation in July 2009 to explore options for official recognition of the day, which gained widespread support. This year, the UK is to join the many other countries around the world that officially recognise the day on 28 April, the International Day of Action for Safety and Health at Work.

The minister said:

‘This is a tribute to all those who have campaigned long and hard, including bereaved families, trade unions, campaign groups, and many other organisations and individuals.

‘For the first time, the UK will join countries across the globe in remembrance of all those killed at work and for the families they have left behind, and the many more who have been harmed. It is also a spur to greater efforts to improve health and safety for today’s and tomorrow’s working population.’

Workers Memorial Day originated in Canada in 1984 and 28 April was chosen because it is the anniversary of the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the USA and also commemorates the day that 28 people were killed in a construction accident in Connecticut. Despite the UK government’s support for a commemoration day it stopped short of creating a new bank holiday

Despite vast improvements in risk assessments and safety procedures 180 workers in the UK were killed at work during 2008/09². Although this is an improvement on the average for the past five years (231) HSE chair Judith Hackett cautioned against complacency after the figures were released in October 2009:

‘History suggests that when we start moving back into economic growth the rate of workplace injuries tends to increase. Preventing history from repeating itself is a challenge facing everyone with a stake in health and safety in the workplace – regulators, employers and employees alike: we all need to be part of the solution.

‘Protecting people from harm caused by work remains important irrespective of the economic climate. Having shown that Great Britain can achieve a performance that compares favourably with other industrialised nations as we entered the global recession, the challenge now is to maintain that improvement as we move towards recovery and increased activity in some economic sectors.

‘In spite of the encouraging overall statistics today let’s not forget that they tell us a story of individuals and families who have suffered. This underlines the real risks that people face in work every day. This is what the real health and safety agenda has always been about and it will continue to be so.’

[1] www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=291128
[2] www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

Although official figures indicate the recession is technically behind us (the UK posted 0.1% growth in the fourth quarter of 2009¹), data from the Chartered Management Institute (CMI) shows that the economic crisis has forced business leaders to consider changes to UK working practices. CMI’s Future Forecast survey², based on the views of 1,337 respondents, reveals that managers and leaders believe that the business landscape will look radically different in 2020. CMI’s survey finds that:

1. Seeing is believing. More than three-quarters (77%) believe that virtual businesses will be commonplace and 43% suggest that community-based businesses will grow in number.
2. Staff have their say. One in three respondents say that, by 2020, organisations will have become more employee-centric. One in five also suggest that more ‘employee-owned’ organisations will emerge.
3. Playing with politics: Emphasising current disengagement with the political system, 54% argue that global corporations will have more influence than governments.

Petra Wilton, director of policy and research at the CMI, says: ‘Looking ahead ten years, it seems that business leaders have learned the harsh lessons of the recession. The insular, corporate, approach blamed by so many for the economic downturn, appears to be shifting towards a more inclusive style of leadership as employers accept the commercial benefits of building an engaged workforce and working across many partners.

The report suggests that more than a quarter (27%) has recognised the need to say ‘thank you’ more often. Just under a fifth (18%) also said they will spend more time with their teams.

The People Bulletin’s quick poll of more enlightened employers revealed the following heart-warming examples:

1. The Co-Operative Group’s chief executive publicly thanked loyal Co-op workers, who, he said, ‘showed the real meaning of co-operation in appalling conditions’³.
2. NHS chief executive David Nicholson thanked NHS staff for their hard work improving care for patients this year, including reducing healthcare associated infections and waiting times and extending GP opening hours⁴.
3. National Grid CEO Steve Holiday thanked employees ‘for achieving our “Platinum” ranking and top-tier status for a seventh consecutive year in the Business in the Community corporate responsibility index’. He added: ‘I am immensely proud that National Grid is one of the first companies to achieve the new “Platinum Plus” status.⁵’

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8479639.stm

[2] Published on 17 December 2009: www.managers.org.uk/listing_media_1.aspx?id=10:347&id=10:138&id=10:11&doc=10:8635

[3] www.thenews.coop/news/Retail%20Societies/1710

[4] www.brightonandhovepct.nhs.uk/healthprofessionals/generalpractice/bulletin/2009-07/NHSBrightonandHove-NHSchiefexecthanksstaff.asp

[5] www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Responsibility/introduction/

From 1 October 2011, agency workers will have the same rights as permanent staff, including pay, holidays and other conditions of employment, after 12 calendar weeks on an assignment.

This qualifying period does not have to be made up of continuous weeks – only a break of six weeks or more will mean the 12 weeks is recalculated all over again. And from the first day they set foot in the door, they will have the same access to collective facilities and amenities (e.g. canteens) as permanent employees. They will also have to be given the same opportunities to apply for permanent jobs with the client employer (as opposed to their agency), be informed of vacancies and have access to announcements.

The Agency Workers Regulations 2010¹ were laid before Parliament on 21 January 2010 and implemented in the UK the Agency Workers Directive 2008². However, there is no proposal to confer employment status on agency workers and the actual implementation amounts to a delay by the government in recognition that hirers and agencies need more time to prepare. The deadline for implementation is 5 December 2011, so this was leaving it as late as possible.

An agreement between the TUC and the CBI, which was reached on 20 May 2008, sets out how fairer treatment for agency workers in the UK should be promoted. Key issues included that after 12 weeks in a given job an agency worker would have an entitlement to equal treatment (at least the basic working and employment conditions that would apply to the worker concerned if they had been recruited directly by that undertaking to occupy the same job). It was agreed that occupational social security schemes would be outside the equal treatment provisions. This agreement helped break the deadlock on discussions in the EU by providing a basis on which the UK and other member states could agree the directive.

Trevor Bettany, a partner at law firm Speechly Bircham observes:

‘In addition to the increased cost of providing equal pay to agency workers, agencies and hirers will have to work out how to comply with the requirements of the regulations as efficiently as possible in order to minimise compliance costs. They will also consider how and whether to try to structure arrangements outside the scope of the regulations or to apportion liabilities between them.’

He goes on to summarise the practical impact of the regulations on agencies and hirers:

‘Pay means basic pay plus other contractual entitlements directly linked to the work undertaken by the agency worker whilst on assignment. There may be some scope to avoid paying bonuses structured to reflect the performance of the organisation, linked to appraisals designed for long term management, motivation and performance. However, pay will not include contractual sick pay, pension, maternity, paternity or adoption pay or paid time off.

‘It is significant that the agency will be responsible for breach of the right to equal treatment but will have a defence if it has taken “reasonable steps” to obtain the necessary information from the hirer and acted “reasonably” in determining the agency worker’s basic conditions. However, the hirer can also be named in the proceedings and each of the agency and the hirer can be liable to the extent it is responsible for the breach. For tactical reasons, the agency worker is likely to bring claims against both hirer and the agency, each of which will therefore face the risk of time, expense and liability from claims.’

The TUC sets out its case for fairer treatment of agency workers in its response to the consultation issued by the government from 18 to 11 December 2009 ³, with Brendan Barber citing a poll from earlier that year highlighting the plight of agency workers:

‘It showed that some rogue employers are using the lack of employment rights and insecurity of agency workers to treat agency temps badly – to pay them less, to give them less holiday pay, to get out of paying them redundancy or maternity pay, and to neglect their training and development. Agency workers are even more in need of protection during a recession. Vulnerable workers are always the first to suffer when times are hard.’

This is something the CBI does not agree with: ‘Our members strongly reject the notion that agency workers are uniformly vulnerable, while accepting that some may be ”vulnerable”, just as some employees are. Vulnerability is brought about as a result of two factors: knowledge of existing employment rights and the ability to access them. Agency workers are covered by many of the same rights as employees – such as the National Minimum Wage and the Working Time Regulations – and are therefore neither more nor less vulnerable than employees by virtue of their employment status.’⁴

[1] www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2010/uksi_20100093_en_1
[2] The consultation document can be viewed here
[3] www.tuc.org.uk/law/tuc-17381-f0.cfm
[4] The CBI response to the BIS consultation on the Agency Workers Directive can be viewed here

Back in February 2009, snow disruption left a hole of around £1bn in the economy. The latest blanket of bad weather is looking set to top the £3bn mark. So what, if anything , has been learned from last year’s woes?

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) has published a policy paper: Business continuity – Let’s Keep Britain Moving.  It explains that the cost of a 10% absence rate to businesses could be as much as £600m a day, making the point that small businesses with an average of around four employees, have been hit the worst with a potential temporary loss of over half their workforce. The FSB outlines a number of recommendations, which include better ways of preventing transport disruption and managing energy supplies shortfalls.

However, many employers have remained confused about what their legal position is when employees do not turn up for work in wintry conditions. How do you deal with a situation where one individual has battled against the elements and made it into the office, whereas another chose to take a ‘snow day’ although they live within walking distance of the office?

Law firm Pinsent Masons publishes a helpful guide, downloadable from its website. Key points are:

• Employees are obliged to attend the office unless they are sick, on holiday or on parental leave, etc, so the onus is on them to come to work, even in adverse weather conditions. If the office is open and the employee cannot get into work because they are ‘snowed in’, this absence is technically unauthorised and there is no obligation to pay them.
• However if the transport really is out of action, rather it would be sensible to consider offering unpaid leave (ideally the contract of employment provides for this), a deal where the time is made up at a later date through extra hours, or work from home. Again, it needs to be made clear this is a privilege, ideally with a homeworking policy in place and it is sensible to monitor actual outputs.
• It is not possible for employers to enforce the time to be taken as annual leave – unless the contract of employment contains an express right for the employer to direct when holiday is taken.
• If you believe an employee is using the weather conditions as an excuse for lateness or absence, particularly if they live nearby, this could be a disciplinary matter and action could be taken in line with the organisations’ disciplinary policy.
• If you are forced to close your offices because of the weather conditions, you cannot withhold pay as your employees could claim an unauthorised deduction from wages. Lay off clauses in contracts could get around this, but the rules are very complicated and advice should be sought well in advance.
• The minimum workplace temperature should be 16 degrees Celsius, so if you are unable to maintain this temperature in the workplace you would be in breach of HSE rules.
• Employers must observe severe weather warnings and let employees leave the office early to avoid treacherous travel conditions on the way home – they must not be asked to disregard official weather and travel advice. This can be obtained from the DirectGov website.
• An ‘adverse weather’ policy is advisable so that employees know what is expected next time severe weather hits – this could be an extension of your normal absence policy.

A qualitative research study from The Work Foundation has demonstrated that outstanding leaders prioritise people over performance on the basis that it is only through their people that outstanding performance can be achieved.

Exceeding Expectation: the principles of outstanding leadership was based on over 250 in-depth interviews and has taken two years to complete. These interviews were with a mix of leaders, direct reports and line managers in the following UK organisations:

• EDF Energy;
• Guardian Media Group;
• BAE Systems;
• GMG;
• Serco; and
• Tesco.

The nine key themes of outstanding leadership, according to the study are:

1. Think systematically and act long term. This means the ability to navigate through complexity, appreciate nuances within a sophisticated world and make decisions in unpredictable situations.
2. Bring meaning to life. A shared sense of purpose across the organisation is critical because sustainable high performance is derived from a shared determination to overcome challenges for the long term benefit of stakeholders, staff, customers and society.
3. Apply the spirit and not the letter of the law. Outstanding leaders focus on the few key systems and processes which help and keep in mind the person, putting flexibility and humanity before consistent application of the rules.
4. Grow people through performance. This involves a consistent investment in people and the harnessing of challenges presented every single day to encourage growth, learning and engagement.
5. Self -aware and authentic to leadership first, their own needs second. Personal needs and emotions and needs are balanced against the collective requirement. Outstanding leaders unite a deep understanding of others, high levels of self awareness and a systemic appreciation of their symbolic position to become a role model for others.
6. Understand that talk is work. This means finding opportunities for dialogue with colleagues at every turn, using them to discover individuals and nurture social capital.
7. Give time and space to others. This frees people to feel enabled and valued so they can attain and maintain peak performance levels for the long-term good of the organisation.
8. Put ‘we’ before ‘me’. Sustainable performance comes from a people-centred perspective that values collective wisdom and intent, encourages people to get involved in what really matters, gives them voice and autonomy over their work and recognises the limitations of the individual leader compared with the possibilities that come from a collective endeavour.
9. Take deeper breaths and hold them longer. Outstanding leaders preserve trust through exploration of failure and acceptance of errors, acknowledging people will only achieve great things if they are given the opportunity to try.

The report was written by Penny Tamkin, Gemma Pearson, Wendy Hirsch and Susannah Constable of the Work Foundation and can be downloaded here

Mr Dansie had started training as a police constable at the Hendon Training Centre on 17 March 2009. He had earlier inquired at an assessment visit whether the length of his hair would be acceptable and was told it would comply with the Metropolitan Police’s new dress code policy dated 13 April 2005. It said: ‘The standard of dress should be smart, fit for the purpose and portray a favourable impression of the service’. A separate piece of manager’s guidance on the dress code included the following clarification: ‘Hair must be neat, not allowed to cover the ears and…worn above the collar. For safety reasons, ponytails are not permitted and long hair must be neatly and securely fastened up and worn relatively close to the head.’

When Mr Dansie arrive a the Hendon centre, his hair, which was shoulder length, was slicked back on his head and tied in a bun at the back of his head. Once he had started the training programme, he was told to get his hair cut and threatened with disciplinary action if he did not comply. So, to avoid this and removal from the training programme, Mr Dansie complied and it was understood that any female recruit in similar circumstances would not have been issued with the same ultimatum. However, he felt he had been discriminated against and lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal on 8 July 2008, claiming not only sex discrimination but also harassment.

The tribunal did not support this and found the dress policy gender neutral, maintaining that the law allows for a policy to be considered as a whole. This includes an allowance to be gender specific as well as gender neutral, provided it is ‘fair-handed between the sexes and fits within the conventions of society and the needs of the profession in question.’ The tribunal also confirmed that a female comparator who failed to comply with a gender neutral dress/appearance code necessary for this type of work, particularly when on basic training…would have been treated in the same way…’

Mr Dansie appealed, but the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld the earlier decision and confirmed that the correct legal test had been applied and the Metropolitan Police’s dress code was equally balanced between the sexes. In other words, when applying contemporary standards and conventions as well as the specific needs of the profession under scrutiny, the employer’s dress code was, overall, asking its employees to display an equivalent level of smartness for males and females, as per Smith v Safeway Plc [1996] ICR 868 and DWP v Thompson [2004] IRLR 348. The insistence that Mr Dansie cut his hair did not amount to discrimination or harassment.

For further information on dress codes at work, see:

• ‘Dress down tribunals’ by James Williams in The People Bulletin, 2 December 2009.
• The dress code notes in ACAS’s guidance on religion and beliefs is also very useful.

Dansie v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009] UKEAT/0234/09

The latest labour statistics suggest that there may be some improvement in the recruitment market. The unemployment figure have fallen for the first time in 18 months – but also shows the number of working age people out of the labour market has hit eight million for the first time.  For the ONS unemployment data, click here.

Unemployment showed a decline of 7,000 in the three months to November 2009, the overall rate remained unchanged at 7.8% and the claimant count fell by 15,200 between November and December.

 The Guardian has a very useful interactive graph that puts the labour market fluctuations into the context of social and political developments at the time – going back to 1984. It can be viewed here

The CIPD, in its Outlook 2010 – a radar check for  HR  forecasts 2010 as ‘a better year for jobs as the economy recovers from recession, but still a very difficult one with unemployment continuing to rise until at least the summer and below-inflation pay increases for most people at work.’  Dr John Philpott, the CIPD’s economic adviser, said it was a “remarkable outcome” that unemployment had not taken off further, given the scale of the downturn, observing that the labour market is a lot more flexible than it used to be. He pointed out that it could also rise higher if the UK economy failed to recover as expected, or the government imposed deeper spending cuts. Reflecting on the latest figures, he cautions against premature optimism:

 ’The reason for the fall in unemployment in the quarter is a jump of 81,000 in the number of economically inactive students – indicating that ever larger numbers of young people are turning to study to avoid the dole. This is desirable as an alternative to unemployment although it remains to be seen whether education or training is merely a stop-gap choice for thousands more young people rather than providing a genuine boost to their subsequent job prospects.’

Nigel Meager, director of the Institute for Employment Studies adds: ‘There are now 631,000 people who have been unemployed for 12 months or more, the largest number since November 1997. A big challenge for government is how to effectively support this group back into employment and to ensure they do not suffer the scarring effects which have resulted from previous recessions.’

Most economists expect the UK to exit recession in the early part of 2010, with the government predicting 1.25% growth over the year.