Latest People Management Cover a disgrace

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 ;)

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...!

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.