Gaming the Gainsharing System

This is just a guess, but I’m going to say the mood throughout Whole Foods break rooms is less than festive this holiday season.

And if the claims made in a new lawsuit prove to be true, you couldn’t really blame the grocery store chain’s employees for not getting into the spirit this year.

Last week, one current and one former employee from a Whole Foods store in Washington, D.C. filed a federal class-action lawsuit claiming the Austin, Texas-based company “engaged in a nationwide scheme to strip hard-working employees of earned bonuses in order to maximize [its] own profit.”

More specifically, plaintiffs Michael Molock and Randal Kuczor assert that a group of managers gamed Whole Foods’ gainsharing program to avoid paying automatic bonuses to departments that came in under budget for the year, as reported by the Washington Post.

According to the lawsuit, the gainsharing program is intended to enable employees in such departments to share in surpluses. The plaintiffs claim, however, that Whole Foods avoided paying by shifting labor costs to other departments without properly accounting for it, as well as by creating “fast teams” comprised of employees who float from one department to another.

The complaint also alleges that company executives knew of the “illicit practice of shifting costs,” which the suit says has impacted as many as 20,000 past and present Whole Foods employees.

In a statement, Whole Foods acknowledges that some sort of bonus program manipulation took place, while maintaining that it was confined to a relatively small number of its stores. Nevertheless, Whole Foods says it is investigating the matter. And, as the Post reports, the organization has already terminated the nine managers known to have been involved.

The plaintiffs are asking for more than to see a few managers fired. The suit seeks $200 million in punitive damages and triple unpaid wages, among other relief, according to the Post.

“Defendants intentionally manipulated the program and illicitly engaged in a nationwide corporate practice of ‘shifting labor costs’ in order to pad its profits,” the suit claims, alleging that this “unlawful” maneuvering effectively wiped out surpluses in certain departments, “thereby robbing hard-working employees of earned bonuses.”

A Spike in Workplace Deaths

In case you missed it, more workers died from on-the-clock injuries in 2015 than in any of the six previous years, though the rate of such deaths has been falling, according to a New York Times report based on data released by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The number of deaths recorded by the BLS in 2015 is 4,836, and that’s the total number of fatal workplace injuries in 2015, the highest since 2008, when such injuries resulted in 5,214 deaths, the paper reports.

But, as the story notes,  “high as the total may seem, the rate of workplace deaths — as a share of every 100,000 full-time equivalent workers — fell slightly from 2014 and has fallen relatively steadily since 2006.”

Among the many breakdowns of the data — men made up 93 percent of all workplace deaths last year, for example — the story notes that older workers (65 and older) died at higher rates last year than their peers in any other age group:

With 650 deaths for those senior workers, 2015 was the second-worst year for the age group since the data was first collected in 1992. Only last year’s total, 684, was larger.

These are some scary statistics for older workers, but the silver lining is that hopefully they make a compelling argument for increased training and worker safety in the coming year for all ages of employees, especially the oldest ones.

 

Empty Nesters’ Emptying Coffers

Full disclosure: I’m a softy when it comes to helping my grown kids. I frequently find myself opening my wallet more than I should, especially during this “giving” holiday. Not that they ask for it, just that I see needs in these lives I cherish, always have, and am probably quicker than most to contribute to the cause.

So I’ve been nagged ever since I came across this release from the SUM180 site about this study by the Boston College Center for Retirement ResearchDo Households Save More When the Kids Leave Home?

The answer to that question appears to be, in the words of SUM180, “not as much as you might think.”

Carla Dearing, the online financial-planning service’s CEO, doesn’t mince words in suggesting why empty nesters are only able to sock away 0.3 percent to 0.7 percent more than they were able to when they had much bigger bills and children in school.

“Among the explanations [are] empty nesters’ continued financial support of adult children,” she says. “Picking up their grown kids’ expenses — student loans, insurance, auto payments, smartphone bills — is a generosity those who have not yet saved enough for retirement can ill-afford.” She goes on to stress that:

“Those in their 50s — typically — are ideally positioned to accelerate their retirement savings: They’re at the peak of their earnings, the mortgage is paid and the kids are finished with college and out of the house. As this is possibly their final chance to ensure their retirement is financially stress-free, directing more into retirement savings must be their top priority.”

OK, I get that. I have been upping my 401(k) contributions fairly regularly. And I’m not picking up my grown kids’ living expenses as a matter of course. But oh is it ever hard to turn my back on those unforeseen needs in their stressed-out lives and the little lives they’re now raising. Yet that’s what Dearing is telling me to do. Get more selfish about my own survival. As her release says:

“Think of it as putting the oxygen mask on your face first. It may feel counter-intuitive, but, after all, your security in retirement is something your children want for you, too.”

I don’t think I’m alone in this baby-boomer weakness, fallacy, foible … call it what you will. And I do think it’s a problem specific to us boomers, not just because of where we are in our lives as parents, but because of where our heads are as parents as well. We’ve always wanted everything for our kids. We’ve always been willing to do everything in our power to see them not just make it, but succeed. How can we now dial this back and take better care of our own retirements? And is there something HR leaders can do to help this along in the workforce?

I put these questions to Dearing. She had some suggestions and observations worth sharing and thinking about:

“Too many boomer parents have a hard time drawing the line when it comes to helping their grown kinds financially, even when their own financial security is at stake. Helping your employees address this issue can have a big impact on their financial wellness, but it’s tricky. Dealing with money is always emotional; this is particularly true when family is involved.

“From an HR leader’s perspective, the challenge is to help employees make decisions about money and their children from a place of clarity and strength, rather than uncertainty and emotion.”

Here’s what she suggests, not just for boomers, but as talking points for the employers trying to help them:

“First, break through the emotional fog with real information. Give employees access to tools that help them get a handle on their own financial situation. You can encourage your employees to read books or attend workshops about communication and boundaries, you can keep trying to ‘educate’ parents about the importance of saving for retirement versus supporting grown kids financially, but in my experience, nothing beats real information for helping parents draw the line with their adult kids financially.

“The truth is, ‘putting on your own oxygen mask first’ is much easier when your eyes are wide open about your own financial shortfalls. When employees have a clear understanding of what they, themselves, need to regain control of financially, their priorities can naturally self-correct. Real information takes the guesswork out of the question, eases the emotional pressure and gives parents a rational framework for deciding whether they can truly afford to help.

“Second, bring the language of business to conversations with grown children about money. Chances are, your employees already know how to navigate business conversations with skill, tact and resolve. Show them that they can apply the same principles to financial conversations with their kids, and that this can go a long way toward defusing the emotion involved and arriving at sound decisions as a family. Some specific tactics worth sharing:

  • If a child wants to borrow money, the parent or parents should set up a meeting dedicated to discussing the loan and nothing else. Keep the meeting free of distractions such as household chores or family activities.

  • The parent or parents should maintain a businesslike tone and attitude throughout the conversation. If a child wants a loan, the parents should require a repayment schedule and an interest rate that they can be happy with.

  • Practice makes perfect. Saying no to one’s kids may never get easy, but it will get easier as they get used to approaching financial conversations in a rational, businesslike way.

“Let me close with a story that I think illustrates these two points. My client, a woman age 49, had a business that was doing fine, but not great. As we worked on her financial plan together, she realized two things: 1) Looking hard and honestly at WHY her business was underperforming, she was forced to admit that her son, the business’ controller, was not the best person for the job, and 2) She had a limited window of opportunity — 10 more years — to save and prepare for retirement. These realizations gave her the push she needed to finally give her son 12 months’ notice. Her son received plenty of time to transition elsewhere and she was able to start growing her business into the source of retirement income she needed it to be.”

Though I’m not running a business, therefore thankfully don’t have to think about firing one of my own kids, I do think having more resolve to “just say no” when my giving spirt goes into overdrive needs to be a New Year’s resolution. Or maybe it’s time to sit down and have that financial talk with them (though I think I’ll wait till after the holidays).

After all, I’ll be handing my retirement reality over to them one day. We should all be on the same page.

What to Expect from Gen Zers

As 2016 winds down, I can only guess at the number of surveys I’ve seen that are connected in some fashion to the subject of millennials. Let’s just say, for argument’s sake, the figure has to be in the hundreds.

thinkstockphotos-605751628Well, could we soon be in store for something similar when it comes to Generation Z?

For now, I’ll just leave that question hanging. But we’ve already seen a fair share of Gen Z predictions and reports over past 12 months, with the latest coming from 8×8 Inc., a provider of SaaS-based enterprise communication tools.

That study, titled “Rogue One: How Generation Z is Going to Bring Balance to the (Work)Force,” surveyed 1,000 full- and part-time Gen Z, millennial and Gen X workers, and found that the work preferences of Gen Zers may, in many ways, align more closely with Gen Xers than millennials. More precisely, the findings suggest that Gen Zers are less tech-dependent than millennials and more similar to Gen X when it comes to adopting high-tech devices and apps in their personal lives. Millennials, the study revealed, are more likely to use wearables (39 percent), connected appliances (35 percent) and virtual reality (24 percent) than Gen Z or Gen X.

What’s more, Gen Zers (200 of the respondents were classified as such) value face-to-face communication more than any other generation, with an emphasis on effectiveness over convenience—a major shift from how millennials prefer to work.

As 8×8 Inc. CMO Enzo Signore explains …

“We found that while millennials have encouraged the workplace to become more technologically advanced and remote-work friendly, Gen Z will bring more balance to the workplace through face-to-face communication and tools that will help them communicate more effectively. We believe this will start to have an impact over the next 12 months.”

That conclusion certainly appears to run somewhat counter to the images of teenagers who can’t seem to take their eyes off of their smartphones.

Most of us, of course, are just beginning to ponder the question: What can we expect from this next wave of workers? So to deepen my own understanding (and hopefully yours as well), I figured who better to ask than Bruce Tulgan, founder of consultancy RainmakerThinking Inc. and an expert on generational diversity issues.

Tulgan says he prefers to define Generation Z as those born between 1990 and 2000 and in the “second wave” of the great millennial cohort. As he explains …

“Gen Zers were small children on 9/11/01. They graduated from high school and [maybe] went through college or university during the deepest and most protracted global recession since the Great Depression. They are entering the workforce in a ‘new normal’ of permanently constrained resources, increased requirements placed on workers and fewer promised rewards for nearly everyone.”

As a whole, he adds, millennials embody a continuation—and Gen Z, perhaps the culmination—of the larger historical forces driving the transformation in the workplace and the workforce since the early ’90s: globalization, constantly advancing technology, the painfully slow death of the myth of job security, the accelerating pace of everything and more.

In many ways, Tulgan says, Gen Zers represent a whole new breed of worker. “Advances in information technology have made them the first generation of true ‘digital natives,’ ” he explains. “They learned to think, learn and communicate in an environment defined by wireless Internet ubiquity, wholesale technology integration, infinite content and immediacy. They are totally plugged in—through social media, search engines and instant messaging—to each other as well as anyone and everyone, and an infinite array of answers to any question at any time.

This second-wave millennials, Gen Zers, will usher in the final stages of the great generational shift.

So what can we expect from this second wave when it comes to institutions?

Tuglan predicts that Gen Zers will never see established institutions as their anchors of success and security. Instead, he says, they will be most likely to turn to their most reliable anchors growing up: hand-held super-computers, proximately powerful grown-ups, and the ability to construct a unique identity—a personal brand—that they can wield in public (mostly on social media) and revel in privately.

The latest study’s findings about Gen Zers being more “balanced” than, say, millennials, “certainly [underscores] the case that interpersonal relationships and in-person communication play very important role[s] for [them],” says Tulgan.

Guess we’ll begin to find out soon enough if these predictions come to pass in today’s (and tomorrow’s) workplace.

Holiday Bonuses Up This Year

the best gift- money. Gifts on wooden background.The holidays will bring a little extra cheer for many workers this season, with two thirds (66 percent) of companies planning to award year-end bonuses and gifts, according to a survey from Challenger, Gray & Christmas. That’s up from 50 percent from Challenger’s 2015 holiday bonus survey.

Another survey, this one from recruiting firm Accounting Principles, finds that 75 percent of companies will award bonuses this year. Thirteen percent of companies will provide bonuses of between $1 and $99, 37 percent  between $100 and $499, 21 percent will provide between $500 and $899, and 29 percent will be awarding their lucky employees $1,000 or more.

Credit the steadily improving economy for the rise in bonuses, says Challenger, Gray & Christmas CEO John Challenger. “As [the economy] continues to improve, employers will have to rely increasingly on bonuses and other perks to hold onto valuable employees,” he said in a statement.

Full results of the Challenger survey below:

Does your company award year-end/holiday bonus, perks or gifts to employees? (Check all that apply)

2016 2015
Yes, we provide a non-monetary gift to all employees (such as gift basket or extra vacation day). 14.8% 6.3%
Yes, we award a nominal ($100 or less) monetary award to all employees (cash or gift certificate). 11.1% 12.5%
We award a monetary bonus to all employees, the size of which is determined by the company’s overall performance throughout the year. 18.5% 18.8%
We award a performance-based year-end bonus to selected employees, the amount of which is determined by individual’s contribution to departmental and/or company-wide objectives. 22.2% 37.5%
No, we do not award any type of year-end/holiday monetary or non-monetary bonus/perk/gift. 29.6% 43.8%
No, we have awarded year-end/holiday bonuses in the past, but we will not be doing so this year due to the economy. 0.0% 0.0%
Other 3.7% 6.3%

 

If your company does award year-end/holiday bonus, perks or gifts to employees, please describe how this year’s distribution differs from last year.

2016
The monetary value of the year-end bonus will increase. 18.2%
The monetary value of the year-end bonus will decrease. 9.1%
The monetary value of the year-end bonus will be about the same as last year. 72.7%
We are reinstituting year-end bonus/perk/gift after one or more years of not offering such awards. 0.0%

 

Source: Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc. ©

Mental Health Conditions and the ADA

Mental healthIn many cases, making reasonable accommodations for employees’ physical conditions should seem straightforward enough.

Provide a hearing-impaired worker with the necessary phone equipment, for example. Allow a blind employee to bring his or her service dog to work. Lower the height of a wheelchair user’s desktop.

Addressing the needs of individuals with mental health conditions—which can be difficult to understand or even recognize—is a bit trickier for employers. Recent history gives us examples (like this one) of how organizations can run afoul of the American with Disabilities Act when dealing with mental health issues in the workplace.

This week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a resource document it hopes will explain workplace protections and appropriate accommodations for employees and job applicants with mental health conditions under the ADA.

Judging by recent EEOC data, many employers could use some guidance in this area.

During fiscal year 2016, the organization resolved nearly 5,000 charges of discrimination based on mental health conditions, and obtained roughly $20 million for individuals with mental health conditions who were unlawfully denied employment and reasonable accommodations. And, EEOC charge data show that claims of discrimination based on mental health conditions are on the way up.

Depression, PTSD & Other Mental Health Conditions in the Workplace: Your Legal Rights is geared toward the individual employee, but can also be instructive for businesses. For instance, the document offers examples of possible accommodations to help individuals with mental health conditions perform their jobs, such as altering break and work schedules (scheduling work around therapy appointments, for example), providing quiet office space or devices that create a quiet work environment, making changes in supervisory methods and granting permission to work from home.

It also outlines scenarios in which employees or job applicants are allowed to keep a mental health condition private, and details situations that permit employers to ask medical questions, including queries surrounding mental health.

“Many people with common mental health conditions have important protections under the ADA,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang, in a statement. “Employers, job applicants and employees should know that mental health conditions are no different than physical health conditions under the law. In our recent outreach to veterans who have returned home with service-connected disabilities, we have seen the need to raise awareness about these issues. This resource document aims to clarify the protections that the ADA affords employees.”

A Surcharge on CEO Pay

In case you missed it, the city council in Portland, Ore., voted last week to impose a surtax on companies whose chief executives earn more than 100 times the median pay of their rank-and-file workers beginning next year.

According to the New York Times piece, the legislation is ground-breaking:

The surcharge, which Portland officials said is the first in the nation linked to chief executives’ pay, would be added to the city’s business tax for those companies that exceed the pay threshold. Currently, roughly 550 companies that generate significant income on sales in Portland pay the business tax.

According to the Times piece, companies must pay an additional 10 percent in taxes if their chief executives receive compensation greater than 100 times the median pay of all their employees, and organizations with pay ratios greater than 250 times the median will face a 25 percent surcharge.

This new surcharge comes along just as companies are preparing to comply with the Security and Exchange Commission’s pay-ratio disclosure rules under the Dodd-Frank Act.

“Portland’s effort to impose pay ratio penalties would raise new issues for public companies already working to comply with the SEC’s pay ratio disclosure rules,” said Mike Stevens, a partner in Alston & Bird’s employee benefits and executive compensation group, shortly before the Portland City Council voted on the matter.

“As companies look to address the mechanics of the pay-ratio rules and prepare early disclosure models,” he said, “it’s important to understand that the SEC has given companies broad leeway in calculating these ratios. If Portland or other jurisdictions decide they are going to impose a penalty based on ratios, we  can expect that companies will take a hard look at the available alternatives and likely will become more aggressive with their method of calculation.”

 

 

Amex Joins Parental-Leave Parade

American Express is the latest to board the parental-leave bandwagon. It is announcing today a significant step up in its 510042321-parents-newbornbenefits, not just to new moms and dads, but to those wishing to be.

The company will be making all of its 21,000 U.S.-based regular full-time and part-time employees (the company has 54,800 employees worldwide) eligible for 20 weeks of paid parental leave beginning on Jan. 1, 2017. In addition, it will be increasing its employee benefits for fertility, surrogacy, adoption and lactation.

Kevin Cox, Amex’s chief human resources officer, calls the step a reflection of the organization’s “continued investment in the overall well-being of our employees and their families.”

The new policy covers women and men welcoming a child through birth, adoption and surrogacy. In addition to the 20 weeks of paid parental leave, birthing mothers will be eligible to receive paid, medically-necessary leave related to the birth of their child, which is generally six to eight additional weeks.

In the words of David Kasiarz, senior vice president of global total rewards and learning at Amex, who I recently reached out to about the reasoning and motivation behind this move:

“In creating our new policy, we took a thoughtful approach. We looked at a variety of published research studies and gathered our employees’ overall thoughts on our current programs. We aimed to be inclusive of the needs of our diverse employee base. Most importantly, we wanted both women and men to feel like they can take the time they need to care for their families and bond with their children.”

He continues:

“Research shows that an increase in paid parental leave has a far-reaching, positive impact on the mental and physical health of employees and their families, as well as women’s career advancement. Better health for our employees and their families is good for them and it’s good for us.”

As mentioned above, “to help ensure employees feel supported from the moment they decide to become parents through their return to work and beyond,” as its release states, Amex is also increasing a variety of existing family benefits. Beginning Jan. 1, U.S.-based employees will be eligible for:

  • Benefits worth up to $35,000 per adoption or surrogacy event (up to a maximum of two events per employee) to help with the cost of surrogacy or adoption;
  • A lifetime maximum of $35,000 for infertility treatment, including advanced reproductive technology procedures, available under the company’s health plans;
  • Free 24-hour access to board-certified lactation consultants; and
  • Free breast-milk shipping while traveling on company business.

Added to all of the above, beginning in January, expectant parents will have access to a parent concierge, who will help employees understand and navigate parental leave and the wide array of parental resources and programs available to them.

Says Kasiarz:

“We have a long history of offering benefits to support [all employees] and continually invest in their overall well-being — it’s our signature cause. We believe these changes to our parental-leave policy are the next steps forward in our journey.”

Amex is certainly not the first to enter the parental-leave fray. A search of this site and our HREOnline.com site features numerous predecessors — “new-economy” companies (such as Microsoft, Amazon and Netflix) and older ones (such as Dow Chemical, Johnson & Johnson, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs). IKEA announced its expansion just last week.

Both searches also offer insights into the challenges still plaguing new working parents and the growing need for companies to find new and better ways to retain them.

As Kasiarz puts it:

” … parenting has changed — traditional parenting responsibilities have evolved and more LGBTQ families are having children. We feel the new policy strikes the right balance between our employees’ and our business’ needs.”

I anticipate — well, certainly hope — we’ll see more and more employers thinking along these lines.

High Anxiety for Plan Sponsors

It’s still unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will take aim at the Department of Labor’s new fiduciary rules, which are slated to go into effect on April 10.  As Joseph Urwitz, a partner in McDermott Will & Emery’s Boston office, told us late last month: “While it’s not possible to predict the future, the new Congress and president may overhaul, eliminate or at the very least delay implementation of the fiduciary rule. Time will tell whether or not any of these moves will come to pass.”

thinkstockphotos-468426388But what we do know is that litigation continues to be very much on the minds of plan sponsors.

This fact received further support earlier this week, when Cerulli Associates, a global research and consulting firm, released the findings of a study—titled “The Cerulli Report: U.S. Retirement Markets 2016”—that found more than half (57 percent) of more than 800 401(k) plan sponsors questioned are concerned about potential litigation.

While much of the litigation has targeted large plans with deeper pockets, the research found that smaller plan sponsors are also paying attention to today’s litigious environment.  Nearly one-quarter of small plan sponsors—those less than $100 million in 401(k) assets—describe themselves as “very concerned” about potential litigation.

As most of you know (and the Cerulli report points out), fee-related lawsuits, in particular, have been something of a theme in 2016, putting added pressure on plan sponsors to find ways to reduce fees. “Plan-sponsor-survey results show that the top two reasons for which 401(k) plan sponsors choose to offer passive (indexed) options on the plan menu are because of ‘an advisor or consultant recommendation’ or because they ‘believe cost is the most important factor,’ ” according to the Cerulli press release. But there is also no denying that lowering the risk of litigation factors into the decision making as well.

The Cerulli report suggests that the rash of litigation that has occurred in recent times is stifling innovation. Jessica Sclafani, associate director at Cerulli, notes that “plan sponsors feel they have little to gain by appearing ‘different’ from their peers due to the risk of being sued. This mindset can make plan sponsors reluctant to adopt new products … .”

New Safety Standard Coming?

Healthcare workers face substantially greater risks of being the victims of workplace violence than employees in other industries. The experience of Rose Parma offers a vivid example of the dangers they face. Parma, a registered nurse in California’s Central Valley, has had patients slap, spit on and kick her and even threaten her life, she tells The Atlantic. During one incident, a patient kicked her so hard in the pelvis that Parma (who was pregnant at the time) slammed into a glass wall and fell to the ground (her baby survived).

The trauma of that incident was compounded by her supervisor’s indifferent response, she said:

“The manager seemed so surprised and said ‘Has this never happened to you? Is this really the first time?’ As if it weren’t a big deal,” Parma says. The manager then told Parma she would see her the next day at work. “I literally thought I was going to die [during the attack], and they didn’t even offer me counseling.”

Employees at hospitals and other healthcare settings are five times more likely than workers in other industries to be physically assaulted in the workplace, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued earlier this year. A report from the American Nurses Association finds that one in four nurses has been physically attacked in the workplace in the last year. Workers in healthcare and social assistance were involved in 52 percent of workplace violence incidents in 2014, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The epidemic of violence may be at least partly attributable to staff cutbacks over the years at hospitals that have resulted in fewer nurses on hand to deal with potentially troublesome patients, including drug addicts seeking help in hospital emergency rooms, according to The Atlantic.

In its report, the GAO suggested that OSHA assess the need for rulemaking to address this hazard. With that in mind, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration has just announced a “request for information” for a new federal safety standard that would lead to greater protections for healthcare workers. The agency has also scheduled a public meeting on January 10 to discuss strategies for preventing violence against healthcare workers.

What would a federal safety standard for healthcare workers look like? California offers a potential example. The state’s workplace-safety agency recently approved what could be the most-robust safety standard in the United States for the prevention of violence against healthcare workers. It would require hospitals and other healthcare employers to develop violence prevention protocols in consultation with their workers. The standard is being reviewed by the state’s office of Administrative Law and could take effect as early as this January.

Two major unions — the California Nurses Association and the Service Employees International Union — say they hope the California standard will become a national model, NPR reports.

“California has now set the bar with the strongest workplace violence regulation in the nation,” said Bonnie Castillo, director of health and safety for the CNA/National Nurses United, in a statement.

However, complying with the new standard will be a serious challenge for the state’s healthcare employers, writes Barnes & Thornburgh employment attorney Evelina Shpolyansky in the National Law Review.

Among other things, Shpolyansky writes, the standard’s definition of workplace violence is “very broadly defined” and includes any threat of violence as well as the violence itself. The standard applies to violence perpetrated by “a wide array of people including visitors, patients, ex-employees, other employees, individuals who had a personal relationship with a worker and even non-facility workers.” The standard broadly defines “healthcare facilities,” which “leaves much room for confusion over what facilities will be covered.” California employers would not be liable for every act of violence against a worker, such as a mass shooting, but could be cited by Cal/OSHA for not following protocols, writes Shpolyansky.

” … The Cal/OSHA standard is by far the strictest occupational safety and health regulation in the country governing workplace violence for healthcare workers and, once approved, will set an extremely high bar for the federal OSHA standards …” she writes.

Regardless of whether or not a federal safety standard is enacted, however, the attacks suffered by Parma and countless other healthcare workers make it plain that something more must be done to ensure their safety.