Personnel management

It's an own goal, an unforced error, an unintended consequence. Those who have pressed for what they have termed (and forced everyone else to term) "gender equality" have ended up with previously taboo and sometimes illegal matters being pushed front and centre.

A case in California has raised some serious questions about record keeping and staff controls at a public utility company.

You can't keep a good man (or woman) down, unless you're the Indian government in which case your caste, or formal class, can bar you from being employed. How do they know? You have to present a certificate of your caste before even getting an interview.

A job advert on LinkedIn is incomprehensible. The posts advertised are for writers.

Without identifying the people involved, we look at several cases of people who have found it difficult to get jobs despite their obvious skills, qualification, loyalty and dedication.

The USA's Federal Reserve Board is planning to fine and issue prohibition orders against two former Managing Directors of J. P. Morgan Securities (Asia Pacific) Limited. It follows on from the Board's fining of the bank in November 2016. The offence? Excuse us while we choke on our own laughter: giving jobs to the boys. But they did it in China. On Wall Street, it's standard operating procedure, as it is across a wide range of industries in the USA. There are several matters of grave concern to Banks regulated by the Federal Reserve Board, both domestic and foreign.

The USA's Internal Revenue Service has, for some time, been warning corporations of a spam-scam targeting companies. But now, it says, it has evidence that it is spreading into "school districts, tribal organizations and non-profits." and other sectors. But that's not all: the criminals have found a way of hitting the same targets twice.

US President Donald Trump issued a number of diktats (sorry, Executive Orders) on his first full day in office. But one is likely to greater impact : a blanket freeze on recruitment at all federal offices.

While it is always dangerous to base any legal analysis on general media reports, media are reporting a case which provides sufficient fact for a discussion of the principles involved. The case involves a member of staff at a branch of Tesco in Ireland who removed product from the premises and was dismissed but has been awarded substantial damages for unfair dismissal.

One of the things France has been so very proud of itself for is that it not only brought into force the maximum 35 hour working week required under the EU's Working Time Directive (no one else did) but actively enforced it with squads of inspectors checking how long employees' cars were in office car parks. France has, however, admitted that it didn't work. But even so, why was it necessary to pass a law to say that employees have a legal right to refuse to answer office phone calls, deal with messages including instant messaging and emails out of office hours? Isn't that common sense?

Harvey Andrews: The Pocket Song