The Sleep Council (a body devoted to raising awareness of the importance of a good night’s sleep – no, really) has suggested that companies might get more from their employees if they let them work according to their body clocks – ie let them have a nap if they need one. In fact, a spokesperson for the group, Jessica Alexander, goes as far as to say employers could go one better, and work out different schedules for each different individual.

Commenting on the results of a recent survey, which found that tired workers are costing the UK economy millions each year, she commented: “I think what would be a much more [beneficial] thing for businesses to look at is finding out about their client’s sleep patterns and body clocks and when they are at their best and offering flexi hours in that sense”.

Sounds like a really good idea to me. But then, I’m really very tired.

This story’s been all over the news, so you might already have heard about it. Nicola Brewer, Chief Executive of the Equalities And Human Rights Commission, has said that it’s not a good idea to extend maternity leave, because far from being the benefit to women that it’s usually thought to be, longer stretches could be damaging women’s career prospects.

Noting that so-called ‘improved’ maternity benefits offer women a full year off work after the birth of each child, Brewer suggests that it promotes the idea that it should be the woman who is responsible for staying at home with children, instead of encouraging the idea that it should be a shared responsibility, and, therefore, this extra time off work should be offered to both parents.

So, should you work for a big multi-national, or a little five-man outfit? It’s a decision many graduates have to make when they start looking for that first job, and obviously both have pros and cons.

The Guardian recently looked into the whole thing and discovered, perhaps unsurprisingly, that people working for small companies tend to have more passion for their job, presumably because they have a wider remit and more varied areas of responsibility.

However, on the downside, a job in a small company can lead to employees making bigger mistakes because you have less support, and you get better training in a large company.

Obviously, in reality it’s really down to your personality as to whether you’ll fit in best at a big firm or an SME (small to medium-sized enterprise). For a more detailed discussion on it all you can check the Guardian article here

Those recruiters interviewed by The Times should listen to this. Paul Farrar, chairman of recruitment company pfj, has said that now is the time, actually, to be investing in graduate recruitment, despite the fact that many companies are cutting back their programmes in that area.

Mr Farrar argues that the companies that do invest will find themselves much better off for staff a few years down the line, and urges them to “invest in graduate schemes when times get tough because then you are going to have very loyal workforce coming through when things get better”.

So, graduate recruiters, hope you’re listening out there.

After all that talk about how graduate recruitment would survive the good old credit crunch, The Times has run an article warning that there are, in fact, fewer jobs for graduates in the financial sector as a result of the credit crisis. The broadsheet also reckons that recent graduate recruits, being the last in, may well be the first out when the axe falls, while adding that, preempting the need to downsize, some banks have cut their recruitment programmes this year.

It’s not all doom and gloom though. The paper has also found a number of graduate recruiters in the finance sector who are as keen as ever to find new recruits. Even if they won’t have many jobs for them in the long term. Oh, hang on, that is pretty gloomy too isn’t it. Sorry.

They quote Sarah Butcher, editor of recruitment website efinancialcareers.com as saying: “They won’t say it on the record but it looks like there are a lot more graduate interns starting summer placements now than the banks will have jobs for next July. They recruited their summer interns at the start of this year and things have got worse since”.

And so it continues. Fans of doom and gloom can read the full article here

There you were, thinking you were just wasting time messing about on the internet. Well, you were, but it might have unexpected benefits for your future career, according to Jayne Rowley, Publishing Director for Graduate Prospects, who says that social networking can be a useful source of leads when it comes to looking for jobs. Rowley adds: “As the social networks extend their reach into professional areas, the Facebook generation will feel entirely comfortable engaging with employers in this way in the future.”

A new report by the Chartered Management Institute challenges the widely held view that Generation Y (that’s if you were born between 1980 and 1994) – and therefore today’s younger managers – are disloyal, self absorbed and predictable. And I should think so too. Presumably, as always, it’s a case of one generation thinking that they’re better than the generations that follow them.

The study, ‘Generation Y: Unlocking the Talent of Young Managers’ by Dr Alison Macleod, published in association with Ordnance Survey, focuses on managers below the age of thirty five, and dispels a number of myths about that particular group of workers. The report suggests that young managers are career minded, and eager to learn new skills, and are not nearly so selfish as their collective reputation might suggest. This generation are also more likely to look for meaning in their work over high rates of pay.

Ruth Spellman, Chief Executive of the Chartered Management Institute, says of the report: “Young managers are ambitious for roles that will be challenging and rewarding. This presents organisations with an opportunity and a challenge; to steer young managers and to provide opportunities for them to achieve their potential. Otherwise organisations will struggle to retain them.”

Good news for the ladies, this, if it goes through.

Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman is piloting a new bill which will force on all public sector firms to show whether or not they pay male and female staff equally. The requirement would also be extended to those private sector firms retained on public sector contracts – about thirty percent of the UK’s private companies. Under the proposed legislation, the remaining private sector firms would be provided with a template to publish their data on the gender gap, but there would be no statutory requirement to do so. The new requirements are apparently the result of Harman’s frustration with the gender pay gap, and the fact that it has failed to improve.

In other areas of the Equality Bill, rights for breastfeeding mothers to feed their babies in public will be introduced, whilst private member clubs will no longer be allowed to discriminate against women. And it’s not just good news for the girls. The same bill will seek to outlaw discrimination in goods and services on the basis of age – ie, insurance companies won’t be able to refuse older people premiums. Of course, that isn’t really graduate news, as such, but you might be a mother one day, and you’ll definitely be old at some point, so take note.

Liberal Democrat Equality Spokeswoman, Lynne Featherstone commented: “If the government genuinely wants to tackle equality, it must do more to end the growing discrepancy between the rules on pay for the public and private sector.”

A new report commissioned by ‘employee assessment specialist’ Cogniso has claimed that UK and US businesses are losing $37billion (that’s £18.7billion) every year because employees don’t fully understand their jobs. Which I don’t doubt, I’m not sure I’ve ever understood a single job I’ve done.

The white paper – ‘$37 billion: Counting the Cost of Employee Misunderstanding’ – defines ‘employee misunderstanding’ as actions taken by employees who have misunderstood or misinterpreted, or were misinformed about, or have a lack of confidence in their understanding of company policies, business processes, job function or a combination of all these three. The banking industry was shown to have the highest cost of misunderstanding, and the transport industry the lowest.

The report also shows that whilst employers are often aware of the costs of such misunderstandings, only a third have said that they take action to deal with the problem. Cognisco’s CEO Mary Clarke said “An organisation’s greatest asset is its employees. Obviously if an employee misunderstands or misinterprets actions there will be repercussions from loss of business to impaired brand image. But what is often not measured, is the employee’s confidence to take the appropriate actions which can also have a significant impact.”

Well, perhaps these companies’ employees will be less ignorant, once that government training bill (here) gets passed.

Here’s the good news: Government skills secretary John Denham has said that the government are planning to give employers the legal right to request time off work to train. Outlining plans, the MP suggested that as many as 300,000 people a year could benefit from the scheme, with anyone who has worked for their employer for more than 26 weeks will be eligible for.

Here’s the slightly less good news: a bill will have to be passed by parliament, and if it does, it won’t be in force for another two years. Ah well, at least it might happen, and would hopefully mean a marked improvement – at the present time, a third of employers offer no training to their staff

Denham added that “investment in skills is key to ensuring we come through with a stronger economy”, adding “We need to find new ways to bring the drive for skills into every workplace and to every worker.”