All posts by Michael J. O'Brien

A Lesson in Bad Management

In the recent wake of the destruction left behind hurricanes Harvey and Irma, we’ve seen countless stories of people in the affected areas following their “better angels” by making decisions that take into account the safety and well-being of others.

This is not one of those stories.

According to the Washington Post, a Pizza Hut franchise in Jacksonville, Fla., posted an ominous flyer for employees in advance of Hurricane Irma:

“To all Team members,” the memo begins, before laying out a policy that dictates that employees cannot evacuate more than 24 hours before the storm and must return within 72 hours. “Failure to show for these shifts, regardless of reason, will be considered a no call/no show and documentation will be issued,” it reads. “After the storm, we need all TM’s available to get the store up and running and serve our communities as needed.”

After the flyer made the rounds on social media and drew the wrath of many, Pizza Hut’s corporate office made a statement on its website that read, in part: “We absolutely do not have a policy that dictates when team members can leave or return from a disaster, and the manager who posted this letter did not follow company guidelines. We can also confirm that the local franchise operator has addressed this situation with the manager involved.”

The situation, unfortunately, is a common one for some workers in the path of inclement weather, as this story highlights.

The Cost of Legislative Compliance

A  new survey out by the Workforce Institute at Kronos finds the cost of legislative compliance for employers could reach up to six figures per rule.

The survey, conducted with Future Workplace, included input from 812 HR and payroll leaders on their views regarding regulatory compliance:

What we heard back is that it can cost organizations as much as $100,000 each time a federal, state, or even local labor-related regulation is created or changed.

Here are the key findings from this research:

    • More than half of HR and payroll professionals (54 percent) surveyed say that, on average, it costs their organization $40,000 to $100,000 to prepare for each labor-related regulatory change. (This cost covers a wide range of activities that varies by organization, including, but not limited to, consulting with legal counsel to create new internal policies; training for HR and payroll employees; educating leaders and managers on the change; wide-ranging employee communications to ensure everyone understands the change, etc.)
    • The cost of compliance keeps going up, too. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of those surveyed say compliance has become more expensive in just the last year, while three-quarters (74 percent) say it’s more expensive than 2007, just a decade ago.
    • While larger organizations are more sophisticated at tracking expenses related to maintaining compliance, one out of every five organizations with fewer than 500 employees (20 percent) surveyed aren’t sure how much the activity of remaining compliant costs annually.

The survey also found that HR needs more support “to identify and implement critical compliance changes.”

  • There’s no one-stop resource to keep up with regulatory changes. Well over half of respondents (59 percent) say they rely on their HR/payroll software vendor/provider to learn about changes, while many also depend on updates from national industry associations (39 percent), their internal legal counsel (37 percent), regional industry associations (35 percent), and legal publications (34 percent).
  • Virtually everyone surveyed (85 percent) says compliance is a guiding principal in their organization’s HR and payroll operations, but just a quarter (27 percent) say it is discussed daily. Just under half (46 percent) of respondents say it’s a weekly conversation, while one-fifth (20 percent) say it’s only addressed monthly.
  • Organizations do recognize the value in training employees to better handle compliance. Nearly two-thirds (61 percent) of the respondents say their boss makes it simpler to obtain training, educational opportunities, and industry certifications to simplify compliance administration.

You can view the full results of the survey here.

Paying Employees in Bad Weather

There’s a great and very timely piece on Jackson Lewis’ website today about the obligations employers face when it comes to paying employees during times of inclement weather (like the ongoing weather situation in Texas):

[I]s an employer legally obligated to continue paying its employees while the business is closed?

That depends.

Following Hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, Sandy, and others, Jackson Lewis addressed employers’ common questions when such natural disasters strike.

The post, written by principals Jeffrey Brecher, David Block, Richard Greenberg and Daniel Jacobs, the piece delves into the intricacies of paying both exempt and nonexempt employees during a weather distruption, and is well worth a read even if your company isn’t currently experiencing any inclement weather.

Who’s Happiest at Work?

When it comes to happiness in the workplace,  the youngest workers may have something to teach the oldest.

According to research carried out by Happiness Works for Robert Half, only 8 percent of 18-to-34 year olds consider themselves to be unhappy at work, less than half the number from the 35 to 49 bracket and those over 55.

Sixteen percent of those in the 35-to-49 bracket considered themselves to be unhappy, while 17 percent in the over-55 category did.

Robert Half’s survey, which included input from 24,000 working professionals across eight countries, found that workers tend to get more jaded as their careers progress, which could have a negative impact on the companies they work for.

“Employees that are aged over 35 have valuable experience that the whole organisation can learn and benefit from,” Phil Sheridan, senior managing director at Robert Half UK said in a statement.

“It’s important that their happiness is not neglected, so businesses need to take the time to invest in their staff at all levels.”

Factors contributing to declining happiness in the workplace include the pressure of taking on more senior roles within a company, a lack of creative freedom, and struggling to strike a healthy work-life balance, the study showed.

Happy workers, the research finds, are more likely to be productive and do good work, with the company citing research from the University of Warwick, which found that happy workers are as much as 12 percent more productive than those who are miserable.

“Happier people tend to care more about their work,” said Nic Marks, the head of Happiness Works. “So they put in greater effort. This also means they are quicker to notice when things are not going right and take action to prevent negative outcomes.”

Want Happy Workers?

A new report by Adecco USA uncovers how employers are experimenting with ways to attract and keep skilled workers happy, with the C-suite considering pay the most important factor.

According to the report, Best in Class Workforce Management Insights,  77 percent of 500 U.S. executives surveyed for the report consider pay to be the top concern when it comes to attracting and retaining workers.

“In this candidate-driven market, the burden is on employers to offer compelling reasons for candidates to join and remain with their organizations. Right now, part of the conversation is centering around wages,” said Joyce Russell, president, Adecco USA.

“While fair pay is a key driver in securing today’s workforce, employers must also make predictions and be nimble in adopting new solutions as the meaning of ‘Best-in-Class’ continues to evolve,” Russell added.

Among the other findings in the report:

  • 77 percent of executives believe pay is the most important factor to employees.
  • More than half of respondents offer health insurance and 401(k) packages to salaried employees, and 40 percent say they now also offer “softer” benefits, like flexible schedules.
  • 47 percent of employers do not prioritize hard or soft skills over the other when vetting a job candidate, and they weigh a candidate’s happiness as early as the interviewing phase.
  • Less than half of employers are offering education courses to their employees, but 61 percent believe mentorships are of importance in determining employee happiness.

You can download the full report here.

A Bill to Limit Microchipping

Just when you thought it was safe to go to work…

Pennsylvania State Rep. Tina Davis (D., Bucks) recently introduced a bill that would prohibit private employers and government entities in Pennsylvania from requiring employees to have microchips implanted in their bodies as a condition of their employment, according to this piece on Philly.com.

Davis floated her bill in response to news stories of a Wisconsin vending machine company asking its employees to voluntarily have an encrypted microchip inserted in their hands to log in to computers, use copiers, open office doors, and operate snack machines while at work. (We wrote about the topic here and here.)

According to Philly.com, Davis’ proposed Employee Subdermal-Microchip Protection Act would allow surgically implanted microchips only if workers made their own decision. It would require the state Department of Labor and Industry to investigate workers’ claims that they were victims of retaliation for refusing to get a chip. It also would impose fines for companies that violate the would-be law.

“My legislation will require that any employer that offers a microchip, or any kind of subdermal device to be implanted for use during the employee’s work, must make it a voluntary decision,” Davis wrote in a July 28 memo to the House of Representatives.

“An employee’s body is their own and they should have the final say as to what will be added to it. My bill will protect employees from being punished or retaliated against for choosing not to have the subdermal microchip or other technological device implanted. As technology advances, we need to make sure we provide employee protections that keep up with these advances and do not allow employers to have control over their employees’ bodies.”

A Warning to Employers

The Third Circuit’s recent decision that a single use of a racial slur, rather than pervasive conduct, can sustain a workplace harassment claim sends a clear warning to employers to preempt potential liability by providing training to prevent even single-serve incidents from happening in the first place, according to a recent post on Law360.

The Third Circuit’s ruling stems from a lawsuit brought by Atron Castleberry and John Brown against staffing agency STI Group over their experiences after being assigned to work as general laborers for Chesapeake Energy Corp. The new ruling clarified that the standard to be met for asserting a valid harassment claim was whether the treatment they faced, which included a supervisor’s use of the N-word, was either severe or pervasive.

The court clarified the standard after a trial court had thrown out the case after concluding the workers had to show their treatment had been pervasive and regular.

“I think what a case like this, at least from my perspective, really sets forth for employers is the importance of training on harassment prevention in the workplace and making sure your employees — certainly managers, but ideally everyone — know that even a single comment may now be enough to create liability for the organization,” said Duane Morris LLP partner Michael Cohen.

For more details on the case and the ruling, click here (subscription required).

Comment Period Begins for OT Rule

The Department of Labor is expected to publish today in the Federal Register its anticipated Request for Information on its overtime rule.

As you may recall, the rule was blocked last November by a Texas federal judge before it would have expanded overtime protections to over 4 million workers, by more than doubling the annual salary level at which workers must be compensated for overtime pay, from $23,660 to $47,476. There will be a 60-day public comment period following tomorrow’s Request for Information.

Seyfarth Shaw attorney Alexander Passantino, former acting administrator of the Labor Department’s wage and hour division, and current partner in the D.C. office of the firm, writes in a blog post that the issues the DOL seeks comment on include whether the 2004 salary test should be updated based on inflation, and if so, which measure of inflation; whether duties test changes would be necessary if the increase was based on inflation; and other questions.

The issues on which the Department seeks comment, according to Passantino’s post, are:

  • Should the 2004 salary test be updated based on inflation? If so, which measure of inflation?
  • Would duties test changes be necessary if the increase was based on inflation?
  • Should there be multiple salary levels in the regulations? Would differences in salary level based on employer size or locality be useful and/or viable?
  • Should the Department return to its pre-2004 standard of having different salary levels based on whether the exemption asserted was the executive/administrative vs. the professional?
  • Is the appropriate salary level based on the pre-2004 short test, the pre-2004 long test, or something different? Regardless of answer, would changes to the duties test be necessary to properly “line up” the exemption with the salary level?
  • Was the salary level set in 2016 so high as to effectively supplant the duties test? At what level does that happen?
  • What was the impact of the 2016 rule? Did employers make changes in anticipation of the rule? Were there salary increases, hourly rate changes, reductions in schedule, changes in policy?  Did the injunction change that? Did employers revert back when the injunction was issued?
  • Would a duties-only test be preferable to the current model?
  • Were there specific industries/positions impacted? Which ones?
  • What about the 2016 provision that would permit up to 10% of the salary level to be satisfied with bonuses? Should the Department keep that? Is 10% the right amount?
  • Should the highly compensated employee exemption salary level be indexed/how? Should it differ based on locality/employer size?
  • Should the salary levels be automatically updated? If so, how?

“Of course, the value of these responses ultimately is dependent on the Fifth Circuit’s decision on whether the salary test is permissible to begin with,” Passantino writes. “Should the Fifth Circuit rule in the Department’s favor on that issue, the RFI responses will provide the Department with the information it needs to proceed on a new rulemaking adjusting the salary level . . .  assuming the employer community responds.”

Working Hard or Hardly Working?

Professionals surveyed by staffing firm OfficeTeam said they squander an average of 56 minutes per day, or the equivalent of nearly five hours a week, using their mobile device for non-work activities in the office. In contrast, senior managers estimate their staff members spend 39 minutes each day on their cell phones during business hours.

Workers also admitted to clocking 42 minutes a day on personal tasks. All in all, the average employee could be wasting more than 8 hours per work week on activities unrelated to the job, according to OfficeTeam.

“It’s understandable that employees may occasionally use their mobile devices or attend to personal tasks during business hours. But these activities can easily become big distractions,” said Brandi Britton, a district president for OfficeTeam. “To best manage their time, staff can take advantage of breaks during lunch and throughout the day to catch up on non-work email or errands.”

(View an infographic of the research and data tables with breakdowns of the results by gender and age.)

Additional findings:

  • Employees ages 18 to 34 rack up 70 minutes on mobile devices and 48 minutes on personal tasks each work day, the most of all age groups.
  • While 62 percent of managers think staff spend the most time on social networks when using their own mobile devices during business hours, workers said they’re most occupied by personal email (30 percent).
  • Male employees most frequently check non-work email on their cell phones (32 percent), while females browse social networks more (33 percent).
  • Workers reported social media (39 percent) and entertainment websites (30 percent) are most commonly blocked at their companies. Nearly half of respondents (48 percent) indicated their organization doesn’t restrict access to online content.
  • More than half of professionals (58 percent) often use their personal devices at work to visit pages that are banned by their company, a 36-point jump from a 2012 survey. Only 39 percent of managers think it happens that commonly.
  • Sixty-eight percent of male workers frequently use their cell phones to access blocked websites in the office, compared to 43 percent of females.

 

Improving the Candidate Experience

A new CareerBuilder study outlines the complex perceptions, attitudes and behaviors of both candidates and hiring managers to better help employers identify and address where they fall short in their current candidate process.

CareerBuilder’s 2017 Candidate Experience study included 4,512 workers ages 18 and over, and 1,500 hiring decision makers. (You can view full results and the executive summary here.) The study’s results show what peers and competitors have identified as shortcomings in their process, illustrate the role for technology to help improve the process and provide tips to make things easier for employers and prospective employees.

According to CareerBuilder, here are some aspects employers are struggling with:

  1. Not having a quick apply process for every device: The application process itself can contribute to a negative experience for modern candidates as “applications taking too long” (28 percent), “having to customize documents for every job” (34 percent) and “uploading a resume into a system but still having to manually fill out fields” (29 percent) are reiterated as frustrating aspects of the process by a considerable amount of candidates.
  2. Not preparing hiring managers: On average, only 2 out of 5 hiring managers are prepped by recruiters or talent acquisition specialists. Of those who do, only 2 out of 5 prep hiring managers specifically on the topic of candidate experience. This means only 16 percent of hiring managers overall are prepped by specialists to help manage the candidate’s experience.
  3. Not having an effective career site: An employer’s career site is important for getting key information, according to 89 percent of job seekers. But a quarter of employers (24 percent) say their company career site doesn’t accurately portray what it’s like to work for their organization, and only 45 percent of candidates say they can typically tell what it would be like to work for a company based on their career site.
  4. Not tailoring communications methods to specific segments: The ever-emerging multigenerational workforce demands a shift in the way we communicate. Millennials significantly prefer email communications (57 percent) over phone calls (31 percent), whereas boomers significantly prefer phone calls (58 percent) over emails (37 percent). Gen Xers have equal preferences towards email and phone calls (47 percent for both). Further, millennials are 2-3 times more likely to prefer alternative communication methods (text messaging, social media messaging and video calling) compared to Gen X and baby boomer generations.
  5. Not recognizing when the employee experience really begins: The lines between the candidate and employee experience are blending – at least in the eyes of candidates, as 3 in 4 say their candidate and onboarding experience with a company is the first part of their broader employee experience with that company.
  6. Not building relationships with candidates for future opportunities: The most valuable resource an employer has is their talent pool. While it is important to attract the top candidates, it is equally as important to frequently and effectively communicate with your talent pool, but more than a third of employers (35 percent) say they don’t put time into doing this.
  7. Not having an efficient background check process: Employers that want to keep top talent from talking to other companies while they want to receive employment screening results should improve their screening process. Sixty percent of candidates continue communicating and interviewing with other companies while waiting on background results.
  8. Not having the right ATS or an ATS at all: Organizations currently utilizing an ATS (applicant tracking system) reported placing more emphasis on the candidate, employee and hiring manager experiences. For example, those who currently use an ATS are 25 percent more likely to have a standardized process to help deliver a consistent candidate experience.
  9. Not informing the candidate where they stand: More than half of job seekers say employers don’t do a good job of setting expectations in terms of communication at the beginning of a potential hiring interaction. Eighty-one percent of job seekers said continuously communicating status updates to candidates would greatly improve the overall experience.
  10. Not staying connected with candidates once they have accepted the position: Once the hiring process is in the post-acceptance and onboarding stage, the expectation is for the process to be seamless and frustration-free for new hires – yet a noticeable number of candidates say this stage has not been ideal. Two in 5 candidates (40 percent) say they’ve experienced a lack of communication in the past between when they accepted the job and their first day of work. This is not surprising, since less than half of employers (47 percent) have a formal process in place for communicating and interacting candidates between the time the day they accepted the job and the day they start work.
  11. Not paying attention to how their employer presence/brand is portrayed on social media: Employers are trying to reach an audience, and they can’t afford to let their brand’s social media pages fall by the wayside. Yet, 60 percent of employers don’t monitor their employer presence/brand on social media. Of those who do, 68 percent take steps to encourage positive reviews while 16 percent just react to negative information.
  12. Not treating candidates with the same respect as employees: While the majority of employers (51 percent) say the line is blurring between the company experience and employee experience, less than half of job seekers (49 percent) say employers treat candidates with the same level of respect and accountability as current employees. This is an issue since the vast majority of job seekers (nearly 4 in 5) say the overall candidate experience is an indicator of how a company values its people.

“A positive candidate experience is a competitive advantage in a job market where candidates have flexibility in their job selection,” said Rosemary Haefner, chief human resources officer at CareerBuilder. “To remain competitive and create a candidate experience that attracts, secures and retains today’s top talent, you need to determine how your current hiring methods measure up to what candidates are looking for.”