HR Forum: human resources

Showing posts with label human resources. Show all posts

Unpaid internships: A rip-off or legitimate resume booster?

It seems that Mark Cuban has stirred up a bit of a hornet’s nest with his recent post about unpaid internships. He’s already received 90 comments, ranging from wholehearted approval of his argument (pro unpaid internships) to outright disgust that he’d support such a notion.

He explains:

“This summer, in response to the changing sports media landscape, I wanted to
create a “media pool” for the Mavs. I wanted to assemble a group of unpaid
interns that would acquire video, write game reports, track unique stats, do
interviews, interact with fans, and then compile all of this incremental media
and provide it free to any and every outlet we could think of.”

His justification for taking the unpaid internship route was this:

“One silver lining of a “great recession” that we are now in is that there are a
lot of incredibly talented people without jobs, or who have lost their jobs. I
didn’t care if they were 18 years old or 73 years old. I thought we could
assemble a talented group who would enjoy the internships and could also gain
valuable experience to add to their resumes.”

But his plans were quickly halted when he heard back from his HR department. He learned that to be legal, interns must be paid, unless they are performing work that is of no value to the organization. This didn’t sit well with Mark - that whether or not the trainee would welcome the “on the job” experience, or be willing to work for no pay, does not come into play.

To be clear, the U.S. Department of Labor has developed specific criteria for determining an internship’s pay status. For an internship to be unpaid, it must meet these six legal tests:

1. It must be an educational experience, the equivalent of vocational school
2. It must primarily benefit the trainee
3. The trainee cannot do work that would otherwise be done by a paid employee, and must work under the close supervision of a manager
4. The employer cannot derive immediate advantage from the trainee’s work or profit from it
5. The employer must not promise a paid job at the completion of the training period
6. The employer and trainee must agree (ideally in writing) that no wages will be paid during the training period

On one side of the ring are the people who feel that an internship is a great way for someone to try out a particular industry and gain practical experience – and if that person is willing to get a “foot in the door” for free, more power to him. (A risk vs. opportunity scenario.) On the other side of the ring are the people who feel that it’s wrong for an individual to work for a company, in any capacity, and not get paid. That no one should do the work of a paid employee, no matter what the possible pay-off later, for free.

What do you think? Should the guidelines surrounding unpaid internships be loosened? How does your business handle the matter of unpaid vs. paid internships – and how do you make the most of the employer-trainee relationship so that everyone benefits?

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.

Social recruiting grows popular among recruiters

We may still be in a recession, but many companies still have open positions to fill and the most preferred method for finding promising candidates is shifting. Instead of spending their time on job boards like Monster and CareerBuilder, many HR pros and recruiters are turning to social networking sites.

Social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter are quickly becoming top sources for recruiters searching for candidates, according to the results of the second annual Jobvite Social Recruitment Survey.

The survey also found that employers are more satisfied with the quality of candidates from employee referrals and social networks than those from job boards. The majority of those surveyed are planning to invest more in social recruiting in the coming years, according to the Jobvite survey of more than 400 human resource and talent management professionals

You have to complete a quick registration from Jobvite to get the full survey results, but here are some of the highlights:

68% of companies use social networking or social media to support recruitment efforts

The most popular social networking sites for recruiting are LinkedIn (95%), Facebook (59%) and Twitter (42%)

66% of companies have successfully hired a candidate through an online social network

Companies are investing more in employee referrals (76%), social networks (72%) and corporate career sites (64%)

The New York Times recently covered how both unemployed workers and employers looking for a low-cost recruitment method have found success using social networking sites. From the article:

Gladys Stone, a corporate recruiter in San Francisco, says it’s smart for employers to tap into employees’ social networks. This accelerates the personal referral process and widens the field, as many social network users have hundreds of friends or contacts in their networks, she said.

And while some may be disconcerted that software from an unknown company is searching their profiles, Ms. Stone says that most know that information on the Web can be used in ways that people don’t expect, and that LinkedIn, in particular, is built to make professional information available.

Does your company use social networking sites to recruit new employees? Have you been successful? What advice would you give others who may be thinking about recruiting using social networks?

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:

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.

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.

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.

Same-sex harassment complaints growing

Dillard’s, Inc. will pay $110,000 and provide significant remedial relief for a same-sex harassment suit in Florida, according to an announcement from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) last week.

The EEOC claimed that Dillard’s violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by permitting a sexually hostile work environment for men at its Fashion Square Mall store in Orlando, Fla. The EEOC charged that a male sales associate and a young dockworker were verbally and sexually harassed by a male supervisor.

The workers accused their supervisor of exposing himself in front of them, making sexual propositions, and making sexually explicit and derogatory comments. According to the EEOC, Dillard’s store managers ignored complaints made by the workers about the harasser.

Dillard’s argued that the store wasn’t liable because the supervisor had been fired and had an anti-harassment policy in place. The court rejected that argument and “found that Dillard's anti-harassment policy could not absolve it of liability if the policy hadn’t been effectively implemented.” (Business Management Daily)

“The EEOC will hold corporate America accountable for failing to prevent and correct employment discrimination,” said Commission Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Sexual harassment charge filings by men have trended upward over the past decade. Employers must be more vigilant in ensuring that men are not subjected to sexually hostile workplaces.”

In addition to paying $110,000 to the two male victims, the Dillard’s Fashion Square Mall store must:

distribute policies to the workforce on preventing sexual harassment and retaliation;
conduct sexual harassment and anti-discrimination training for all employees;
train employees who are responsible for investigating sexual harassment complaints;
submit to monitoring throughout the decree’s three-year duration;
and post a notice about the resolution of the case.

“Employers must diligently enforce policies to prevent sexual harassment and ensure that managers take same-sex harassment complaints seriously. It is vital to protect both men and women from workplace harassment,” said EEOC Miami Regional Attorney Nora Curtin.

The number of sexual harassment charges filed with the EEOC are up 11% from last year and at the highest rate since 2002. Sexual harassment charges filed by men make up 16% of total charges, a figure that once stood at 12% in the late 1990s.

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment no matter if it’s male-on-female, male-on-male or female-on-female. Even if the harassment doesn’t look exactly like what was taught in the training video, it should still be handled with the same sensitivity and diligence that would be given in any “normal” situation.

According to Mindy Chapman, Esq., of Mindy Chapman & Associates, in a recent Business Management Daily article, companies can learn three major lessons from this case:

Train “it.” Anyone designated in your anti-harassment policy’s reporting procedures needs to know they could be tagged “it” with a complaint. Train them so they know “it.”

Script “it.” The store manager should have responded by saying, “Thank you for letting me know. You are important to us at Dillard’s. I will help you immediately.” Then he should have, in the next breath, contacted the district manager.

Stop “it.” The manager had an obligation that if he saw “it,” heard “it,” or heard about “it,” he should have stopped “it,” but never ignored “it."

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.

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.

What workers want most this summer: Time

Flexible schedules and leaving work early on Fridays are the the benefits employees want most this summer, a new survey by OfficeTeam suggests.

More than 450 office workers were asked, “Which of the following summer benefits would you most like to have?” They answered:

Flexible schedules 38%

Leave early on Fridays 32%

Activities (e.g. company picnic, potluck) 6%

More relaxed dress code 5%

“Employees appreciate flexibility in their jobs because it gives them greater control and enables them to handle other commitments without sacrificing their work performance,” said Robert Hosking, executive director of OfficeTeam.

Flexible scheduling can be an inexpensive way to motivate employees during the summer months, adds Hosking. For businesses worried that customer service will suffer, he suggests staggering workers’ schedules to maximize the total number of hours employees are able to assist customers.

“Companies should pilot flexible schedule programs before rolling them out permanently,” Hosking recommended. “This gives businesses time to evaluate the impact on workflow and productivity.”

If flex time isn’t an option, allowing employees to occasionally leave early on Fridays can boost morale. Many workers plan activities and weekend trips during the summer months and would appreciate the extra time to get started, says Hosking.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

How could the swine flu outbreak affect U.S. workplaces?

Yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano held a press conference on swine flu and touched on how the outbreak may affect the American workplace.

Repeating President Obama’s message, Napolitano reminded the audience that “swine flu is a cause for concern, but not a cause for alarm. We are simply in preparation mode. We do not yet know how widespread this flu will be within the United States. So we continue to move aggressively to prepare.”

Napolitano asked that private employers assist the federal and state governments in protecting their workers.

“We are reaching out to the private sector to make sure that they are preparing and to inform them of the latest actions we are taking. It's important that they be thinking ahead about what they would do should this erupt into a full-fledged pandemic, which it has not yet, by the way,” she said.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the federal government are stressing that people use common sense right now to reduce the impact that any flu, including swine flu, may have on the U.S. public.

The CDC is advising the public to take these everyday actions to stay healthy:

Cover your nose and mouth with a tissue when sneezing or coughing. Dispose of the tissue immediately after you use it.
Wash your hands often with soap and water, especially after you cough or sneeze. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are also effective.
Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth to avoid spreading germs.
Avoid close contact with sick people.
If you feel ill, stay home from work or school and limit contact with others to avoid spreading the flu.

The CDC and HHS have also put together a business pandemic influenza planning checklist that companies can use to prepare for a potential flu outbreak and other emergencies.

These simple measures can “materially improve” the chances of swine flu becoming a full-fledged pandemic, said Napolitano.

“I mean, the normal tendency is, you know, we have a lot of Type A personalities and people want to go, keep working, and—we're saying don't do that if you believe realistically that you have the flu. If you don't know but you show some of the symptoms, contact your doctor. ”

“Everybody has a role to play here. It's our function to make sure that what the government is doing is coordinated, that we are thinking in advance of the problem,” she said. “But, again, government cannot do this alone. We all have an important part to play.”

Currently, there are 64 confirmed cases of swine flu in the U.S., including 45 in New York City, according to the CDC. The swine flu outbreak in Mexico is suspected in 152 deaths and more than 1,600 illnesses, according to the Mexican health minister.

As doctors try to understand and bring the swine flu outbreak under control, many people are nervous that the virus will continue to spread. It also leaves some important questions up for discussion:

What are the implications for business and HR policies?
Is preventing/identifying swine flu a workplace training need yet with so few cases in the U.S. and all mild?
Will it affect hiring/business expansion plans if the spreading swine flu could further hurt the U.S. economy?

What do you think? Is it time for businesses to start taking action? Leave a comment and let us know.

Fight the flu at work by raising awareness of sanitary procedures with these helpful flu prevention solutions.

Download "Flu in the Workplace," a free white paper on how to keep employees safe and get a better understanding of your rights as an employer.

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

On Monday, two Domino's Pizza employees posted videos on the Internet that resulted in their current unemployment, and also managed to create a disastrous PR storm for their former employer.

The two Domino's Pizza employees posted videos on the Internet showing themselves violating various health-code standards while preparing food for delivery. Since their video became a hit on YouTube, the employees have been charged with felonies for delivering prohibited foods.

A statement on the company’s corporate website apologizes for the unacceptable actions of their former employees and asks that customers continue their support, despite this embarrassment.

“The opportunities and freedom of the Internet is wonderful,” the statement reads. “But it also comes with the risk of anyone with a camera and an Internet link to cause a lot of damage, as in this case, where a couple of individuals suddenly overshadow the hard work performed by the 125,000 men and women working for Domino’s across the nation and in 60 countries around the world.” (Workforce Management)

Company President Patrick Doyle has also posted a video of his own in response to the “gross” video created by his former employees. Domino’s spokesman Tim McIntyre said the company is looking into what can be done to prevent anything like this from happening in the future, but says there’s only so much the Domino’s can do.

"You can be the safest driver, you know," McIntyre said. "But there's going to be that Friday night someone's drunk and comes from out of nowhere. You can do the best you can, but there's going to be the equivalent of that drunk driver that hits the innocent victim." (Advertising Age)

The food safety issues involved in this case can be kept under control with a combination of training, policy enforcement and complying with regular food safety inspections. But how can a company control what employees are saying about them online?

It’s impossible for a company to fully control what an employee is going to say or do on the Internet in regards to their employer. What companies can do is set standards and clear policies outlining responsible online behavior within the office and when an employee discusses the company on their own time.

Major companies including the BBC, Sun Microsystems and IBM have written social media guidelines for employees to help manage the risk that accompanies these online conversations. Each of these companies has a set of guidelines clearly posted on its website and serve as great examples when developing your own social media policies.

Policies will differ from company to company, but it’s important to have a clear set of standards that everyone in the organization can follow. Remember to run your social media policy through the legal department before distributing anything to employees. Finish the process with employee training that explains the company’s policy and how to act responsibly when talking about their employer online.

Like Domino’s spokesman said, “the opportunities and freedom of the Internet is wonderful,” but some employees may need help understanding the responsibility that comes along with talking about their employer online.

Do you think having a social media policy could have helped Domino's in the company's current situation? Does your organization train employees on responsible Internet use? Leave a comment and let us know.

Pages

More Resources