According to a Freedom of Information request lodged by the biggest employment union UNISON, between the beginning of 2019 and September 2022, Derby City Council spent £1,575,967 in legal fees fighting pay disputes with employees.

UNISON estimates the Council have therefore spent more defending allegations and avoiding Tribunals, than if they had settled outright with the claimants.

The claims relate to approximately 150 former and current female workers - most of whom were in low paid positions - and originate from a time before 2014, when the council paid bonuses or other supplements to those in roles predominantly held by men.

Some of the claims date back to 2012, although most are from between 2017 and 2018.

Emma Roberts, the East Midlands Regional Organiser for UNISON stated:

"For all the claimants I've met, they feel justice hasn't been done for them or their families. All those years they worked hard, they were underpaid and undervalued. For those that continue to work within the authority, it means they feel particularly undervalued and for those who have left, it's frustrating at the very least.”

Becky Everett, UNISON Derby City Branch Secretary, added:

"As a claimant myself, I can tell you how hard me and my colleagues worked to deliver front line public services while being paid less than men doing the same work.”

It is estimated that claims could take up to a year to settle if they don’t reach a full employment tribunal first, as equal pay claims are complex and it is not uncommon for them to take many years to resolve. However, Emma Roberts added:

"Many equal pay claims have been pursued against local authorities nationally from the early 2000s, and virtually all of them are now concluded, so the claimants are asking 'why do Derby City Council not feel that it owes it too?”

A spokesperson for Derby City Council said:

"We note the statement from UNISON in relation to this matter. The equal pay dispute has been a long running matter between the council and UNISON, with both parties represented by legal advisers……While the council remains committed to resolving the dispute, the matter remains the subject of ongoing legal proceedings in the employment tribunal and it would therefore be inappropriate for the council to make any further comment at the current time."

 According to research from Mercer - a leading executive remuneration consultancy supporting many FTSE remuneration committees and/or management teams on all aspects of remuneration design and implementation - most FTSE 350 listed companies have increased their 2022 general salary budgets compared to 2021 and for UK executive remuneration, actual total compensation levels have rebounded to around the levels seen before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mercers analysis used data for financial year-ends up to the end of March. It stated that whilst half of businesses cancelled or postponed executive salary increases in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this practice has now reduced to only one in five companies. However, although executive salaries have started to increase at the same or slightly lower rates than the wider workforce, these increases were modest and mostly in the range of c.3.0% to 3.5% - which does not reflect the prevailing higher levels of inflation. Therefore, median salary levels remain relatively stable compared with the prior year.

As far as bonus payments are concerned, most companies are now paying bonuses above target and more payments are closer to maximum than in the recent past. The reason for this appears to be that financial targets set during the uncertainty of the pandemic were conservative, along with some industries who experienced favourable market conditions.

Although 2021 financial performance was, broadly speaking, significantly better than in 2020, most financial targets for Long Term Incentives (LTIs) vesting at the end of the 2021 had pre-pandemic (2018) performance target baselines. This was more likely than not the reason for a decrease in vesting and a higher level of zero pay-outs than in most previous years.

Going forward, the survey shows that at companies where the share price is depressed by 25% or more, shareholders expect Remuneration Committees to scale back LTI awards, which has meant another year with little movement in LTI opportunities – whether this is in performance shares, which are the most common LTI in the FTSE350, or restricted shares which are now the second most common LTI type.

Regarding pension contributions, although only three years ago most companies paid their executives significantly higher pension contributions than their employees, the majority of companies – reacting to investors’ demands – have now aligned these to the same as the rest of the workforce. As a result, there is now only a 2% point difference in median pension levels and even this should be almost completely eliminated by 2023.

The full report can be viewed here:

According to a major survey from the technology giant Microsoft - conducted  by a third-party firm in July and August -  bosses and employees fundamentally disagree about productivity when working from home.

The survey accounted for more than 20,000 staff across 11 countries and the results showed that whilst 87% cent of workers feel they are as productive - or more - when working from home, 80% of bosses think otherwise.

Microsoft calls this disconnect “productivity paranoia,” where leaders fear that lost productivity is due to employees not working, because they literally can’t “see” who is hard at work by walking past them. This is even though hours worked, number of meetings, and other activity metrics have increased.

Whilst the pandemic saw a need for the remote work culture and the number of fully-remote jobs advertised on LinkedIn soared during that time, Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella said that the latest data indicated that roles involving remote working may have declined. Before the pandemic only 2% of jobs involved remote working, a few months ago the number stood at 20% but it has since come down to 15%.

Several high profile companies have recently informed their staff that they are required to return to the office - Apple has insisted on office attendance three days a week from September, while Tesla boss Elon Musk has demanded 40 hours a week in the office sending an email saying: "If you don't show up, we will assume you have resigned."

Despite this, 73% of employees say they need a better reason to go into the office than just company expectations. The survey showed that connecting with colleagues is a key motivation for working in person, as 84% of employees would be motivated by the promise of socialising with co-workers. This is especially so with younger people who are keen to use the office to establish themselves as part of their workplace community and feel more connected to their co-workers.

The survey calls on flexibility as the way forward, calling it  a “feature, not a fad”.

Research by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has highlighted four major issues with UK childcare and stated that “Childcare and early education in England isn’t working – for children, parents, or providers.”

The IPPR is a registered charity and the UK’s pre-eminent progressive think tank. They conducted research with the purpose of evaluating the current challenges facing parents of pre-school and primary-school age children with regards to childcare, and to outline a new vision for childcare in England.

The research details that typical net childcare costs in the UK now rank as the second highest in the developed world. Fees have almost doubled for parents with a child under two since 2010 and the average price of a part time childcare place (25 hours) a week for a child aged under two in a nursery in Britain costs double what a typical household spend on food and drink annually. In fact, one in three parents of pre-school age children spend more than a third of their wages on childcare, as costs have consistently outstripped wage growth since the financial crisis.

Despite this, England has no coherent early years’ infrastructure. Whilst there are currently seven different schemes on offer to parents in England, they are administratively complex and significant gaps persist. Parents are expected to absorb high up-front costs when they enter or return to paid work; there is a lack of free childcare between the end of paid maternity or parental leave and a child turning two or three (when childcare costs are most expensive, as younger children require lower staff to child ratio); and even once a child commences school, childcare pressures continue as parents struggle to access or afford wraparound (outside of school hours) and holiday care as England’s childcare runs largely on a 38-week calendar.

In their paper, the IPPR set out four key challenges for a childcare guarantee to respond to and offer solutions to these challenges:

• Challenge 1: A childcare market failing to deliver on quality or access.

Recommendation - to meet challenge 1, they recommend the UK government invest significantly in childcare to expand childcare supply and drive up quality.

• Challenge 2: A gap in childcare provision for parents from the end of parental leave to the start of free hours offer.

Recommendation - to meet challenge 2, they recommend the UK government act to close the gap between the end of parental leave and the start of free available hours.

• Challenge 3: High up-front childcare costs and steep trade offs for parents getting into or getting on in work.

Recommendation - to meet challenge 3, they recommend the UK government expand its core free hours offer to 30 hours per week for all three- and four-year-olds, throughout the year – including school holidays

• Challenge 4: A lack of reliable wrap around care for children through primary school.

Recommendation - to meet challenge 4, they recommend that the Department for Education expand wraparound care through an 8am-6pm extended schools offer.

The full report can be found here.

At the halfway point of the largest four-day working week trial ever run, the UK businesses taking part are reporting “a general tenor of positive experiences”.

In June of this year, more than 3,000 people working for 70 organisations agreed to work a shorter week (80% of the week) for six months with no loss of pay but with the commitment to maintain 100% productivity. The trial is being run by 4 Day Week Global in partnership with leading think tank Autonomy, the 4 Day Week UK Campaign and researchers at Cambridge University, Boston College and Oxford University. Globally, small companies through to large corporates - spanning a multitude of sectors - have taken part, with pilot programmes rolling out in North America, Ireland, Australia and New Zealand in 2022. 

The researchers will analyse how employees respond to having the extra day off, in terms of productivity, performance, stress and burnout. 

CEO of 4 Day Week Global, Joe O’Connor said:

“The organisations in the United Kingdom pilot are contributing real-time data and knowledge that are worth their weight in gold. Essentially, they are laying the foundation for the future of work by putting a four-day week into practice, across every size of business and nearly every sector, and telling us exactly what they are finding as they go.”

Whilst some of the participating firms initially reported concerns, finding implementing the scheme “challenging” and questioning whether this was a long-term prospect, a check-in survey taken at the half way point have found that for 88% of respondents, the four-day week is working ‘well’ for their business at this stage in the trial.

Even more positively, 46% of respondents say their business productivity has ‘maintained around the same level’, while 34% report that it has ‘improved slightly’, and 15% say it has ‘improved significantly. Hugely positive is the fact that 86% of respondents stated that at this juncture in the trial, they would be ‘extremely likely’ and or ‘likely’ to consider retaining the four-day week policy after the trial period.

Claire Daniels - Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Trio Media - was initially cautious, feeling that the shorter week had caused problems with hiring. She stated:

“The only challenge is in recruitment currently as we cannot guarantee that we will continue the four-day week pilot scheme.”

However, at the half-way point she commented:

"The four-day week trial so far has been extremely successful for us. Productivity has remained high, with an increase in wellness for the team, along with our business performing 44% better financially."

Founders, employers and employees can find out more about the 4 Day Week and the pilot program at www.4dayweek.com

The Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng is reportedly considering scrapping the cap on City bankers’ bonuses to encourage City competitiveness.

Whilst no final decisions have yet been made, it has been suggested that the move could make London a more attractive destination for the finance sector.

Currently, bankers’ bonuses are capped at two times their annual salary - and covers bonuses whether they are in the form of cash or shares. The cap was introduced in 2014 after the fallout of the 2008 financial crash - when the bonus culture within the finance industry was thought to have encouraged bankers into taking excessive risks - and was part of a set of regulations known as the Capital Requirements Directive.

However, there are some that argue that the cap inflates base salaries of City-based staff, which leads to a higher fixed cost base for employers, as they are unable to award variable pay based upon employee - and company - performance.

The proposal to scrap the bonus cap has nevertheless received strong backlash, as it comes at a time when so many are struggling with the cost of living.

General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady’s view is that:

“The chancellor’s No 1 priority should be getting wages rising for everyone - not boosting bumper bonuses for those at the top.”

During a discussion on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Andrew Sentence - who was a member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee during and after the financial crisis - said:

“I think it sends a rather confused signal when people are being squeezed in terms of the cost of living and the government is trying to encourage pay restraint in the public sector.”

He added:

“To appear to allow bankers to have bigger bonuses at the same time, doesn’t look very well timed. There may be some longer-term arguments for pursuing this policy, but I think the timing would be very bad if they did it now.”

Although Mr Kwarteng is expected to announce a mini-budget in the next few days to help the country as it faces soaring costs, it is unclear yet whether an announcement on executive pay and bonuses would be announced in that “fiscal statement”, or as part of more measures later on.

A report by the TUC entitled ‘Still Rigged’ shows that two in five BME (Black and Ethnic Minority) workers reported experiencing racism at work in the last five years and this rises to 52% of those aged 25 to 34 years old and to 58% of those aged between 18 and 24.

The research was carried out online on a weighted sample of 1,750 BME workers in the UK between 1^st February and 1^st May 2022. This is thought to be the largest representative poll ever carried out to look at the experiences of BME people at work.

The respondents were asked about their experiences at work, whether they had been racially harassed, attacked or bullied or if they had been treated differently by their employer because of their race.

The most common responses were having experienced racist jokes or ‘banter’ which had happened to over a quarter (27%) of those surveyed, while having been made to feel uncomfortable at work because of people using stereotypes or commenting on their appearance had happened to 26%.  Being bullied or harassed had been experienced by 21% and 21% had also had racist remarks directed at them or made in their presence.

The most common perpetrator of harassment towards respondents was a colleague, which accounted for 38% and 17% said it had been a direct manager or someone else with direct authority.

Despite the prevalence of these issues, the vast majority of those subjected to harassment do not tell their employer, with only 19% reporting any racist incidents. Of those reported, only 38% were satisfied with the outcome and 48% were unsatisfied with how it had been dealt with.

Sandra Kerr CBE, Race Director at Business in the Community, said:

“Businesses need to take serious action when instances like this are reported…..Otherwise, their inaction just adds to the problem.”

The report states:

“Given that BME workers make up just 14% of the workforce, 'These findings demonstrate the prevalence of racism at work - and how that determines who is deemed to belong, and on what terms.”

Additionally, the unemployment rate for BME workers is persistently higher than the unemployment rate for White workers. Since current records began in 2001, the lowest the percentage gap between the two unemployment rates has been 69% and on average, across the twenty-year period, the BME unemployment rate has been 110% higher than the White unemployment rate.

BME workers, especially BME women, are more likely to be employed on zero-hours contracts (ZHC) and BME employees are also more likely than White employees to be employed on temporary contracts.

Frances O’Grady, General Secretary of the TUC, said the report showed how ‘hidden’ institutional racism can affect training and promotion opportunities, shift patterns and holidays.

She stated:

“It’s disgraceful that in 2022 racism still determines who gets hired, trained, promoted – and who gets demoted and dismissed.”

A study from the Youth Futures Foundation has shown that young people spend, on average, double on essentials like rent or bills than people aged over 51. This could explain why, according to a survey of 2,000 UK adults by Wealth at work - a leading financial wellbeing and retirement specialist - 50% of 18 to 34 year olds have reduced or stopped any regular savings.  This is compared to 42% of all UK adults and 32% of those aged 55 and over.

Jonathan Watts-Lay, Director of Wealth at work, commented:

“It’s very concerning that young people are having to reduce or completely stop their saving in an attempt to free up money to pay for ever increasing bills. Whilst it is completely understandable, it is also important to recognise that stopping saving now could have a dramatic impact on their future, and something they regret later in life. It is important to still save what they can.”

The research did show that 32% of working 18-34 year olds know they should be saving more for their retirement, as only 16% believe their savings are on track for a comfortable retirement. However, 21% have no idea how much their pension is worth and 24% have no idea how much they will need to have for a comfortable retirement, with only 25% knowing they can save more into their workplace pension than their default contribution rate of 5% of salary (with their employer contributing an additional 3%).

Adam Burn, Principal at Aon, commented:

“As young adults look to build their career and consider how to address their immediate issues concerning housing (rental costs, saving for house purchase, etc), they would greatly benefit from financial education to help them greater understand the options and choices available to them.”

While Jonathan Watts-Lay stated:

”Saving may not be something many employees are thinking about in their 20s, it is really important that they understand the difference that saving more early on can make, compared to starting in their 30s or 40s, especially if their employer will match extra pension contributions.”

He continued:

“It also may be better for an employee to reduce how much they save to what they can still afford rather than stopping it completely. Saving money is a habit, and once it is stopped, it is very difficult to start up again.”

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is consulting on the proposal to extend the temporary change to the NHS pension scheme’s retire and return rules.

In March 2020, the government temporarily suspended certain rules for retired or partially retired NHS staff, meaning that they were able to return to work, or increase their working commitments, without having their pension benefits suspended. From 25th March 2022 until 31st October 2022, this suspension continued via temporary modifications - with the end date being kept under review. With the NHS expecting a “challenging” winter, a three week consultation into extending the measures until 31st March 2023 has now been launched.

The proposal states:

“The continued need for NHS staff who contract COVID-19 to isolate and miss work means that staff sickness absence rates are currently higher than pre-pandemic levels. This has a negative impact on NHS capacity at a time when demand for services is high. It is possible that sickness absence rates due to COVID-19 will increase further in the coming winter months, due to the respiratory nature of the virus. On this basis, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is of the view that the suspension of the restrictions on return to work should continue to 31 March 2023.”

The amendment to regulation 9 of the 2022 regulations would continue the temporary suspension of:

• The 16-hour rule in the 1995 section (this rule requires staff who retire and return from the 1995 section to work 16 hours a week (2 days) or less in the first month after retirement. Where staff work more than this limit, their pension benefits are temporarily suspended until their working commitments are reduced).

• Abatement of SCS members who retire and return to work between age 55 and 60 - in the 1995 section (abatement applies where staff return to work before age 60 and their pension plus salary exceeds their pre-retirement income).

• Abatement of draw-down members who claim a portion of their benefits and continue working - in the 2008 section and 2015 scheme (abatement requires them to reduce their pensionable pay by 10% upon each election to draw down benefits).

Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation, stated:

“The NHS will need all of the help it can get this winter and so, we are pleased the government will be consulting on ways to provide support to the NHS’s workforce by encouraging recent and partial retirees back to the frontline.”

In a survey conducted by YouGov and commissioned by technology firm Emburse, 1,015 employees were asked a range of questions with the aim of understanding the impact of the cost-of-living crisis on British workers.

The employees were asked whether they were being financially supported by their employers during this time and the survey tried to identify any changes in work pattern behaviour as a result of the energy bills price increase.

The data showed that 69% of respondents who can work from home say their employers have never provided financial support for utility bills and aren’t planning to do so in the future. Employees who felt that the likelihood their employer would help  with energy costs lowers as the size of the company increases, with 6% of large businesses versus 14% of small businesses (10 or less employees) offering support.

Despite this, it appears that the majority of employees would still prefer to work from home (WFH), with 42% - given the choice - opting for financial support towards utility bills rather than commuting costs. However, 42% of younger employees stated they would prefer a subsidised commute (against 26% of over 55s) and 23% of under-35s who can work from home say they would consider coming into the office more owing to rising energy prices.

Overall, 17% of those surveyed said their working preferences between the office and home may need to change as a direct result of rising living costs.

Kenny Eon, GM and SVP, EMEA at Emburse commented:

“There is clearly a growing concern amongst home-based employees about the cost of keeping the heating on during the work week. Only 9% of the people we surveyed are receiving support from their employers to pay for their utility bills, with just another 7% saying that their employers are planning to provide support. This is particularly impacting younger employees, and almost a quarter of them have said that they are likely to return to the office as a result of skyrocketing bills. Spending more time at the office may not be the preferred option for all employees. But when you add the financial benefit of doing so to the culture and collaboration benefits that many employees experience, this could provide a more compelling reason for employees to return to the office.”