In the news this week, it has been suggested that employers make financial guidance available in the workplace to offer staff general advice on personal finance. Quentin Colborn considers this view from an HR perspective.

Insurance chief Otto Thoresen has been appointed by the economic secretary to the treasury to carry out a review examining the feasibility of delivering a national approach to generic financial advice.

The aim is to ensure that there is greater access to high quality, affordable financial advice for those most vulnerable to the consequences of poor financial decision-making. One of the recommendations is that more financial guidance is available through work.

This recommendation poses the basis question of ‘what is the employer there for?’ To my mind, the questions needs to be reversed into clarifying what the employee is there for. Employees and employers enter into a relationship whereby the employee works and the employer pays them – and looks after them insofar as it relates to work.

Years ago, employers would take greater ‘care’ of employees and, in some cases, provide for their every need. However this led to abuses such as the issuing of truck to ensure employees purchased food through the employer’s stores.

Too much involvement?

So should employers become involved in employees’ day-to-day lives? I think not for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is the all prevalent fear of litigation. Like it or not, we are now in a highly litigious culture and there is a risk that an employee who receives advice that proves to be faulty may turn against the employer. In these days of financial instability that risk has to be there and is unlikely to fade away.

Secondly, we must ask if employers have the resources, either practically or in terms of knowledge, to provide proper advice about managing finance. While many may have a training room or meeting rooms, I doubt if many have staff with the necessary expertise to deliver training or information sessions. If the expertise is not available in house, presumably services would have to be bought in – at what cost and on whose account?

Thirdly, one must ask why we think people should have financial advice provided to them anyway. Okay, many people cannot manage their finances properly, but does that mean the state or the employer should step in?

Take another example. Most people need, and want, to drive but it is well recognised that it is a personal responsibility to privately fund this type of learning. So why should finance training be any different? We all earn and possess money so why should we not take responsibility for it?

If the idea is progressed, it would be interesting to see where the end of the concept stops. Many employers have staff off on maternity, paternity or parental leave, so how many employers provide training in parenthood? Very few I would think, nor do I think it is the role of the employer to do so.

So where does this all end? My view is that where there is a direct linkage between the training needed and the job role or employer, then it is reasonable for the employer to be involved, but that is where the line has to be drawn.

Many employers do have a backstop position in that they provide an EAP which gives employees who need it support during financial and other personal crises. That is important, but surely that is where the support needs to stop.

What is your view of the level of involvement between employees and employers? Where should we draw the line? Have you ever been involved in providing what might be termed extra-curricular support for employees? Let us hear your views and experiences.

Quentin Colborn is an independent HR consultant based in Essex who advises management teams on operational and strategic HR issues. Quentin can be contacted on 01376 571360 or via Quentin@qcpeople.co.uk. For further information, please visit: www.qcpeople.co.uk.