How employers can help support Britain's ‘invisible army' of three million carers
EACH week, around three million people clock off from their jobs and start a second, unpaid, role as a carer.
This unsung and often invisible army of helpers keeps the nation functioning, providing vital support to elderly or disabled family members and friends.
3
Estimates vary but between seven to nine per cent of the workforce also have caring responsibilities, with charity Employers For Carers saying that 59 per cent of these are women.
Not-for-profit organisation Carers UK estimates that two-thirds of us will become a carer at some point in our lives, with up to 600 people a day quitting work to do this.
However, juggling such responsibilities with work is a huge challenge.
Studies show that 44 per cent of carers in employment have developed mental or physical health conditions, while a quarter have reduced their working hours in order to cope.
It is Carers Week, with employers being urged to identify carers within their workforce and put support in place to retain them.
Helen Walker, chief executive of Carers UK, said: 'It takes two years on average for someone to identify themselves as a carer.
'As a result, they often don't come forward for support in the workplace and can miss out on vital help.
"This is why we encourage employers to raise awareness among managers and staff.'
This year's Carers Week theme is Caring About Equality, highlighting that those looking after family members or friends face a greater risk of poverty, social isolation and poor mental and physical health.
Helen added: 'One of the main drivers of poverty is the difficulty of combining paid work with unpaid care.
'We are urging more employers to go further in adopting more carer-friendly measures in the workplace and make a difference for those able to juggle work and care.'
One of the main ways employers can support staff is with flexible working.
Research from insurance agency the Phoenix Group found that two in five working carers would not have a job without flexible working.
Alongside this, an increasing number of firms are offering paid carer's leave.
While the Carer's Leave Act 2023 gives employees the right to five days of unpaid leave, Virgin Media O2 offers five paid days while the TSB gives 70 hours each year.
Rumana Akthair is an IT security apprentice for Virgin Media O2 and a carer.
She supports her dad who has mobility issues, a heart condition and diabetes, and also helps her mum, who is a carer herself and lives with arthritis.
Rumana, 35, from London, said: 'Co-ordinating medication, attending appointments and managing day-to-day care requires flexibility, often during working hours.
'However, my employer is incredibly supportive, and with the flexibility afforded, the impact on my work is limited.
'We need broader recognition that caring comes in many forms and can include supporting friends, neighbours and extended family.
'The level of understanding and support has made a real difference, not just to my professional growth, but to my overall wellbeing.'
Nisha Marwaha, a director at Virgin Media O2, said: 'Carers already have a lot on their plates and we want our people to be able to support friends and family without worrying about taking time off work or not getting paid.
'This support is vital to creating an environment where everyone can be their best at work and help their loved ones when they need them.'
Find out more at carersweek.org.
HOW TO BE A CARE CONFIDENT EMPLOYER
Encourage employees to identify themselves as carers. Include questions about caring in staff surveys or enable self-declaration through a self-service HR system or online form.
lAsk carers about their support needs, including what type of help they would like in the workplace.
lUse a clear definition of caring and carers – and include this in workplace policies to encourage take-up of support.
Introduce a carer policy in your company or organisation, outlining in one place all the support available.
Educate managers so they are equipped to identify and support carers in their team. Include caring in manager training and create a line-manager toolkit with guidance on what to do if an employee has caring responsibilities.
PATERNITY LEAVE IS A DAD JOKE
PATERNITY leave in the UK is the worst in Europe, according to campaign group The Dad Shift.
New fathers are entitled to a fortnight off at £187.18 a week, though many firms pay more.
3
Mars UK was recently recognised as our most family-friendly firm, offering dads 26 weeks off at 90 per cent of normal pay.
Ahead of Father's Day, Mars revenue management director Mike Shepard, dad to Sterling, four, and Conrad, seven months, shares his advice for firms to get it right.
EVOLVE WITH THE PARENTING JOURNEY: From navigating school commitments to becoming a grandparent, the parenting journey spans decades, so flexibility isn't a one-time fix, it's a continuous dialogue.
It's one thing having an enhanced parental leave policy, but leaders' active encouragement is key to removing any stigma.
CHAMPION MEANINGFUL LEAVE: Business leaders can lead where policy lags by introducing enhanced time off and normalising fathers to take it.
REDEFINE THE RETURN-TO-WORK EXPERIENCE: Coming back from parental leave isn't about 'slotting back in'. It's an emotional, mental and logistical adjustment.
Start conversations early about flexibility, priorities and working style, leading with what will best suit a family's new reality.
MAXIMISE PERFORMANCE AND WELLBEING: It's hard to support what you don't know, so encourage open dialogue.
Vital to the success of my own team's productivity is them feeling safe voicing what works for them, whether it's flexible hours, hybrid working or changes in responsibility.
USE PEER GROUPS TO DRIVE CHANGE: Internal parenting networks are powerful tools.
Foster these groups to build a community and spark ideas that can drive meaningful change from within.
LOVE ISLE IS A TITLE MYSTERY
LOVE ISLAND, hosted by Maya Jama, is back on our screens and it is not just the hot bods grabbing our attention – but also their day jobs, and what they mean.
Online searches for 'marketing engineer', 'payroll specialist' and 'energy broker' jumped more than 5,000 per cent last week, according to data from jobs forum RateMyApprenticeship.
3
Co-founder Oliver Sidwell says: 'Seeing someone on screen talk about a job you've never heard of sparks curiosity, and that's what we're seeing now.
'Roles like marketing engineer or energy broker are not on the radar for most school leavers, but should be.
"These are well-paid, in-demand jobs and don't always require a university route.'
IT'S BEST TO ASK … AND FAST
JOB applicants should try to ask questions early in an interview to steer it in a direction that plays to their strengths.
That is the advice from Dr George Sik, of psychometric testing firm Eras, as the number of job vacancies in the UK plunged to its lowest level in four years with just 781,000 up for grabs.
As competition for positions intensifies, Dr Sik suggests good questions to put to your potential employer, which include, 'What are the most important goals for this role in the next six to 12 months?', 'What challenges or changes is the team currently navigating?' and, 'What makes someone exceptional in this role, as opposed to just good?'
He adds: 'These questions show initiative and let you reframe the interview.'
But leave it too long into the chat, and Dr Sik warns: 'By that point, it's too late to influence the direction of the conversation.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
39 minutes ago
- Times
Students ‘will spend 25 years on their mobiles'
Students are set to spend 25 years of their life glued to smartphones, a survey of phone use in education predicts. The average person in school, college or university spends five hours and 30 minutes a day on their mobile — and could clock up 25 years of screen time if their habits don't change. For the 4 per cent of students who spend nine hours or more on the phone every day, that rises to 41 years on the device. The research was conducted over the first five months of this year by Fluid Focus, which aims to help people manage their screen time. Its figures are based on a waking day of 16 hours and 72 years of smartphone use from age 11 to 83.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Assisted dying, abortion, grooming gangs...Britain is morally deformed
I've a friend in a nursing home with very bad cancer. Physically, he feels OK, but there are hints of mental confusion. One afternoon we watched a quiz show on a blank television that wasn't turned on. It was proof, he said, that his mind couldn't be going because he got all the answers right. With the passage of Kim Leadbeater's Bill – save a stay of execution in the Lords – he suddenly looks like a candidate for assisted dying, and yet his suffering strengthens the case against. My friend, at this stage, is miserable less because of the tumour than because he's poor – can't afford a home care – and anxious because he wakes up in a strange place and imagines he's been kidnapped. He tells me he is at the centre of a plot by the state to kill the old by driving them mad. Though I assure him that no government is competent enough to pull such a thing off, I'm beginning to wonder if he has a point. Last week, the Commons voted to decriminalise abortion and legalise state-assisted suicide, the latest twist on 'cradle to grave'. Supporters spoke of humanising the law, of continuing the 'progressive' effort begun in the 1960s when abortion was first permitted. But there's a big contextual difference. Social liberalism in a time of economic growth was about increasing choice; today, in a period of austerity, it suggests narrowing options. Can't afford a baby? Terminate it. Worry you might burden the grandkids? Take a seat in the suicide pod. Of course this isn't what MPs meant by voting this way – but when you cut benefits for the elderly and cap them for children, and then make it easier to destroy yourself or your baby, it's hard not to infer a link. People keep saying to me, with a dash of British humour, that the state intends to kill us all to save money. Let's assume this is wrong. Let's call the speculation tasteless. Nevertheless, we have to account for why so many people feel this way, for the historic loss of trust. This is not some opioid-induced fantasy; human beings respond to cues. The third story in the grimmest week of Starmer's premiership was the publication of the Casey report, which confirmed that Asian men raped girls, and that officials declined to act because it might appear racist. This is mind-blowing stuff and shows how morally deformed our establishment now is. It has no coherent understanding of good and evil – in the difference between innocence and guilt – and in its yearning to look good by its own bizarre standard, it permits evil to flourish. In 2025, a person who prays outside an abortion clinic faces arrest. Meanwhile, a foreign-born, convicted rapist might avoid deportation by invoking their human rights. Religion, in fact, barely featured in the assisted dying debate, except to suggest that opponents might be acting under orders from the Pope. This fantasy pays a backhanded compliment to a faith that has been losing its influence for a very long time. As far back as 1937, Cosmo Gordon Lang, the archbishop of Canterbury, abstained in a Lords vote on divorce because he judged it 'no longer possible to impose the full Christian standard by law on a largely non-Christian population'. Christianity defined the West for so many centuries that its loss is experienced as the death of a fixed order, but we mustn't forget that Jesus was a revolutionary who overturned an even older system of ethics. Pagans, who largely felt life was meant to be enjoyed, thought the martyrdom-chasing Christians were nuts. One can see why. They taught that death is not the end, life is a test, and suffering is an opportunity to imitate the crucifixion. For example: the 7th century saint Cuthbert had a best friend, Herbert, and the two men dreamt of spending eternity together. But Cuthbert was a famously holy man, so would pass through purgatory to Heaven fast, whereas Herbert was just a very good man, so, they feared, might take longer – delaying their reunion. How did God fix the problem? He generously gave Herbert a long, painful illness, so that when he died on the same day as Cuthbert, his soul was so cleansed by suffering that they entered paradise at the same time. Weird, isn't it? Yes, but it also seeded into the West the idea that our life belongs to God, that He made us in his image, and this is a foundation for the principle that you can't take away another's life at will. This gradually flowered into rights for women or slaves, the peace movement and abolition of the death penalty. The problem with a commandment, of course, is that it's inflexible: it extends to unwanted foetuses and relatives in pain. Around the 19th century, we detached God from ethics, getting around the 'Thou Shalt Nots' and opening morality up to negotiation. Add individualism, toss in consumerism, and moral action today is contingent upon personality, economics, circumstance. Back when I was a socialist, before religion came into it, I wasn't comfortable with the idea that one unborn baby gets to live because its parents happen to be married and rich, whereas another is aborted because its mother is single and poor. Humanistic morality seemed surprisingly naive about the reality of the human condition, its appetites and deprivations. Looking at my friend in the nursing home, to what possible extent can one say he has 'agency'? I'm not sure he understands his diagnosis. The notion that he might have a chat with Kim Leadbeater, she with a smile and a clipboard in her hand, and make a rational choice to die next Wednesday afternoon is preposterous. The opportunity for error or manipulation is self-evident, yet many cannot, or will not, see it. For anyone who does choose assisted dying, I hope Christians respond with mercy. We are not in charge of Britain, haven't been for a long time, and I'm not sure I'd want to be. The best options left are to witness and accompany, to do the sometimes depressing, occasionally rewarding work of being with people when they go. I enjoy holding my friend's hand. I'd never have done that when he was healthy.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Martine Croxall has just struck a dazzling blow for common sense
A rebellion can take many forms. Sometimes it's an uprising in the streets. Sometimes it's a ballot-box revolt against the status quo. And sometimes – as BBC newsreader Martine Croxall has brilliantly shown – it's just a droll, one-word aside. Croxall struck a dazzling blow for common sense this week by daring to say the unsayable, by giving voice to a word that's become bizarrely verboten in certain circles. What blasphemous term did she utter? Women. It was during an item on the heatwave. Croxall was talking about new research on the number of heat-related deaths Britain might see as the temperature rises. She read the following from her autocue: 'Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, said the aged, pregnant people…'. Then she stopped. Pregnant people? What in the politically correct hell is this? She mutinied against her teleprompter and told the truth. 'WOMEN', she said, with excellent exasperation. Then she carried on. The elderly, pregnant women and people with pre-existing health conditions 'need to take precautions' in the heat, she said. Post-truth baloney put in its place by a woman who's clearly had enough – you love to see it. 'Pregnant people' is one of those Newspeak phrases that is said to be 'trans-inclusive' but which in truth just erases women. The idea is that if we say 'pregnant people', we won't offend that infinitesimally small chunk of womankind that identifies as male. That 'pregnant people' is offensive to many women – not to mention to science and reason – seems not to matter. Let's be honest – 'pregnant people' is a lunatic term. Every single human being who has ever fallen pregnant has been a woman. They can call themselves Tom, Dick or Harry if they like and ask their woke pals to refer to them as 'he'. But they're women, and it isn't offensive to say so. Other 'trans-inclusive' terms include 'chest-feeding' (what we used to call breastfeeding) and 'birthing bodies' – or 'WOMEN!', as Croxall might say, with that righteous irritation shared by many of us. The memory-holing of the word 'woman' to appease the trans lobby is an outrage. It adds up to a sexist scrubbing from the public record of half of humankind. This is why Croxall's quiet vexation and gentle eye-roll as she said the W-word has chimed with so many: because we are sick of seeing the rights of women and the very language of womanhood be sacrificed at the altar of a dumb and dangerous fad. 'I have a new favourite BBC presenter', said JK Rowling. Same, Joanne. Croxall's rage against the autocue, her one-woman, one-word insurrection against correct-think, was as refreshing as a breeze in this heatwave. Some are now worried the BBC might haul her in for a telling-off. They wouldn't dare. Millions of decent folk will seethe if the public broadcaster even thinks about rapping a woman's knuckles for telling the truth.
