This report from Unwork and JLL sets out a roadmap for how technological and organisational drivers of change will disrupt workplace and real estate strategies between now and 2030.
This report from the McKinsey Global Institute examines all the ways people are earning income, as well as the challenges independent work presents.
This report from the CIPD aims to explore the attitudes towards employability and responsibilities for career development in the UK.
This report, commissioned by UBS, determines what will move, motivate and retain workers in the mid-2020s and reveals the key characteristics and strategies that future business will need to incorporate to retain the most talented workers.
This report from Mckinsey Global Institute explores the economic potential of narrowing gender gaps at the national level as well as across UK regions and examines the opportunity to address gender disparities.
This report by consultants The Future Laboratory and Microsoft explores the world of work in 2025, identifying and investigating ten exciting, inspiring and astounding jobs for the graduates of tomorrow, that don't exist yet.
This whitepaper from UNC looks at digital disruption. It considers how tech has impacted, influenced and increased global business; how organisations are using disruption to their advantage; how it affects the search for talent and steps HR and talent development professionals can take to prepare their organisations for digital disruption.
Seldon v Clarkson Wright & Jakes  IRLR 748: the EAT (following the Supreme Court’s remission of the case to the Employment Tribunal) upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the chosen CRA of 65 in a solicitors’ practice was reasonably necessary and lawful.
Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v Harrod & Others  IRLR 790: Rule A19 of the Police Pensions Regulations 1987, which allowed for the (enforced) retirement of police officers who met certain criteria, disadvantaged officers over the age of 48. However, having regard to the Government’s demand to realise a 20% cut in the forces’ budgets, the use of this provision was found to be justified by the EAT.
Cockram v Air Products Plc  UKEAT/0122/15/LA: The key issue between the parties was whether the respondent could justify having a rule, as part of its Long Term Incentive Plan (LTIP), that the claimant was not entitled to unvested options because he had not reached the age of 55 upon the termination of his employment. The employer accepted that it had treated the claimant less favourably because of age but argued that the discrimination was justified. The Tribunal accepted this argument, holding: “We accept that limiting the advantage enjoyed by one age group over another is a legitimate social policy aspect of intergenerational fairness. Our conclusion is that the Respondent's aim is a legitimate aim.” The claimant appealed. The EAT allowed the appeal on the basis that the Tribunal had not given sufficient reasoning for its conclusion; that the aim of the rule included intergenerational fairness; nor had it explained what that intergenerational fairness consisted of. Accordingly, the claim was remitted to a new Tribunal for reconsideration.
Braithwaite v HCL Insurance BPO  ICR 713: The employer, owing to significant business pressures, applied a PCP that in order to remain employed with the company, employees had to agree to a new contract with new terms and conditions. Although this PCP indirectly discriminated against older workers (as workers in the 38 – 64 age range were more likely to lose their existing contractual rights), the Tribunal held that it was objectively justified. The employer had a legitimate aim, namely reducing staff costs to ensure its future viability and to have in place a market-competitive, non-discriminatory set of terms and conditions; and its approach was a proportionate means of achieving that aim. The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s judgment.
Willey & Sharpe v England & Wales Cricket Board Limited  ET Case Numbers 2201406/2014 and 2202407/2014: the Tribunal concluded that the ECB’s policy of requiring first class cricket umpires to retire at 65 was a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of intergenerational fairness/succession planning. Regarding this aim, the Tribunal noted that a retirement age of 65 “achieves certainty and predictability; there is no point in having a vacancy unless it is predictable over a period of years thus allowing aspiring FCUs to plan and retain the hope of achieving their goal within a set number of years.” In reaching its decision, the Tribunal took into account the particular nature of the ‘bottleneck’ at first class umpire level, where "a small group of 25…sit at the top of the tree" and "no one has ever known a FCU to retire before the compulsory retirement age."
This report on the gig economy from Concur looks at the nuances of the on-the-go economy and the implications for businesses in the future.
In light of increasing commentary predicting technological unemployment, Adam Corlett of the Resolution Foundation, assesses what we know about our labour market and automation.