Hi Katie

Suppose it could be mistaken at first sight / casual glance for a real solicitor's letter and it did scare me a bit when I first saw it - but, fairly clearly, sure that was the whole idea behind it. Personally, thought it was more original and arresting (ha ha) than it was outrageous, but that's just insensitive old me, maybe.

Hi Katie Nalty,

It is not a real letter.

You can see from some previous PM covers that some are meant to elicit a reaction. Theyhave also won awards, so wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that reputation.

For the benefit of those who have not seen it, here it is...

I think anybody that was being so forward as to read your mail would realise quite quickly it was a magazine cover. In addition, I don't know many solicitors that send letters out of envelopes, with that heading ;)

In reply to Steve Bridger:

To be fair to Katie the reaction to this particular cover has been mixed - and we have passed on feedback to the editorial team so they can factor into future decisions when selecting cover concepts and artwork. There's been a lot of debate about it on facebook and twitter. With comments ranging from 'I love it! The idea is that we get that feeling, so are we prepared enough to avoid the real thing?? Great idea and it worked.' To 'I really did NOT need that nasty little heart jolt when I saw your @PeopleMgt People Management magazine staring up from my doormat this a.m.'

In reply to Johanna:

Thanks for sharing this Johanna.

From my point of view there is a difference between provoking a reaction or "buzz" and provoking a debate - for me this fell on the wrong side of the line...

If the target had been better calibrated, I'm sure this series of posts would have been more about the subject matter and less about the wrapping

I've got to say, I was really shocked by the cover this time around. I normally keep the magazines in full view on my desk so managers can browse if they so wish, but this one is well and truly locked in a drawer - the content is great, but the cover is just a bit over the line for me.

We suffer a lot from 'the quick glance' in HR - you all know what I mean, employees/managers come in to ask something and some just can't resist trying to suss out what you're up to (who's getting the boot? are we getting a salary review? did Joe Bloggs go to HR like he said he would last Tuesday at lunchtime?). My immediate thought was that the millisecond glance across my desk could quickly turn into 'OMG you'll never guess what I saw on HR's desk this morning! someone is taking us to court!'

*I should also add that of course, I don't just leave confidential docs laying around on my desk :)

Although for a quick Friday giggle... I'm currently staying with a parent and upon returning home (where I have it delivered) they promptly asked why I had tribunal documents arriving at their house! Very, very funny stuffing the offending magazine in their face to explain no, HR do not receive legal documents to their home addresses, no, employees do not know where I/they live, and yes, things like that would always go to work...!

In reply to Johanna:

To put it in a further context, this cover is only likely to have provoked a strong reaction from those CIPD members in organisational HR roles. Many of us are freelance consultants, in L&D or focused on another specialism. My only criticism in that context would be that it wasn't inclusive and did nothing to entice me to read further!

I just looked again. Cant see anything that outrages me........

But it did make wonder what it was when it dropped through the door. I thought - what? (for a second anyway).

But someone would have to be pretty naive to actually think that a solicitors letter taking you or your organisation to tribunal would actually do it with a clear envelope.
Keith, our postman, can certainly tell the difference between 'real mail' and that sort of thing.

At least it demonstrates the attraction pulling value of the front cover.!!

I must admit that although it came to my home, I got a bit of a jolt too.

I feel that People Management has lost its way recently, particularly on social media which appears to take a Daily Mail/Express approach to headlines at time. In a couple of cases, it has almost sounded as though it is 'HR Bashing'. The most recent one was a report of a Tribunal where the organisation lost heavily - the headline was 'What can HR learn?' which very much suggests that HR had somehow failed in that case. On reading the article, it was very clear that the company didn't have a HR Department and had sought no HR advice or guidance whatsoever. It wasn't a complex case and anyone with a basic HR knowledge would have known that the company would lose so there really wasn't anything for HR to 'learn' from the case. In the article, the company said that it had highlighted the need for companies to seek HR advice, so surely a headline of "Tribunal case highlights the risks of not having HR support" would have been more appropriate?

Having commented on the post, it appeared that several other people felt the same.

Another HR bashing headline from People Management just popped into my inbox
www2.cipd.co.uk/.../fewer-than-9-000-new-parents-took-shared-parental-leave-last-year.aspx

This time, apparently the reason people aren't taking Shared Parental Leave is because HR aren't explaining it to them.

I'm sure it is our fault entirely and the fact that many organisations offer some form of Occupational Maternity Pay, whereas Shared Parental Pay is only at statutory rate has nothing to do with it at all!

In all the cases I have experienced, people have a very good understanding of Shared Parental Leave, but it simply doesn't make sense for them to end their maternity leave early because they would lose out financially compared to staying on maternity leave and continuing to receive Occupational Maternity Pay. However, the article makes absolutely no reference to this at all.

It is a flawed system and until a Tribunal rules that if an organisation offers occupational maternity pay, it must also offer shared parental pay at the same rate, take up will remain low. The difficulty you will get then though is that some organisations will simply remove their occupational maternity pay (although hopefully the increasingly competitive recruitment market will make that less likely)

Most professional magazines support their profession. I'm not actually asking that, but please stop blaming us for things that aren't our fault - or at least give us the option of lower membership fees that doesn't include receiving People Management.

In reply to Teresa:

I have to disagree with you Teresa. Surely it is the fault of HR that there's a disparity between occupational maternity pay and the rate fathers get? Isn't it up to HR to recommend new policies which support fathers at work in the same way as we've historically supported mothers? Especially given the number of reports that younger fathers want to be more involved in parenting.

To my mind pointing out where something is not working or could be improved is not bashing but challenging existing practice - something we should all be doing as the people experts.

In reply to Teresa:

Hi Teresa... I read the article but interpreted it as suggesting the complexity of the system is perhaps what is putting people off. It does say "HR has a responsibility to ensure employees know their statutory rights, etc.", which is true. I didn't read it as 'blaming' HR though.

We know from discussions here that many HR Depts are trying hard to embrace the complexity... but yes, it's not as if you all haven't got enough on your hands already.

I think your factual criticisms of what the article didn't say are very valid and that you should leave a comment on the article.

I did enjoy the CIPD podcast on this topic... and the subsequent updates on how Ksenia and Ryan were getting on. Worth a listen.

In reply to Anna:

I was writing my post at the same time as you were, Anna :)

In reply to Anna:

I agree with you completely that only removing the disparity between occupational maternity pay and the rate father gets, is the only way that the take up with increase Anna. I also agree that as a profession, overall, we do have a part to play in challenging this.

However, I do feel that if we tried to do this on an individual basis (e.g. individuals suggesting changes in organisational policy), we are only likely to damage our reputation - very few organisations would be swayed by an 'its the right thing to do' argument. Ultimately, the issue is societal norms and historically, the only way to change that is with Government legislation (Equal Pay act, etc).

I think that is why I am so cross about the article - it implies that if only HR departments would tell people about SPL, it would all be fine. There is apparently no need for organisations to remove the disparity, or for Governments to implement legislation that actually makes things fairer. It actually takes the pressure off organisational and the Government to play their part - their response will be that it is just HR not telling people about it.

I would hope that as a professional body, the CIPD does have people working with Governments and Industry (I understand that we do have someone leading on policy to influence the Government, but I've not been able to identify who leads Industry engagement on People matters, which to my mind is a crucial role) as this is the only way we can drive the change as a profession.

But we undermine ourselves with articles such as this (and thank you Steve - I will leave a comment once I've worked out how to do it! :) )

In reply to Teresa:

But Teresa

You talk about occupational maternity pay - that's a decision made by employers not government. There's also only so much that any government will do to legislate.

Is it not part of the HR role to monitor changes in social attitudes and reflect these in employment practices? As younger fathers seek more involvement with their children it's the employers that support this - with improved paternity pay, a father's network and better flexible working for example - that will attract and retain the best employees.