So in reality, the concept is in many ways a modern take on the idea of networking -that a personal or business contact can give you an advantage when it comes to finding good quality staff (if you're an employer) or in getting the job you really want (if you're a candidate).  It's also not a million miles away from the idea that a company sponsors a student and gives them holiday work placements, so that they have a ready-made candidate for a vacancy when the individual graduates.

But are they discriminatory?  Many talent communities are run by people with an HR background so direct discrimination (ostracising or excluding someone because of their race/sex/religion/disability/age etc) shouldn't be a problem. But the scope for indirect discrimination is huge. If a vacancy is notified to a talent community in advance of any other form of advertising, has this indirectly excluded older workers (who may not be as computer savvy)?  What if the tone and style of a particular community makes certain groups feel unwelcome? And is there an inevitable tendency for recruiters to favour "people like us", thus reinforcing a dominant culture and excluding anyone who doesn't appear to fit into the team?

Don't get me wrong - the world of recruitment is changing (very quickly in some sectors) and employers need to adapt their practices to the modern environment. But if talent communities simply become an online version of "the old boys' network" then they may take recruitment practices back to the world before equal opportunities and diversity legislation.

Whatever it was, it reminded me of George Orwell's 6 rules for writing clear and easy to understand English, and how often they are broken:

(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.

(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.

(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Now, having just published a book, I'm sure that readers  of it will be able to find plenty of examples where I've broken these rules (I nearly suggested that people in glass  houses shouldn't throw stones, but that clearly breaks rule (i)). But it did make me wonder what Orwell would have thought of the "blogosphere" (oops - there goes rule (v)).

1. The aim of TUPE is simply to protect employees from losing their jobs, employment benefits and legal rights through a change in employer that they have no control over.
2. It applies where an existing business or service transfers from one organisation to another. It doesn't apply if a business just gets a new owner, or if a new service is different to an old one.
3. In a TUPE situation you have responsibilities to consult with staff and their representatives, and to provide information at various points. That may be time consuming but it isn't difficult - and requires only basic project planning skills
4. You can make changes after a transfer - including redundancies if you need to - provided you have a valid business reason (known as an economic, technical or organisational reason). It has long been established that reduced income from a client or funder is a valid economic reason.
5. If there is a dispute about whether someone should be transferred (known as assignment) there are clear guidelines about how you decide this. It's not impossible for an old and new employer (or an employee) to disagree on the answers but the questions to be asked are very straightforward.
6. Pension schemes don't transfer as of right. There are however rules under the Pensions Act that require a new employer to provide a minimum standard of pension to transferring staff who were previously in a pension scheme.
7. Public sector workers are covered by guidelines called the "Fair Deal for Pensions" under which they must be provided with a pension which is broadly comparable to their public sector scheme if they are transferred to a private or voluntary sector organisation. This is a piece of government policy (dating from 1999), nothing to do with TUPE.

It's possible to debate the fine nuances of TUPE - for many HR/Employment Law people it has become the equivalent of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" But practical TUPE problems come more from a lack of co-operation between new and old employer than the legislation itself.

You can find out more here

A similar incident occurred in the social media world this week. US HR blogger Laurie Ruettimann received a tweet from a follower who she didn't know and had never met, which started with the words "Hey Beautiful". She found this over- familiar, offensive and sexist (her response blog is somewhat blunter). The follower responded by saying that "Beautiful" was simply a common greeting term in his part of the USA and he hadn't intended to be sexist. Nevertheless, it was her perception that counted and she found his comment offensive.

As another example, it is apparently ok in the US to use the term "Spazz" as a general term of abuse (I've even seen it used in TV series like "Buffy").  Use the word in the UK however and you will get a similar reaction to that Ricky Gervais received when he used the word "Mong".  Both are perceived here as offensive terms about people with disabilities, even if the intention - or the cultural context of the speaker - is not to offend.

So how does this impact on HR? Well, how would you have dealt with any of these three situations if they had occurred in your workplace? Would "I didn't mean to be offensive" or "I didn't realise it meant something different here" be accepted as valid excuses in a disciplinary situation?

For some reason HR doesn't feature so highly in the movies. But as we prepare to snuggle up in front of the TV for Christmas, don't stick on "It's a Wonderful Life" again but why not try one of these HR related films?

I'm All Right, Jack - A satire of FW Taylor's Scientific Management? A study in post-war Industrial Relations?  Well, either way it's classic B&W comedy from the 1950s where a naive young management trainee is pitched into a battle between corrupt bosses and a militant union.

Up In The Air - Hey - all male HR people look like George Clooney don't we? And we just love going round the country firing people. But surely George's company would have had a better Workplace Relationships policy?

Made In Dagenham - A film about the Equal Pay Act doesn't sound that promising, but this dramatised account of the strike by female staff at the Ford car plant in 1968 which led to the Act is worth watching.

Surely there must be more? Let me have your suggestions for HR themed films in the comments below

Edit: Since drafting this blog, I've been made aware of two more, neither of which I've personally seen:

The Human Resources Manager "A tragi-comedy centred on the HR manager of Israel's largest industrial bakery, who sets out to save the reputation of his business and prevent the publication of a defamatory article." according to Imdb

Human Resources - A French film of the late 90s - "Frank, a business school graduate, returns to his provincial hometown to take a management position in the factory where his father has been working for 30 years. First Frank makes the mistake of actually asking the workers on the assembly line for their opinions. Then upper management manipulates his findings to lay off employees." Sounds a little like a Gallic "I'm All Right, Jack".

If you've seen either, why not post a review in the comments below?

• unfair dismissal qualifying period to increase to two years Sounds "employer friendly" but will only knock out a small number of claims and likely to lead to more discrimination related claims (where no service is required)

• compulsory lodging of all claims through Acas, for an attempt at mediation, before they can be lodged with the tribunal Potentially a good idea
• consultation on the introduction of protected conversations, with the proviso that they will not extend to protect discriminatory acts See my blog here on why I think this may be very useful
• a call for evidence, with a view to consultation, on reducing minimum period for redundancy consultation to 60, 45 or 30 days Unlikely to affect small organisations but there are pros and cons on this for both employers and employees.

• options for a 'rapid resolution scheme', to enable simple claims to be settled within three months need to see the detail but can't see how anyone would argue against this in principle
• amendment to s147 of Equality Act 2010, to clarify compromise agreements can be used to settle discrimination claims Great - but putting right a drafting cock-up is hardly a major policy announcement
• complaints about breach of employment contract (Parkin v Sodexho) to be taken out of whistleblowing law This is a rare technicality - but cost one of my clients a lot of money so I have to say this is the one of the things I would have changed
• financial penalties to be introduced on employers who breach employment rights, payable to the Exchequer, subject to a discretion exercisable by Employment Judges Interesting - and need to see the detail - but would seem fair if claimants are also now required to pay.
• a fundamental review of employment tribunal rules of procedure, to include changes to costs and deposit orders Probably a good thing but unlikely to be of interest to most employers or employees
• Employment Judges to sit alone in unfair dismissal cases Not a good thing in my view, the real-life work experience of lay members should be an important factor in tribunal judgements
• CRB checks to be portable, so no need for a fresh application when moving jobs Would seem a good idea and take a lot of admin away from charities and voluntary organisations
• Maternity and paternity leave to be 'modernised', with emphasis on greater involvement for fathers. Need to see the detail of what this means

The sort of thing that it's intended to cover is a situation where an employer has a problem with an employee - let's call him Bill - and says "Bill, as you know we've spoken about your performance/attendance/attitude over the last few months and it unfortunately it hasn't improved. We're now at the point where we need to start disciplinary/capability proceedings which might ultimately lead to your dismissal. However, we are prepared to discuss with you, in a protected conversation, a way which would allow you to leave with some form of settlement, which will avoid us having to take this action. Have a think about it over the next 24/48 hours and if you wish to discuss it further we will be happy to."

Bill then has a choice whether or not to go down the formal process or to negotiate a settlement through a Compromise Agreement. If he chooses the latter and a settlement can't be agreed then none of the discussion is permissible as evidence if he later makes a tribunal claim.

Now some of you reading this might ask how this is different to the current "without prejudice" discussions that employers often have employees. In practice, the answer is probably nothing, although some of legal friends will point out that many conversations that are described as "without prejudice" in these situations don't strictly fall into the definition and technically could be used in legal proceedings.

So, provided the regulations are sensibly drafted, ensuring for example that both the employer and employee have to agree that a conversation is protected, the changes might just be the law catching up with what happens anyway in the real world, but under a more user friendly title. Next thing you know, someone will suggest renaming Compromise Agreements as something like "Compensated No-fault Dismissal"...

In 2011, is the ability to use a word processing package and create a spreadsheet "enhanced IT proficiency"? Primary school children are taught to do this!  Is it any wonder that we have problems with employees' posts on Facebook when apparently all HR people need to know is how to make bullet points appear in sequence in a PowerPoint presentation?

I'm not suggesting that every senior HR professional should spend all their time on Twitter. But "enhanced" skills mean to me that someone understands the different types of social media and can evaluate whether it is an appropriate medium to use; can assess various types of online recruitment strategies and decide which is best for their organisation; or evaluate different HR software packages. Not that they've learnt how to put a graph into a spreadsheet!

"Firstly, there is a fundamental issue that power in the employment relationship usually rests with the employer - this was recognised as far back as Adam Smith. Employment regulation is therefore necessary to balance this - in the same way that consumer protection legislation is designed to protect the rights of consumers.

Secondly, I have yet to see any evidence that employment regulation in itself affects job creation. The study by Kugler (2003) of the more heavily regulated Italian labour market suggests that barriers to setting up in business were of more consequence. Based on my own experience, employers take on labour when they require it and reduce it when they do not.  In the early 2000s, when the economy was booming, the recruitment problems that small companies had were a shortage of affordable skilled labour rather than regulation. Today, I am unaware of any of the organisations I work with who are holding on to staff because of the "fear" of unfair dismissal legislation.

Thirdly, there seems to be a number of comments surrounding maternity leave regulations (and by association other "family friendly" regulations). While it is true that some very small organisations will be inconvenienced by a prolonged period of maternity absence, there is no evidence that maternity regulations as a whole affect job creation. The study by Waldfogel and others (1998) suggested that family leave regulations actually increase the chance that women will return to their employers (rather than leaving the labour market) and there is also a wealth statistical evidence that women's employment has increased significantly over the last 20 years -  the recent TUC report (2011) suggests that men, rather than women, are more likely to lose their jobs in the current recession.

This is not to say that there may or may not be individual employment regulations that can be removed (the last government's Statutory Dismissal procedures, which were rapidly abolished, being a good example), but that opinions on which they are will vary from company to company and industry to industry.   It is the state of the economy and overall business confidence, rather than regulation, which affects recruitment decisions."