Four states – California, Illinois, Alabama and Mississippi – along with the District of Columbia, are the top five riskiest places in the country for employee lawsuits. Businesses in these states and jurisdictions face a substantially higher risk of being sued by their employees compared to the national average, according to study of employment practices litigation (EPL) data by specialist insurer Hiscox.
VIA: INSURANCE JOURNAL
Thursday, April 17, 2014
1 in 10 Small Businesses Report Workers Under Influence of Alcohol, Drugs
“Business owners today are rightfully concerned about the use of illegal or judgment impairing substances in their workplaces. It’s a disturbing trend that we have seen developing over the past several years with the rise in prescription opioids and the increasing legalization of marijuana,” said Employers Chief Operating Officer Stephen V. Festa.
More than three-quarters of small business owners surveyed said they agree it is dangerous for their employees to be under the influence of marijuana, prescription painkillers, alcohol and illicit narcotics, such as heroin and cocaine, while at work. More than half said over-the-counter pain medications could also pose a danger to their employees.
VIA 1 in 10 Small Businesses Report Workers Under Influence of Alcohol, Drugs.
More than three-quarters of small business owners surveyed said they agree it is dangerous for their employees to be under the influence of marijuana, prescription painkillers, alcohol and illicit narcotics, such as heroin and cocaine, while at work. More than half said over-the-counter pain medications could also pose a danger to their employees.
VIA 1 in 10 Small Businesses Report Workers Under Influence of Alcohol, Drugs.
Can I? Sharing Medical Information Under the ADA
Generally, HR has to keep employees' medical information
confidential. Do not keep medical information in employees' personnel files.
Medical information can be shared with certain individuals in limited
circumstances:
- Supervisors and managers can be told about restrictions
on work or duties
- First aid and safety personnel can be told if the
disability might require emergency treatment
- Government officials investigating ADA compliance,
state worker's compensation offices, or workers' compensation insurance
carriers
VIA: HR Bullet Point
WORKPLACE VIOLENCE
Managers need to know how to handle dangerous and potentially violent situations at the workplace. Violence at the workplace can occur between employees or between an outsider (e.g. spouse, former employee) and an employee. As a manager, employees will rely on you to set an example during these difficult situations.
1. Educate subordinates about the organization’s zero tolerance policy.
A good zero tolerance policy clearly establishes that violence or threats of violence won’t be tolerated at the workplace. Make sure that you take responsibility for communicating the policy to your subordinates. It’s critical that your subordinates understand that they can come to you to report any concerns regarding actual or potential incidences of workplace violence.
2. Enforce the organization’s policy and report violations.
It isn’t enough to just have a policy; the policy must be implemented and enforced. As the manager, you should take care to be aware of what’s happening in the workplace and if any employee is being bullied or threatened.
3. Secure your workplace.
Make sure to keep your employees as secure as possible. This may mean checking that all doors are properly locked or that security cameras are functioning. If you’re aware of any malfunctioning security equipment or any potentially vulnerable areas at the workplace, you should immediately report your findings to the appropriate person.
4. Create a culture of respect and tolerance.
Set the example. If you become easily outraged or yell at employees, then you should expect similar behavior from your subordinates. Be mindful to create the type of environment that doesn’t invite threats and violence.
5. Have a plan.
Are you prepared for a violent situation at work? Have you prepared your staff? If not, make a plan and share the plan with your subordinates. At a minimum, your plan should include the following: location of safety equipment and first aid, designated person(s) to account for members of their work group or department, easy access to a phone to contact emergency personnel, and a list of contacts for employees to refer to in case of an emergency.
© 2014 ePlace Solutions, Inc.
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Be Advised - The EEOC is Watching How You Treat Your Pregnant Employees!
The Law
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA): A federal law that makes it unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees (including applicants) on the basis of pregnancy.The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Federal leave law that provides a qualified employee with 12 weeks of protected unpaid leave for the birth of a child and/or a serious health condition, which could include complications resulting from or during pregnancy.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): If an employee is temporarily disabled due to a complication with her pregnancy (pregnancy itself isn’t considered a disability), then the employee would be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. The reasonable accommodation may be a leave of absence, even in situations where the employee wouldn’t otherwise qualify for medical leave.
Affordable Care Act: Requires certain employers to provide reasonable breaks and private spaces for nursing mothers.
State Laws: Several states have laws relating to the treatment of pregnant employees. For example, New Jersey recently amended state law to require that employers provide a reasonable accommodation for employees “pregnancy-related” needs. California also has additional protections for pregnant employees, including additional time off of work. Check your individual state law.
Conclusion
Know the law and train your managers so that they understand how to handle pregnant employees. If you have questions, or need more information on your state’s law go to our website and choose “HR Tasks” and “Leaves and Accommodations”.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
White House Delays Health Insurance Mandate for Medium-Sized Employers until 2016
February 10, 2014
Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein
The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers.
Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015. By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans' campaign to make political gains in this year's midterm election.
Even the nation's largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.
The regulation finalized by the Treasury Department involves one of the biggest issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act: how the law's employer mandate plays out in practice. The mandate has enormous ramifications for how businesses classify their employees and how much these men and women work.
Initially, these requirements - which affect firms employing 72 percent of all Americans - were supposed to take effect this year, at the same time that most individuals faced a new obligation to obtain health insurance or risk a tax penalty. Last July, the administration announced it would delay the regulation for a year after many employers and some unions complained about the law's reporting requirements and classification system for workers.
A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the proposal on the condition of anonymity because the rule was not yet public, said the Treasury Department decided to allow medium-sized businesses more flexibility because they "need a little more time to adjust to providing coverage."
Businesses that fail to offer coverage face a fine of up to $2,000 for each employee that is not covered, though workers are not required to sign up for the benefits.
The coverage must encompass a core set of benefits and be affordable - which the law defines as premiums costing no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income - and the employer must pay for the equivalent of 60 percent of the cost of coverage for workers but not their dependents.
Until now, the government had not defined exactly which workers should be considered full-time. Nor had it spelled out important details of the insurance benefits that employer-sponsored health plans must cover, given that they are not the same as the "essential benefits" required of health plans that are sold to individuals or small businesses through the new federal insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.
Brian Haile, senior vice president for health care policy at Jackson Hewitt, said the announcement was significant because how the federal government defines a full-time employee will affect hiring decisions across the country. "This final rule may seem like an obscure accounting matter, but it gets to the heart of whether and how employers hire new workers - and whether these workers will have the opportunity to transition from part-time to full-time or seasonal to permanent employment," Haile said. "This rule hits on a core question as to how employment is structured in the United States." Administration officials said that organizations with a large number of volunteer employees - such as firefighters and first responders - would not have to provide coverage, along with those hiring seasonal employers who work six months or less in a given year.
Teachers will not be considered part-time just because they do not work for three months during the summer, officials added, while the status of adjunct faculty will be calculated on a formula where they would receive credit for 2¼ hours of service per week for each hour they spent teaching or in the classroom.
Visit our website for a helpful Fact Sheet >>>
Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Amy Goldstein
The Obama administration announced Monday it would give medium-sized employers an extra year, until 2016, before they must offer health insurance to their full-time workers.
Firms with at least 100 employees will have to start offering this coverage in 2015. By offering an unexpected grace period to businesses with between 50 and 99 employees, administration officials are hoping to defuse another potential controversy involving the 2010 health-care law, which has become central to Republicans' campaign to make political gains in this year's midterm election.
Even the nation's largest employers got a significant concession: They can avoid a fine by offering coverage to 70 percent of their full-time employees in 2015 and 95 percent starting in 2016. Under an earlier proposal, employers with at least 50 employees would have been required to offer insurance, beginning 2015, to 95 percent of those who work 30 hours or more a week, along with their dependents.
The regulation finalized by the Treasury Department involves one of the biggest issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act: how the law's employer mandate plays out in practice. The mandate has enormous ramifications for how businesses classify their employees and how much these men and women work.
Initially, these requirements - which affect firms employing 72 percent of all Americans - were supposed to take effect this year, at the same time that most individuals faced a new obligation to obtain health insurance or risk a tax penalty. Last July, the administration announced it would delay the regulation for a year after many employers and some unions complained about the law's reporting requirements and classification system for workers.
A senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the proposal on the condition of anonymity because the rule was not yet public, said the Treasury Department decided to allow medium-sized businesses more flexibility because they "need a little more time to adjust to providing coverage."
Businesses that fail to offer coverage face a fine of up to $2,000 for each employee that is not covered, though workers are not required to sign up for the benefits.
The coverage must encompass a core set of benefits and be affordable - which the law defines as premiums costing no more than 9.5 percent of an employee's income - and the employer must pay for the equivalent of 60 percent of the cost of coverage for workers but not their dependents.
Until now, the government had not defined exactly which workers should be considered full-time. Nor had it spelled out important details of the insurance benefits that employer-sponsored health plans must cover, given that they are not the same as the "essential benefits" required of health plans that are sold to individuals or small businesses through the new federal insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov.
Brian Haile, senior vice president for health care policy at Jackson Hewitt, said the announcement was significant because how the federal government defines a full-time employee will affect hiring decisions across the country. "This final rule may seem like an obscure accounting matter, but it gets to the heart of whether and how employers hire new workers - and whether these workers will have the opportunity to transition from part-time to full-time or seasonal to permanent employment," Haile said. "This rule hits on a core question as to how employment is structured in the United States." Administration officials said that organizations with a large number of volunteer employees - such as firefighters and first responders - would not have to provide coverage, along with those hiring seasonal employers who work six months or less in a given year.
Teachers will not be considered part-time just because they do not work for three months during the summer, officials added, while the status of adjunct faculty will be calculated on a formula where they would receive credit for 2¼ hours of service per week for each hour they spent teaching or in the classroom.
Visit our website for a helpful Fact Sheet >>>
Friday, February 7, 2014
Romance in the Workplace
Managers: Absolutely No Romance at Work
Organizations should prohibit romantic relationships between managers and employees – no exceptions.
Not only does it show a clear lack of good judgment when a manager becomes romantically involved with an employee, but the manager’s poor decision inevitably creates a host of problems for your organization. According to SHRM’s 2013 survey, favoritism is the most common complaint (84%) resulting from workplace romance. This isn’t surprising. Once a manager becomes involved with an employee, other employees assume that the manager’s decisions concerning the romantic partner are based on favoritism
(i.e., better shifts, salary, etc.). Sexual harassment was the second most common complaint (78%). A consensual relationship can turn ugly in a heartbeat – love is complicated. Once the relationship is no longer consensual, the organization is at grave risk. The organization is strictly liable if the employee’s claim of sexual harassment against their manager is successful.
To minimize the risks, our recommendation is that organizations adopt, implement, and enforce a written policy prohibiting managers from getting romantically involved with employees. The written policy should include the following:
- A statement prohibiting any “romantic relationship” with an employee.
- Definition of “romantic relationship” is a relationship that could be reasonably expected to become a close consensual or sexual relationship regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the employees involved. “Dating” is included in the definition of “romantic relationship”.
- A statement prohibiting inappropriate relationships, such as living with an employee.
- A statement that violation of the policy will result in discipline, up to and including termination.
Co-Workers: Romance
How do you manage romance between co-workers? Permitting romantic relationships between co-workers can be a challenge. An absolute ban on co-worker relationships is harder to enforce than the ban on managers; however, there are still several steps an organization can take to discourage workplace romance.
- “Love Contract” – Organizations can require that romantically involved co-workers sign a “love contract”. Simply, the contract provides a written acknowledgment that the relationship is consensual. Does this prevent a sexual harassment complaint? No, because the relationship can become unwelcome at any point. Still, the contract can help outline the employer’s expectations for the employees such as: the relationship cannot interfere with work, the employees are still expected to act in a professional manner while at work, etc.
- Listen to the “Gossip” – Oftentimes, management discovers workplace romance through gossip or rumors. If you hear about an alleged workplace romance, make sure to talk to the employee’s allegedly involved and get the truth from the source. Remember, if an employer “should have known” about alleged sexual harassment, the employer can be liable.
Consistency is Key
Above all, your organization must consistently enforce any policy – whether written or not – regarding workplace romance. Failing to be consistent can lead to claims of discrimination or retaliation. If you have questions, contact an HR professional or employment attorney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)