No More 'Opt Out'?

noreply@blogger.com (HRI) — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 23:53:00 +0000

The European Parliament voted today to limit the working week to 48 hours by removing the current 'opt out' system in place in the UK.

As it stands at the moment, employees can 'choose' to opt out of the 48 hour working week by signing the appropriate declaration when they begin work. Otherwise it is illegal for the employer to ask them to work more than 48 hours per week, averaged out over a period of 13 weeks. This is the Working Time Directive.

The about face, which will be decided once and for all in a full vote in December, will mean employees will not be able to exceed 48 working hours per week for any reason.

Although unions welcome the move, many other groups strongly disagree. In fact, Labour, the Conservatives AND the Lib Dems have all come out saying that they are against it.

Business Secretary Lord Mandleson said "People must remain free to earn overtime if they wish and businesses must have the flexibility to cope during busy times."

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) also put their weight behind the issue, with Deputy Director-General John Cridland saying “This vote by a small number of politicians is worrying because it shows how out of touch they are... We think people can look at their own circumstances and make their own decision about working longer hours. We call this common sense, and it doesn’t need amending by Brussels".

Interestingly it is Labour MEPs who have voted for the legislation. Labour MEP Stephen Hughes described removing the opt out system as "a health and safety law". They are responding to a union motion supported at the Labour Conference in Manchester, ignoring Brown and Mandleson and instead acting from a "grass roots level".

A further embarrassment for Gordon Brown is that in June this year he offered to improve rights for Temporary Workers in return for keeping the opt out clause.

There are currently 3.2 Million people in the UK working more than 48 hours per week.

With the Credit Crunch in full swing even some unions may start to consider that removing the opt out is a bad idea. But with unemployment approaching 2 Million, there is another (unpopular) argument that creating jobs by denying hours to others is the way forward.

That said, critics of the opt out rule argue that if the rest of Europe can run on a 48 hour week, then why can't we?

Mike Horner

The Bradford Factor

noreply@blogger.com (HRI) — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 14:15:00 +0000

The Bradford Factor is a human resource tool that has been around since the eighties. It is believed to be named after the Bradford University of Management, although any hard facts on the subject seem hard to come by (I am still awaiting a reply from my polite enquiry to the university with baited breath). It works around the theory that many short absences are more disruptive than a single long absence, and scores employee attendance using the following formula:

B = A² x D

Where:

B = the Bradford Factor Rating

A = the number of independent absence periods over the time period.

D = the total number of days absence during the time period.

For example:

One absence of 10 days would have a Bradford Factor of 10 (1 x 1 x 10)

Five absences of 2 days each would have a Bradford Factor of 250 (5 x 5 x 10)

Ten absences of 1 day each would have a Bradford Factor of 1000 (10 x 10 x 10)

This is taken from our own site, and is a pretty similar version to the one that crops up all over the place.

Given that a high Bradford Factor is considered a ‘bad’ thing (or at least a disruptive one), it is clear from the example above that the formula puts a lot of weight on individual absences.

So what exactly is it about individual absences that gets HR managers so worked up?

It is certainly true that dealing with an employee saying “I have glandular fever and will be off work for at least two weeks” is a lot easier to deal with than ten separate phone calls along the lines of “I am unable to come into work today because of... whatever”. In the first instance you know what will happen, you can delegate work over time, perhaps even hire a Temp to assist with the workload. In the second instance, more often than not, the employees that do make it to work have to work a little harder (at the cost of morale) or tasks will be neglected (at the cost of the business).

Of course there are countless occasions that one or two day absences are necessary and required, and it is also common for a single employee to have many such occurrences (an employee with an unhealthy dependent springs to mind). But the Bradford Factor is targeted towards another kind of absence.

In several words, non-genuine sickness days. In one word, sickies.

The purpose of the Bradford Factor is to reduce those moments where an employee just can’t be bothered to go into work one day. With sickies taking up 12% of all absences, and costing the economy £1.6 billion per year, it is a massive concern to employers everywhere.

Does it Work?

Yes

In 2001, and under a fair bit of pressure from the Public Accounts Committee, The UK Prison Service decided to tackle its unacceptable absence rate for its 48,000 employees.

One of the things they did was introduce the Bradford Factor, to allow them to create ‘triggers’ for staff who had displayed ‘disruptive’ results, and generate an absence warning. To their credit, they also provided “safeguards for employees with serious conditions and disabilities to ensure these employees do not receive a warning “

And it worked. By 2006 they had reduced sickness absence by 25%, making a saving of £38 Million.

It should be noted that they did many other things than implement the Bradford Factor, such as implementing “health and support services for the most common causes of long-term absence”, but nonetheless it seems to have contributed to their success.

No

I came across this thread on the Personnel Today site. The thread, titled “Where the Bradford Factor Can be counter-productive”, is the lament of Ron Tocknell, a health professional who has seen the dark side of the formula.

“We shouldn't attend work if we have a viral infection, if we have had a bout of diarrhoea..... The company has recently implemented the Bradford factor.... Absenteeism has noticeably dropped. However, sickness among those we are supposed to be protecting has increased and, although absenteeism has reduced, it would appear that staff sickness has actually increased as so many staff members are constantly complaining about feeling ill. Staff feel pressured into coming into work when they really should be at home”

This is clearly an example of the formula being mis-used. To tell staff that they will be penalised for many short term absences in an environment where they are required to miss work under circumstances that may have the rest of us ‘grinning and bearing it’, is irresponsible management.

So what then?

Employees are as unique as the organisations they work for. If the Bradford Factor is used to its full potential, as a disciplinary tool that will automatically trigger a warning, a final warning and ultimately dismissal (as, according to this source, it was used in the case of the prison service), then it is flawed, unethical and, in the opinion of this commentator, an employment tribunal waiting to happen.

I don’t think, however, that the Bradford Factor was ever considered to be used in this way. It is a tool, and as such it is up to the skill of the HR Department to get the most out of it.

Used properly, as a tool and not a final solution, the Bradford Factor can help a business of any size to track patterns in attendance, and perhaps have a trigger set that triggers only a ‘conversation’ – where the line manager, supervisor, or HR manager sits down with the employee and asks the question – “What’s going on here, and how can we help?”

Mike Horner

HR Industries Blog

No More 'Opt Out'?

The Bradford Factor