"Keep your hands off my egg salad sandwich!"

It never fails. Every six months or so, HR is forced to send an e-mail that reads something like this:

"It has been brought to our attention that food is missing from the refrigerators in the Lunch Rooms. It is our hope that this is an isolated situation and will cease from occurring. Please be sure the food you take from the refrigerator is yours, and if it does not belong to you, that you not take it."

Every time I receive this e-mail, I am appalled that 1) coworkers would swipe each other's food and 2) HR has to remind a group of adults not to swipe each other's food.

What possesses someone to sneak into a lunch room, rummage through the refrigerator (looking over his or her shoulder the entire time) and then snatch another person's lunch? "Hmmmm, what am I craving today? Let's see ... an apple, a PB&J sandwich, a bag of corn chips ... ooooh, what's this, leftover lasagna? Yummy!"

I know times are tough and we're watching every penny, but c’mon. I would think most of us holding down full-time jobs can afford to pack lunches or go out for a midday meal. And if it's a case of the munchies, surely you have a few quarters laying around for a sweet or salty snack from the vending machines (which are located right next to the refrigerators reserved for food that's already spoken for!).

And while I've never been the victim of a ham-sandwich heist, I know how upset I'd be to find my lunch missing. Not only would I be irritated because I'm starving, my blood sugar is plummeting and my lunch is nowhere to be found, but I'd also seriously question the judgment of my coworkers. If someone is capable of lifting a lunch, what else is considered "fair game"? Do I have to worry about Bill or Sandra visiting my office and "borrowing" a pen, a few paper clips or the frames around my family photos? Shouldn't we be able to assume "what's mine is mine" and that someone's workspace is not an office supply closet - and a communal refrigerator is not an open buffet?

Again, I don't know what's worse: someone pilfering another’s chicken panini - or HR reminding employees to keep their hands off my brown bag!

"Keep your hands off my egg salad sandwich!"

EEOC has beef with meatpacking company that violated civil rights of Muslim workers

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined that the U.S. unit of Brazilian meatpacking giant JBS SA violated the civil rights of more than 100 Muslim Somali workers in plants in Colorado and Nebraska, unlawfully harassing them and firing them based on their religion.

According to the Reuters article,

"The dispute began last year during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan when the
workers walked off the job after managers denied them a prayer break at sunset.

Supervisors had initially agreed to adjust work schedules to accommodate
the requests by Muslim workers but later reversed their decisions after
non-Muslim workers protested the changes.”

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, country of origin, race and color), employers must reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer. Some reasonable religious accommodations that employers may be required to provide workers include leave for religious observances, time and/or place to pray, and ability to wear religious garb.

Yet in the past 15 years, claims of religious discrimination filed with federal, state and local agencies have doubled – spiking a record 15% in 2007. Perhaps as surprising, these numbers are growing faster than claims based on race or gender.

With workplace disputes over religion on the rise, it’s essential that you include diversity awareness and training in your anti-harassment initiatives. Be certain you’re taking active steps to prevent religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace and when necessary, are accommodating employees’ religious beliefs and practices.

EEOC has beef with meatpacking company that violated civil rights of Muslim workers

Courts "weigh" in on controversial employee lawsuit involving injury and obesity

“An Indiana court has ruled that a pizza shop must pay for a 340-pound employee's weight-loss surgery to ensure the success of another operation for a back injury he suffered at work,” says the Huffington Post.

Under the Indiana court’s ruling (and an earlier decision by the state’s worker’s compensation board), Boston’s The Gourmet Pizza must pay for lap-band surgery for the plaintiff. The employee, who weighed 340 pounds at the time of the accident in March 2007, was accidentally struck in the back by a freezer door. He was told by doctors that he needed surgery to alleviate his severe pain, but for the surgery to be successful, he’d first need to lose weight (which rose to 380 pounds after the accident).

While his employers agreed to pay for the back surgery, they declined covering the recommended $25,000 weight-loss operation, pointing out that the employee was already obese before the accident. The courts saw it differently, however. They concluded that the surgery should be covered, since the employee’s weight and the accident had combined to create a single injury.

"There's actually a string of cases across the country that have reached similar conclusions," says the employee’s attorney, Rick Gikas. He cites cases in Ohio, California, Oregon, Florida and South Dakota, including some dating back to 1983.

As you might imagine, cases like these are especially concerning for employers – on both a legal and an emotional level. One, because of the cost implications with workers’ compensation claims and court cases. And two, because it’s easy to conclude that obesity is the employee’s “fault” and that it’s not fair for an employer to foot the bill for expensive weight-loss procedures.

But are these concerns significant enough to influence how you treat overweight individuals in the workplace – not hiring an obese candidate, for example?

"Legally, you cannot refuse to hire this 350-pound person because they're 350
pounds. That's illegal. But you might find some other reason not to hire them,"
says Tom Lynch, CEO of Lynch, Ryan & Associates, a consulting firm that
helps businesses manage workers’ compensation.

With one-third of Americans now considered obese (a body mass index of 30 or more), weight (and weight bias) in the workplace are issues that can’t be ignored. After all, what an employer might overlook or dismiss with obesity-related issues, the courts will not.

Courts "weigh" in on controversial employee lawsuit involving injury and obesity

Dethroned former Miss California USA sues for religious discrimination

It’s been said that, “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” And with former Miss California USA Carrie Prejean suing pageant officials this week, so are claims of religious discrimination. Prejean is suing for libel, slander and religious discrimination, asserting that officials told her to stop mentioning God even before her controversial comments regarding gay marriage.

Prejean was fired from her position as Miss California USA in June, just months after the Miss USA Pageant where she spoke out against same-sex marriage. When asked whether she believes in gay marriage, she replied:

“We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you
know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a
marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there,
but that's how I was raised."

Was it this response that cost Prejean her crown – and ultimately led to her firing? While pageant co-director Keith Lewis claims Prejean’s termination was due to violation of contract (specifically, unwillingness to make public appearances), Prejean’s attorney, Charles LiMandri, says otherwise. He states:

“Over the past two months we have worked hard to provide overwhelming evidence
that Carrie Prejean did not violate her contract with Miss California USA and
did not deserve to have her title revoked by Keith Lewis. We will make the case
that her title was taken from her solely because of her support of traditional
marriage. Keith Lewis has refused to clear her good name or even to admit any
wrongdoing. Therefore, Carrie Prejean is left with no alternative but to take
her case to court where she expects to be fully vindicated.”

Do you think Prejean has a legitimate case here? Was she truly wronged for expressing her traditional religious beliefs? Or is this a carefully orchestrated publicity stunt that will meet its demise in court?

Regardless of your opinion of the “fallen” beauty queen, when it comes to religion in the workplace, the law is clear: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Yet in 2009, EEOC received 3,273 charges of religious discrimination, resolving more than 2,700 of these charges and recovering $7.5 million in damages.

As an employer, you must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs and take active steps to prevent religious discrimination and harassment in the workplace. Start with a careful review of the current laws and your internal policies and procedures. Then, be sure you’re holding all employees and managers accountable for adhering to these policies.

Dethroned former Miss California USA sues for religious discrimination

Gerber to pay $900,000 settlement for discriminatory hiring practices

Gerber Products Company in Fort Smith, Ark. will pay $900,000 in a hiring discrimination suit involving 1,912 minority and female applicants rejected for entry-level positions, according to an announcement from the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

From the announcement:

During a scheduled compliance evaluation of Gerber Products in Fort Smith, OFCCP investigators found the hiring disparity was in part caused by inconsistent selection procedures for entry-level positions. Additionally, OFCCP found that Gerber used pre-employment tests that negatively impacted minority applicants and determined that there was insufficient evidence of validity to support Gerber's use of the test. Gerber has discontinued its use of the test in the hiring process for entry-level positions.

The test that Gerber used was the TABE, or Test of Adult Basic Education – a test that is primarily used by adult education centers to evaluate a student’s reading and math skills. Elizabeth Todd, spokeswoman for the Labor Department at Dallas, said the aptitude test, with its pass-or-fail results, “significantly impacted minorities.”

In addition to paying $900,000 in back pay and interest to the applicants, Gerber will:

• Provide 61 entry-level positions (11 of whom have already been hired)
• Undertake extensive self-monitoring measures to ensure they fully comply with the law when hiring, and promptly correct any discriminatory practices
• Comply with Executive Order 11246 recordkeeping requirements

Employers can learn a few lessons from this case, most notably that the OFCCP, which is “responsible for ensuring that contractors doing business with the Federal government do not discriminate and take affirmative action”, can be a strict enforcer of employment discrimination laws. The agency monitors federal contractors to ensure they provide equal employment opportunities without regard to race, gender, color, religion, national origin, disability or veterans’ status.

Further, because recipients of federal funds must adhere to specific information reporting and auditing requirements, their hiring practices can fall under even tighter scrutiny with the OFCCP than with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Proper training for your hiring managers is essential, including a careful review of the tests and practices used to screen and select applicants for hiring.

“This settlement … should put all federal contractors on notice that the Labor Department is serious about eliminating systemic discrimination,” said Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis.

Gerber to pay $900,000 settlement for discriminatory hiring practices

Advice for HR in the new economy

How will you handle HR in the new economy? Outsourcing, secret identities, improved strategies, joining the circus?

Here's some advice from some of the most promising human resource professionals of the future:

Advice for HR in the new economy

Seen the HR Bobbleheads yet?

What would your company look like if it were staffed entirely of bobbleheads? One small tech company in suburban Pennsylvania decided to try it out and put the whole thing on video.

The latest HR Bobbleheads episode examines the differences between the interviewing norms 50 years ago and interviews today. Take a break for a few minutes today and check out some of the previous episodes. They’re funny enough that even the evilest of HR ladies will be cracking a smile.

HR Bobbleheads - Episode 5: Interviews Then & Now from HR Bobbleheads on Vimeo.

Seen the HR Bobbleheads yet?

Supreme Court limits worker age-bias suits

The Supreme Court handed down a verdict late last week that would give businesses more strength in employee lawsuits alleging age discrimination.

Employees now bear the burden of proving that age was a dominant factor in his or her firing or demotion in order to win a case. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), employees have the burden of proving that age was the “but-for” cause of an employer’s adverse decision.

With age-discrimination lawsuits growing at an alarming rate, the 5-4 ruling (Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.) is considered a win for businesses that face age-bias lawsuits. Before last week, workers had to show only that age was a factor in the decision.

"The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. He added this legal rule applies "even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor."

Karen Harned, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said the opinion would help companies defend against age-bias claims. "Requiring claimants to show direct evidence that age played a substantial role in the challenged employment decision is the appropriate and fair standard," Ms. Harned said. (Wall Street Journal)

Since the U.S. economy began to slide downward, age discrimination claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have increased by 29%, a jump from 19,100 in 2007 to more than 24,500 in 2008. (Washington Times)

This case involved a lawsuit brought against FBL Financial Group by Jack Gross, under the ADEA. Gross claimed that FBL violated the ADEA when he was demoted and some of his prior responsibilities were given to a younger worker.

Supreme Court limits worker age-bias suits

Employers brace for 2010 healthcare cost hike

It’s estimated that U.S. employers will see a 9 percent jump in healthcare costs in 2010 and workers will be footing more of the bill, according to an annual trend report by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

The annual medical costs trends report also revealed that workers are more likely to utilize their health insurance coverage out of fear that they will loose their jobs. More uninsured and underinsured people are expected to turn to Medicaid for health coverage.

The rise in healthcare costs may be offset partially by cost declines associated with U.S. health care reforms and the potential for high deductible health plans and wellness programs, according to PwC.

Of the 500 employers surveyed by PwC: 



• 42% plan to increase their workers’ share of healthcare costs in 2010, and
• 41% said they would change the design of health care plans to increase medical cost sharing.

The study comes at a time when new health-reform legislation is heating up congressional hearings. President Obama has pledged to push his plans to revamp health-care regulation through Congress and Senate hearings this summer. Before anything is approved, it will be up to employers to manage rising costs.

"Employers are squeezing dollars out of their programs to save money," Mike Thompson, principal at PricewaterhouseCoopers global human resource solutions group, said in a statement.

"As the economy recovers, employers will refocus on more sustainable longer term approaches to medical cost containment based on an increasingly shared interest between employers and their workers." (Reuters)

What is your company doing to offset the rise in healthcare costs? Please leave a comment and let us know.

Employers brace for 2010 healthcare cost hike

Are you prepared to handle flu-related HR issues?

As the World Health Organization (WHO) raises the alert level of the H1N1 flu virus (aka. swine flu), employers’ concern over how an outbreak could affect their businesses has seemingly tapered off.

The WHO officially declared the H1N1 flu virus a pandemic on Thursday by raising the threat level of the virus to Phase 6. The pandemic status of the virus doesn’t mean that it is more dangerous, but that it has infected people in more countries. The Phase 6 threat level means community-level outbreaks have hit more than one continent.

News coverage surrounding swine flu has calmed down and so seems employers’ concern regarding any danger the illness may pose to their organizations. Approximately two in five employers (41%) do not have a human resources policy in place for health-related emergencies, although they have employees working in areas with confirmed swine flu (or Influenza A) cases, according to a survey by Mercer.

“With the continued increase of reported cases of Influenza A [swine flu], it is important for employers to develop a plan for dealing with the myriad HR issues that can arise in the event of a pandemic or other health care emergency,” said Danielle Dorling, a consultant in Mercer’s HR effectiveness consulting business. “In particular, organizations with a global workforce and decentralized HR units need to have a coherent procedure in place for employee care in the event of a health emergency.” (Mercer press release)

Among the key survey findings:

• 53% of the employers surveyed were considering whether to create back-up and contingency plans in response to the outbreak
• 43% said they planned to restrict or cancel business travel
• 41% said they planned to allow employees to work at home
• 27% opted for voluntary quarantine for employees exposed to risk
• 24% enforced quarantine on employees judged at risk
• 24% indicated they were taking no special actions.
  

Employers also said they would cancel meetings, screen staff members returning from travel, require medical check-ups and review health or insurance plans as a result of the recent swine flu outbreak.

“Business continuity plans should be standardized and employers must be able to communicate in a streamlined, swift and decisive fashion,” Dorling said. “Ad-hoc reaction can lead to confusion, unnecessary panic and expensive global inconsistencies that can expose the organization to significant financial risk.”

In April, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano asked private employers to do their part in helping the federal government protect workers from the illness, saying that employers should be thinking ahead about what they would do if affected by swine flu or other contagious diseases.

Before you create policies and procedures regarding the spread of viral infections in your workplace, there are a few legal and ethical issues to consider. Employers should know the rights of exposed employees, if they can order employees to go home and how the Americans with Disabilities Act could come into play, among a list of other important questions.

G.Neil’s free “Flu in the Workplace” white paper explains the answers to those questions along with information on how to protect your employees and business from serious contagious diseases.

Are you prepared to handle flu-related HR issues?

Time-sheet cheating creates unnecessary costs

About one in five hourly employees admits to cheating on their time sheets to receive extra pay from their employers, according to a new survey conducted by Harriss Interactive and commissioned by The Workforce Institute.

While it’s hardly a new problem for employers, the rate at which time-sheet cheating is happening should be raising a few red flags that the problem is growing.

Of those who said they admitted to cheating on their time sheets:

• 69% admit to punching in earlier or punching out later than scheduled
• 22% admit to adding additional time to their time sheet
• 14% say that they don’t punch out for unpaid lunches or breaks
• 5% admit to having someone else punch them in or out

About 35% of survey respondents said their employers use paper time sheets to keep track of employees’ time, a practice that could be putting companies at risk for significant payroll inflation.

Organizations that use manual time and attendance tracking systems generally run up unnecessary payroll costs of roughly 1.2% of their total payroll costs because of inaccurate application of payroll rules and human errors, according to a Nucleus Research report.

Remember, the survey only discovered how many employees “admit” to cheating on their time sheets at work, suggesting that the actual number of time-sheet cheats is much higher.

Fortunately, businesses can do something to fight unnecessary payroll costs by moving away from outdated or mechanical employee time-tracking systems. Automated time-tracking tools can prove to be significantly more efficient than any paper-based payroll system.

With the vast number of options out there, it’s possible for businesses of any size to find an automated time-tracking tool that fits their needs. From basic software systems that electronically track who’s on the clock or not, to more advanced solutions that turn any PC into a time clock station, automated employee time tracking can lower costs and reduce payroll errors.

Ensure hourly employees are being paid for the time they work and limit the risk of costly payroll mistakes by taking control with an updated timekeeping system.

Time-sheet cheating creates unnecessary costs

How employees aim to impress during tough times

As eight out of ten companies continue to cut labor costs by such means as reducing salaries, worker hours and job perks, many employees are taking extra steps to ensure their jobs aren’t part of those cuts.

A recent Randstad survey revealed exactly how employees aim to impress their bosses and improve their job security during times of economic unrest. While some employees are willing to put in the extra work to make a good impression, most won’t take it much farther than working some overtime.



Some key findings of the survey include:

• Only 47 percent are willing to work overtime to impress their boss in order to create more job security for themselves


• Only 37 percent reported a willingness to come in early or stay late to impress their bosses


• Less than half of employees (43 percent) think their boss is open to new ideas


• A mere 19 percent view their boss as their biggest advocate


• Despite all that these employees are willing to do to impress their boss, taking a pay cut is not one of them (4 percent)


• More women are willing to take on more work and responsibilities than men (11 percentage points more), 63 and 52 percent respectively

Mass layoffs and downsizing can have a severe impact on the morale of employees in surviving positions. The stress of watching their coworkers leave and working in an office with a growing number of empty cubicles may have some workers wondering if they’ll be the next to go.

Even companies that are economizing by eliminating low-cost perks like coffee cups and plastic utensils can be seriously damaging employee morale. While finding ways to save money, companies may be unintentionally pushing employees out the door.

“Employees’ professional development and morale should always be a priority for employers, and especially in an economic slowdown when employees may feel additional burdens,” said Eric Buntin, managing director, marketing and operations for Randstad USA.

“A healthy employee-employer relationship greatly contributes to an overall positive workplace attitude. Employers who connect with their employees create an environment where workers are more engaged in their jobs. Ultimately, this increases retention and productivity, both of which tie directly to a company’s financial success.”

As an employee, have you been doing anything differently to impress your boss since the recession began? As an employer, do you notice your employees putting in any extra effort to create better job security for themselves?

Please leave a comment and tell us all about it.

How employees aim to impress during tough times

HR survey shows more slashing salaries, less layoffs

Eight out of ten companies continue to cut labor costs, most by reducing salaries, worker hours, perks, and using furlough or forced vacations, according to a survey released yesterday by Challenger, Gray and Christmas.

According to the report, more than half (52%) of human resources executives surveyed in May said their companies had decided to slash or freeze pay, more than double the 27% of companies using the same cost-cutting techniques in January.

Executives listed as many as 13 different measures they’re currently using to cut expenses, but they’re not necessarily using these techniques in place of layoffs. Survey results revealed that the companies which had gone through layoffs were more likely to use cost-cutting methods than companies that had not.

Slashing benefits, pay, and perks allows companies to lower their labor costs without cutting workers. Layoffs can create a major challenge when the economy begins to recover and employers are short on trained workers. "It is a lot easier to restore compensation and benefits that it is to rehire and retrain workers when the economy improves," says John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray and Christmas. (U.S. News & World Report)

The percentage of employers making permanent cuts fell since the beginning of the year, from 56% in January to 43% in May, according to the survey. Altogether, 86% of executives said their companies were implementing cost-cutting measures, which is slightly better than in January when 92% of organizations were slashing costs.

Has your company been able to avoid layoffs by implementing other cost-cutting measures, such as salary reductions or freezes? Leave a comment and let us know what worked for your organization.

HR survey shows more slashing salaries, less layoffs

E-Verify regulations on hold again

The federal government has extended the effective date of the E-Verify requirement for federal government contractors to September 8, 2009. The requirement was previously set to take effect on June 30, 2009.

The rule would require most government contractors to verify the immigration status of current and new workers using the federal government’s E-Verify electronic employment eligibility verification system.

Implementation of the requirement has been delayed “to allow President Barack Obama's administration more time to complete its review of the rule,” Jennifer Kerber, vice president for federal and homeland security policy for TechAmerica, wrote in an e-mail message to members today. (via Washington Technology)

An official announcement is expected to be published in the Federal Register later this week.

This will be the fourth delay in the effective date of the E-Verify regulations, which were originally scheduled to take effect in January.

E-Verify regulations on hold again

Don’t Facebook when home from work sick?

You feeling like you're coming down with the flu, so you use some of your paid sick time and stay home from work. Should you also stay away from Facebook?

Last month, a Swiss woman was fired from her job after surfing Facebook while out sick, according to her employer.

The employee said she could not work in front of a computer and needed to lie in the dark, but was later seen to be active on Facebook. Her employer, the National Suisse insurance company, said in a statement that her actions had destroyed the company's trust in the employee.

"This abuse of trust, rather than the activity on Facebook, led to the ending of the work contract," said a National Suisse spokesperson.

The woman admitted to using Facebook on her cell phone, but accused her employer of spying on her by sending a mysterious friend request that allowed the company to see her activities on the social network. The company denied her accusation and said a colleague witnessed her online activity.

So we want to know: When you stay home from work sick do you spend time on Facebook? Should employers care?

Leave a comment and let us know what you think.

Don’t Facebook when home from work sick?

Top employee retention tips and advice

With the economy the way it is right now, many businesses are worried about losing top talent only to be short staffed when the market turns around. Today it’s all about employee retention strategies that will keep employees happy and motivated in their current positions.

You could be like Google and use a mathematical formula to calculate when a staff member is most likely to leave the company, but most would probably reach for a more conventional method. Luckily, there’s a world of valuable resources out there to help you discover the best option for your team.

Here are some of the top blog posts and articles on employee retention from across the Web:

• Along with being “desperately” short staffed in skilled jobs, many leaders are also facing an increase in the number of toxic employees and their impact on the organization. Read how leading with gratitude can make your workplace better from Globoforce.


• Though budget cuts and layoffs may be a necessary evil during a recession, organizations can boost morale by giving employees challenging assignments that promote growth. Read more on how to incorporate “stretch goals” in this recent BusinessWeek article.


• Times are tough everywhere, but it’s still no excuse for bad management behavior. Read what Jessica Lee from Fistful of Talent would tell a badly behaving manager who’s worried about employees leaving.


• The revolutionaries at Renegade HR take a slightly different approach and suggest that you shouldn’t focus on employee retention at all. Instead, “recruit great people and inspire them to do amazing things.”


• And for a little laugh, check out the top three retention strategies that didn’t quite make the cut from Upstart HR. One tip: Don’t use a hitman.

Top employee retention tips and advice

Bosses concerned over employees’ online behavior, employees say “butt out”

Sixty percent of businesses executives feel they have a right to know how employees portray themselves and their organizations in online social networks, according to the Deloitte LLP Ethics & Workplace survey.

Even though bosses might want to know what their employees are up to on the Internet, employees aren’t ready to open up. More than half of workers (53%) say their activity on social networks should be of no concern to their employers. Younger employees are in the most agreement, with 63% of 18- to 34-year-old respondents believing that employers have “no business” monitoring their online activity.

While they may not be ready to let their bosses in on the conversation, most employees seem to have a clear understanding of how their activity is a risk to their employer’s reputation. As much as 74% of respondents believe online social networking sites make it easier to damage a company’s reputation.

“With the explosive growth of online social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, rapidly blurring the lines between professional and private lives, these virtual communities have increased the potential of reputational risk for many organizations and their brands,” said Sharon Allen, chairman of the board, Deloitte LLP.

Just last month, Domino’s Pizza went into crisis control mode after two employees posted a video online showing themselves contaminating food while preparing it for delivery. The “gross” video went viral, resulting in embarrassment on the part of company executives and a couple of felony charges for the employees.

“While the decision to post videos, pictures, thoughts, experiences and observations is personal, a single act can create far reaching ethical consequences for individuals as well as employers. Therefore, it is important for executives to be mindful of the implications of this connected world and to elevate the discussion about the risks associated with it to the highest levels of leadership,” said Allen.

If they’re worried about the reputational risk it poses to their organization, most executives don’t seem to be doing much to curb it. Only 17% of executives surveyed said they currently have programs to deal with the possible risks related to employees’ activity on social networks. However, nearly half (49%) of employees stated that such guidelines would do little to change their behavior online.

“One-third of employees surveyed never consider what their boss or customers might think before posting material online,” Allen continued. “This fact alone reinforces how vulnerable brands are as a result of the increased use of social networks. As business leaders, it is critical that we continue to foster solid values-based cultures that encourage employees to behave ethically regardless of the venue.”

Read these related posts for more information on the impact of social networking on corporate culture and how to set social media policies:

Domino’s employees fired, charged after “gross” video goes viral

The impact of social media on corporate culture

Dangers of using social networking sites to screen applicants

Bosses concerned over employees’ online behavior, employees say “butt out”

Want to cut costs? Send employees home.

To work, that is.

While it can hardly be considered a new idea in the business world, telecommuting may deserve a second look if your company is searching for ways to cut costs, according to a recent Entrepreneur.com article.

“Rather than thinking outside the box, you may want to think outside the office.”

In 2008, more than 17 million U.S. workers telecommuted at least one day a month, according to a WorldatWork report. Telecommuters account for slightly more than 10% of the workforce and their numbers have grown almost 40% from 2006.

Over the next seven years the U.S. telecommuter population will reach 63 million, amounting to almost a third of all U.S. workers, according to Forrester Research predictions.

Both U.S. business owners and their employees are proponents of telecommuting. More than 70% of the U.S. workforce and 53% of small businesses are interested in telecommuting, according to Citrix Online’s Worldwide workplace survey.

The benefits of telecommuting on the business’ side range from lower energy costs, to improved employee retention and lower payroll costs. About 1 in 5 workers are willing to give up 5% of their salary to telecommute just a couple days a week, according to the Citrix survey.

However, simply sending employees home to work won’t immediately reduce your payroll. There will always be some management and logistical issues to work out before putting an employee telecommuting program in place.

From Entrepreneur.com:

If people share workstations when they are in the office, you need a schedule of when they'll be home and when they won't. There's also the question of oversight and management--some business owners and managers want to see their employees (and, let's face facts, some employees need to be seen). Plus, not every business function is conducive to remote work. Point being you need to pick your spot.

There's also a technology hurdle to clear. To be effective, your remote workers need access to communications and applications and you need to figure out how to provide everything from a phone extension to secure IT access.

These days, every company is looking for ways to get more done with less and telecommuting offers a major advantage. After working out the logistics, telecommuting gives employees the benefit of flexibility and employers will stay competitive by cutting operating costs and having the ability to hire top talent regardless of their location.

Of course, telecommuting won’t work for every business or career, but it’s worth taking another look at. Depending on your situation, it has the potential to deliver some real perks.

Citrix’s “Worldwide Workplace: The Web Commuting Imperative” is available at www.workshifting.com.

Has your company saved money by allowing employees to telecommute? What benefits/drawbacks to telecommuting have you experienced?

Want to cut costs? Send employees home.

DOL seeks public comment on mental health parity law

The U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) published a request for information (RFI) in the April 28 Federal Register asking for public comments regarding the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

The mental health parity bill was signed into law in October 2008, ensuring better insurance coverage for mental health treatments. The law requires health care plans to provide equal coverage of mental and physical illness.

Before the bill was signed, insurers could set high co-payments and deductibles and stiff limits on treatment for mental illness and addiction disorders.

The government is now seeking information and advice from the public regarding the best ways to implement the new rules for group health plans.

The public is encouraged to share comments on issues including:

• The types of financial requirements or treatment limits currently set by health plans.
• How certain terms in the statute could be clarified to make compliance easier.
• Health plans’ current disclosure practices regarding medical necessity determinations and denial of medical coverage.
• Current health plan practices concerning out-of-network coverage for mental health benefits.

Public comments may be submitted by mail, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), or by sending an e-mail to E-OHPSCA.EBSA@dol.gov. Comments will be accepted through May 28, 2009.

DOL seeks public comment on mental health parity law

Workplace discrimination up as economy worsens

The economy is down and, if they haven’t already done so, most businesses are looking for ways to trim their budgets. Though some cutbacks are necessary, new research suggests that this is not the time to pull your diversity programs.

Diversity programs are more important now than ever before, according to a new study by Eden King, assistant professor of psychology at George Mason University. King’s research found that during an economic downturn workplace discrimination tends to increase.

Additionally, those in hiring positions may be less likely to hire a minority job applicant during difficult economic times. Competition for fewer jobs and resources often forces minority groups to the outside, King says.

“The reality is, diversity programs and disadvantaged groups may be the first to go in times of economic uncertainty,” says King. “This causes real problems for people of socially disadvantaged groups.”

As part of their study, King and her team of researchers found that when white women and men were told that the economy might decline and were then asked to evaluate four equally qualified job candidates, they favored the white male candidate. When the group was told that the economy may be on an upswing, they chose the female Hispanic candidate.

"In good economic times, people know they are supposed to support diversity and will tend to hire a minority candidate to get affirmative action points," says King. "But when times are tough, people tend to look out for their own group and isolate outsiders, and that's when discrimination can begin to rear its ugly head."

King noted that managers and human resource professionals should approach prejudice in today’s unstable workplace with caution.

"They need to understand that the short-term solution of cutting diversity programs might ultimately end up costing them even more in the long-run."

Workplace discrimination up as economy worsens