With the Prime Minister talking about reining back excessive regulation and ongoing speculation that some major firms may relocate away from the UK, is this country still 'open for business'? Does the UK still have a flexible labour market or has it become too difficult to fairly and effectively hire, manage and fire the right staff?

Changes in sponsorship for non EU employees can restrict availability of potential employees for specialist roles.  This has required a rethink in how best to satisfy the need to fill vacant positions.  Better long-term succession planning and improved training programmes to develop skills in-house are becoming more commonplace. Firing is not where HR or businesses want to be, we invest heavily in the development of employees and ultimately firing results in a loss to the business from which further development of a replacement employee has to commence.  The proposed changes to tribunals’ raises some interesting points, raising the limit from one year to two years may actually have a negative impact on the flexibility of the UK labour market.  Changing roles and companies is a big step for most people, often linked to promotion into a more challenging role.  In effect raising the “probationary period” from one year to two years may make people think carefully before accepting a new role within a different organisation. Not only will they need to consider their abilities to step up within a new organisation, they will also need to consider two years is a long time to be uncertain of their future or that of their new employers.      

The issue of firms relocating work abroad has been one the UK, like all advanced industrial economies has experienced for the past several decades. It's nothing new. Plenty of manufacturing jobs as well as services facilitated by information and communications systems technology have long since relocated in search of 'cheap labour'.The relocation tactic - used in the past to subdue claims by organised labour - now appears to be in play in financial services in particular as a bargaining manoeuvre in the negotiations being played out with regulators seeking to achieve substantive reforms.  Unlike the shift of routinised manufacturing and service work, however, there are people factors that mean in practice shifting investment banking jobs, say, from London to Zurich may cost the employers in terms of talent rather more than possible additional taxation on their profits. Stories are circulating of young UK-based financial services workers saying that, even with the supposed regulatory costs, they'd be reluctant to abandon their 'world city' for somewhere that those looking for excitement find dull and debilitating in ways that don't necessarily feature in headlines. So it seems a bit of a phoney war is being fought here. UK remains open for business.      

We have surely never been more ‘open’.  Longer hours, Sunday working, round-the-clock call centres.  But then we also have more part-time working than ever - though whether that benefits the employer or employee depends on whose data you believe.The location of headquarters is more driven by the corporate tax regime than the employment market.  And with unemployment at current levels, the supply of UK workers well exceeds demand.  Now all we need is a generation of recruiters that instinctively knows who the best applicants are for their businesses, and can rationalise their decisions – just enough to deflect any doubters.