[samanthaupton]

On tipping practices.

I've recently returned to working in hospitality whilst looking for grad jobs. This has got me reflecting on the new tipping legislation coming into force this year.

The new Employment (Allocation of Tips) Act 2023 was originally supposed to come into effect in July, but will now be delayed until October. The government said this was due to 'extenuating circumstances', and noted that workplaces should have more time to prepare.

What does the Act mean?

The Act is essentially a new legal code of practice for tipping, meaning that all tips received by employers should be distributed to staff fairly. This includes non-cash tips, e.g., those made by card, and even those received in a voucher form, for example, casino chips which can be traded for a cash equivalent.

The main principles of the Act are:

The Act requires employers to create and maintain a written policy for tips and how they're distributed. This should be a streamlined process to deal with customer requests on how to manage tips and service charges. The policy should be made accessible to all workers, which they can request to see at any time.

The Act requires employers to maintain a record of all tips paid and their allocation/distribution between each worker. Again, workers should be able to access this.

Businesses should ensure that tips are paid to employees no later than the end of the month, following the month in which the customer paid the tips.

If it's proven that employees aren't receiving tips, they can now take their employer to a tribunal. This request can be made once every three months and if tips are not paid on time - a member of staff can potentially claim up to £5,000 compensation at tribunal, in what is perhaps the biggest change to current practices.

Legal experts have already made guidelines for employers on how best to enact the new legislation. Solicitor Ellis Jones advises that "Staff should receive a full breakdown showing how service charges, tips, gratuities, cover charges and deductions are distributed and why they are distributed in a certain way."

The Act lays out some exceptions, however.

If a worker receives and keeps a cash tip, this isn't covered by the law. Digital tips which go directly to employees are also not covered by the law. In theory, this should mean that all employees who directly receive their tips will get to keep them - but will that be the case?

The Act does not cover self-employed people. Many industries where workers traditionally receive tips are self-employed - think taxi drivers, fast-food delivery workers, those in the hair and beauty industry, etc. This becomes even more complicated for agency workers, whose employment status can vary.

Further, the Act only covers businesses which receive tips 'regularly'. It states, "...unless they receive tips only occasionally and exceptionally. For example, a clothing shop which only receives tips from customers a few times a year would not need to have a written tipping policy."

Clearly, there are a few exceptions here meaning that many workers who receive tips will not actually be covered by the law at all. Personally, I'm most interested in how the new law will affect agency staff and precarious workers. I fear this legislation is essentially just a way for cash tips to be declared and made taxable, affecting those already in low-paid jobs who may depend on that income. With employers now being legally bound to create a tipping policy, will it end cash-in-hand tips?

I'm also majorly concerned about how the new Act will be enforced.

Who is going to ensure that workplaces are actually complying with the legislation?

The Act does state that ACAS can fill in as a mediator for any disputes, but: "It is recommended that all parties attempt to resolve issues between themselves in the first instance. However, failure to fully observe the Code does not in itself amount to proof that an employer has been acting unfairly."

To me, this reads that employers are responsible for policing themselves - which is already the case! Notably, at the time of writing, ACAS' website hasn't been updated with guidance on the new tipping legislation - no doubt as they're waiting on the government's further guidance themselves.

Ultimately, whilst the new Act is a step forward in ensuring fairer practices in the hospitality industry - it remains to be seen as to whether the implementation of the law will be carried out faithfully.

Are you affected by the new legislation? Have thoughts on the above?

Send comments anonymously here.

Resources:

Draft Code of Practice on the new tipping law

ACAS response to the consultation on tipping (Published February 2024)

Ellis Jones Solicitor - Advice for employers on enacting the legislation

[samanthaupton]

On experiencing burnout.

Burnout has been discussed in activism spaces for decades. Sociology researchers in the 80s working with peace activists defined it then as 'the end result of a process in which idealistic and highly committed individuals lose their spirit (Cherniss, 1980, Freudenberger, 1980). More recently and locally, The Edinburgh Counselling Service refers to a state of 'mental and physical exhaustion'.

It's clear that burnout has a profound effect on the mental and physical health of people who work to influence social change.

For many organisations (for clarity - I mean government, third sector, private, or otherwise) directly involved with care experienced people, a frequently asked question is "How do we encourage those with lived experience to work/consult with us?"

A less frequently asked question however is, "How do we support the mental health of care experienced people during such work?" Having worked in third sector organisations, I understand the need and emphasis on attracting those with lived experience. I'm a marketer, I get it. It gives weight to the work. It is the reason we do it. Many organisations promote their values with language such as, 'leading with lived experience', 'putting lived experience at the heart of what we do', 'amplifying voices that are less well heard', etc. My question is, how do they nurture those who have shared their experiences?

When we put those with lived experience at the heart of our organisations, are we also putting their mental health & wellbeing at the heart of what we do?

Many care experienced people (and of course other groups who have been systematically disempowered) are passionate, dedicated individuals. They work tirelessly to influence social change. I have been blessed to meet many of these individuals, who continuously inspire me and empower me to do the same. But I share spaces with them where we are asked to share our reflections and experiences of the care system for organisations, which often comes at a price.

Social change often comes from the hard work of those who have been oppressed or subjected to systems which work to disadvantage and disenfranchise them.

The work is long, and there are few of us. Small numbers in the care experienced activism space means the same people are asked to work with multiple organisations, so our experiences are shared many times over. Further, many of these organisations are underfunded and ill-equipped to understand the complexities of sharing and resharing trauma over and over again. I have shared fragments of my past, and tidbits of my time in foster care which have been quoted, picked apart, reflected on, and noted without a thought on how this may affect me. I have been encouraged to do so by strangers - people I met once at a participation workshop or an interview. I have thought myself completely comfortable doing so - only to find a few days, or a week later that my mental health takes a turn, as the trauma of my time being separated from my family was remembered.

Of course, there is good practice. I have undertaken participation work and campaigned with organisations who have checked in. They prioritised my privacy, safety, and wellbeing. I have taken part in interviews where my boundaries were upheld. But shouldn't that be the bare minimum?

Where do we draw the line at the amount of work a person with trauma does before we offer them support for their mental health?

Going back to the Edinburgh Counselling Service, they note that activism work "brings with it a moral obligation to make the world a better place". When you've experienced trauma from being in the system, many of us simply can't ignore it any longer. We want to work hard to change it so that no child or family goes through what we went through. I believe those in organisations feel the same way, which can lead to feelings of responsibility to make change on both sides. This can end in pressured circumstances, i.e., those with lived experience feel guilted into sharing their stories so that the obligations of those in the sector are fulfilled: the stress of meeting impact indicators, and sometimes, their saviour complexes. And so it goes on until burnout takes over and we end up leaving the activism space.

Of course, individual boundaries are important. People can always just say no, right? Well, yes. But to me, that leaves us in a tricky scenario where the onus is on the person with trauma to recognise when things are becoming too much - and that's a lot easier said than done. Whilst personal responsibility needs to be taken, I also believe organisations should be doing more to prevent re-traumatisation, feelings of pressure, and eventual activism burnout.

The Activist Handbook state that 'very demanding tasks' and 'no appropriate support' are two of the given reasons for burnout. So what would appropriate support look like? Particularly in a sector where temporary funding and budget cuts are common and unavoidable.

Simply put, if your work directly involves those with lived experience - become trauma-informed.

Trauma-informed practices include working to prevent re-traumatisation. Repeated participation, activism, and consultation work which asks traumatised people to share their opinions and experiences - without pausing to reflect on the repercussions this may have on the individual, or offer mental health support and care - do more harm than good.

The Social Change Library lists useful prevention methods for tackling burnout which I believe organisations working with care experienced individuals could benefit from:

Create a group culture / ethos that supports self-care, balance and sustainable work loads and patterns.

Build stress level checks into reviews and evaluations – how stressed do people feel? What is contributing? What do we need to do about these?

Provide individual or group debriefing after critical incidents or high stress campaigns. Keep an eye open for vulnerable individuals and see intervention as valid.

Create support structures, e.g., support / affinity groups, routine debriefing, supervision, mentoring for new people, group workshops and training.

For me, amplifying the voices of those in care and claiming to put 'lived experience at the heart of the organisation' means actively acknowledging that your organisation - whether it's a government consultation, research, social work, or support worker on the ground - essentially relies on care experienced people sharing opinions, experiences, and trauma. Or it has in the past. As such, measures should be taken to support our mental health.

Implementing small-scale measures - such as follow-up chats or signposting to services - to larger-scale measures for deeper work, e.g., employing a counselling drop-in service one day a month for care experienced people - could be the difference between someone experiencing painful, traumatic memories, and someone not.

Ultimately, such an acknowledgment and the implementation of support measures would help prevent burnout - and lead to more positive outcomes and healthier lives for those of us with lived experience of care.

Have you experienced burnout in an activist space? Have thoughts on the above? Send comments anonymously here.

Resources: The Activist Handbook: Burnout Effective Activist: Preventing Burnout Activist Trauma: Prevention Tips Mind: Dealing with Burnout (Note - work specific)