the Commission’s aim to ‘ resolve non-compliance through informal resolution ’ with the focus more on education and awareness for employers.
57% of respondents agreed in the steps the Commission is taking to encourage compliance, however, worryingly almost 40% neither agreed not disagreed and this might be reflective of the very mixed messages that currently exist in the media on the subject of GPGR. The very public experiences being ‘aired and shared’ do little to educate accurately the obligations that exist for employers of 250+ in the private, voluntary and public sectors. The Government Equalities Office and the Commission need to reclaim those headlines with educational facts so that employers can engage with this latest mandatory obligation. It also needs to recognise that for an organisation to fully and successfully engage it needs to bring together different teams across the organisation, HR, Payroll, Technology as well as obtaining engagement at Board level. Overall, respondents agreed with the aims of the policy but have doubts as to whether non-compliant employers could respond within the timeframes proposed in all instances. The timings given within the consultation paper imagine a perfect world scenario where no postal delays are experienced and letters are received by the intended recipient in a prompt and efficient manner. The reality is seldom that smooth, employer data is corrupt, contact details change and delays between the letters being written and them subsequently being posted and delivered will be subject to further delay. We would expect final guidance to be precise as to when the countdown of days truly begins and ends and the true implications of failure to meet the deadlines in all instances. Reponses given above to the timings questions have largely assumed that a perfect world could exist but where they didn’t then disagreement (by 26% of respondents) to the timings was clear ‘… is counter-productive to apply such timescales on compliance… ’ . We acknowledge however that a clearly applied timetable which is consistently adhered to by the Commission will provide the non-compliant employer with far greater certainty.
Failure to report, particularly in year one, and inaccuracy in reporting will require different levels of investigation; we acknowledge the reservations in the Commission’s ability to be able to police accurately and fully.
We are encouraged also that the policy will be reviewed regularly and would again put out a request that policing of the first year of reports i.e. with the snapshot dates of 5 April 2017 and 31 March 2017, focusses a greater educational and informal approach for all but the least compliant.
The full response and results of our survey can be found on our website under My CIPP/Policy hub .
Back to Contents
CIPP survey on Gender Pay Gap Reporting experiences 13 February 2018
As we head towards the end of the first year of Gender Pay Gap Reporting (GPGR), the Policy team has created a short survey to find out more about your what your experience has been over the last year or so, both as you prepared for the first snapshot dates and then as you worked with your data to calculate each figure and subsequently report the results.
The survey should not take more than ten minutes of your time, unless you have a lot to say in the free text boxes which we positively welcome.
We are interested in hearing what the positives, the negatives and lessons learned have been from this first year and what plans you have going forward.
We held a Policy Think Tank recently on this very subject and we want to provide the opportunity to all who couldn’t attend to share your thoughts and experiences specifically from the perspective of the Payroll Professional who serves the reporting employer. There are many different areas of expertise that are called upon to comply with GPGR, to name but a few:
The Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals
Policy News Journal
cipp.org.uk
Page 115 of 516
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker