April 2015 Archive

Is your organization planning on adding staff over the next three months or so? Be warned — a bunch of your competitors are, too. And that’ll probably mean a hike in your payroll costs.  

That’s the overall message in recent research from CareerBuilder, which says that 32% of the people who make hiring decisions at businesses of all sizes said they intend to hire additional full-time permanent employees in the next few months.

The biggest businesses were most likely to be in expansion mode. Fully 38% of businesses with more than 500 employees expect to hire in the current quarter, compared to 32% in the same period a year ago.

This time around, however, small- and mid-sized businesses are expected to join the talent competition. Many of those companies had remained cautious about their prospects for business growth in the recent past.

Now, 24% of small businesses say they plan to expand full-time headcount by the end of June, compared to 18% in the same period a year ago.

The pick-up in small business hiring has been showing up gradually over the past few months, Matt Ferguson, CEO of CareerBuilder, said in a press release.

“Small businesses have been playing a larger part in the solid stretch of job growth the U.S. has experienced over several months,” he said. “When you pair that with the fact that hiring has increased in a variety of industries and regional areas, it bodes well for workers seeking new and better-paying employment prospects.”

The price is going up

Recent growth may bode well for applicants’ prospects, but there’s likely to be a price to pay for employers, according to thew CareerBuilder study.

There are signs that employers are feeling the pressure to raise salaries to attract the best candidates. Forty-three percent of employers said that they have job vacancies that have been open for 12 weeks or longer.

A majority of those surveyed said they plan to reward employees with raises during the present quarter. About 24% said they’ll increase salaries by at least 5%. Another 44% anticipate increasing salaries by 4% or less. In the hottest field, information technology, about 37% of employers expect to raise salaries.

IT is one of four industries whose employers are most likely to be in new-hiring mode. More than 40% of bosses in the transportation and financial services industries said they would be hiring, as did 32% of mid-sized health care companies.

Temporary or contract employment also is showing an upswing. Thirty-seven percent of employers plan to hire temporary or contract workers in the second quarter, up from 33% a year ago. And 31% plan to offer a permanent job to some contract or temporary staffers in the second quarter, up from 26% last year.

The survey was conducted for CareerBuilder by Harris Poll, and included a representative sample of more than 2,000 hiring managers and human resource professionals across various industries.

For more HR News, please visit: In hiring mode? Better haul out the checkbook

Source: News from HR Morning

Having an employee announce that they’re switching sexes will likely raise a few questions in your workplace. Being prepared to answer them correctly can be the difference between maintaining order and landing in court. 

Bruce Jenner, the famous stepfather (sorry … stepmother?) of the Kardashians, announcing to the world that he is transitioning from male to female is just the latest in a growing line of breaking news stories to bring the topic of transgender treatment to the forefront of employers’ consciousness.

Last fall, the EEOC filed two lawsuits against employers, claiming they illegally discriminated against transgender individuals. And in doing so, the agency made it clear that discriminating against any individual — male, female or someone transitioning to a difference sex — on the basis of the gender they identify with will draw its ire.

One of the employers, Lakeland Eye Clinic, just settled one of the suits for a whopping $150K, so this is not a topic to be taken lightly.

As more of these stories begin to break, expect more employees to begin announcing their gender transitions to their employers.

2 big questions, 2 answers

If one of your employees announces that they’re transitioning from male to female — or vice versa — there are likely two questions you’ll have right off the bat:

• Which bathroom should the person use?
• Do we call the person “him” or “her”?

The answers to both of these questions are actually pretty straightforward.

Which bathroom should the person use?

This is one of those rare situations in which you shouldn’t take immediate action based on co-workers’ complaints.

Yes, you should listen to — and take seriously — employees’ complaints about having to share a bathroom with a transgender individual, but you shouldn’t dictate which bathroom an individual uses based on complaints.

Here’s what the EEOC had to say on the issue in a case in which the Army was found to have improperly forced a transgender employee to use a single-person, gender-neutral bathroom (a tip of the hat to Evil HR Lady Suzanne Lucas for bringing this passage to our attention in a similar article she wrote for Inc.com):

“We recognize that certain employees may object — some vigorously — to allowing a transgender individual to use the restroom consistent with his or her gender identity. But supervisory or co-worker confusion or anxiety cannot justify discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.”

Bottom line: The EEOC says employers should allow employees to use the bathroom of the gender they identify with. So the EEOC would say Jenner must be allowed to use the women’s room, as that’s the gender Jenner now identifies with.

Do we call the person “him” or “her”?

The answer to this is a little more commonsensical: Call the person whatever he or she’d prefer to be called. Most likely this will correspond to the gender the person identifies with.

If you’re not sure, ask. It can pay to be proactive, rather than guess incorrectly and spark animosity — and possible legal action — from the employee.

For more HR News, please visit: 2 keys to safely react to your own Bruce Jenner

Source: News from HR Morning

You’d probably be hard-pressed to find any Google employees who could complain about the tech juggernaut’s perks and benefits with a straight face. But Google has also found out what happens when you just go and get rid of a seemingly obsolete perk.   

Google’s Head of People Operations Laszlo Bock recently told CNNMoney about an unexpected employee reaction to the news one of the tech firm’s myriad perks was getting the axe. That perk was a $5,000 subsidy paid to employees who bought hybrid cars, which at the time (mid-2000s) were limited to Toyota Priuses. For Googlers, this benefit became known as the Prius subsidy.

‘Got used to it’

Eventually, hybrids became more common and cheaper, and Google decided it wouldn’t be a big deal if it stopped “subsidizing Toyota.”

What it didn’t count on was the backlash. As soon as Google staffers caught wind of the company’s plan to kill the Prius subsidy the following year, they let it be known they were far from happy.

This reaction seemed to have caught Bock off guard. As he told CNNMoney, â€œWe’d only done it [the Prius subsidy] for three years, but they [Google workers] still got used to it.” Bock also said employee weren’t the only ones who enjoyed the perk by adding, â€œlocal dealers tell us they had an amazing December that year.”

5 most-coveted perks

It’s not like cutting the Prius perk left the Google benefits cupboard bare. Bock outlined the five most-stellar benefits the company still offers:

• Free food. Google was one of the pioneers of free (and healthy) employee meal trend that has become commonplace in Silicon Valley.
• Shuttle service. According to Bock, Google’s free shuttles take 20,000 to 40,000 cars off the road each day.
• Googlers-to-Googlers (G2G). Here, Google workers can share their knowledge with one another on anything and everything. Last year, more than 3,000 employees took part in these G2G classes.
• Google talks. The company has landed guest speakers ranging from President Obama to Lady Gaga, and Bock says these Google talks help foster an environment of fresh ideas and constant learning.
• An unparalleled death benefit. How generous is this? If an employee dies while employed at Google, all of his or her stock immediately vests, the employee’s spouse can collect half of his/her salary for 10 years, and the worker’s kids get $1,000 a month.

For more HR News, please visit: The perils of perks: If you pull one, expect a backlash

Source: News from HR Morning

In the age of the empowered individual, organizations must rethink the workplace, with the employee at the center of the business. This means focusing on three employee centric dimensions: Talent, Culture and Work. By using workforce science, analytics, collaboration tools and technologies with flexible deployment models, you can develop a more engaged and innovative workforce.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Take HR to the Next Level: Engage Your Employees to Drive Better Business Value

Source: News from HR Morning

Top Trending HR & Talent Management Resources for Spring 2015 brings together the latest in information, coverage of important developments, and expert commentary to help with your HR and Talent Management related decisions.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Top Trending HR & Talent Management Resources for Spring 2015

Source: News from HR Morning

Is the latest change to the FMLA taking affect in your state? 

Not if you’re in Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska or Texas.

As you’ve probably heard by now (we reported it in February), the DOL just updated the definition of “spouse” for FMLA purposes to reflect the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States. v. Windsor.

It did this via a rule change that essentially said any eligible employee who’s in a legal same-sex marriage can take federal FMLA leave to care for his or her spouse, regardless of the state in which that employee resides.

Now, however, this rule won’t apply to those living in the four states mentioned above — at least for the time being.

Judge: Rule violates states’ rights

As we reported a few weeks ago, a federal judge in Texas preliminarily enjoined the implementation of the rule after the attorneys general of Texas, Arkansas, Nebraska and Louisiana filed suit, claiming the rule violated states’ rights.

Well, the DOL has just responded to the injunction — and it’s likely going to make life difficult for employers with multi-state operations.

The DOL announced it’ll enforce the new rule in every state except those four.

At the same time, the DOL made a motion for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to reconsider the injunction. The result? The court just denied the DOL’s request, so the injunction will stand — at least until the states’ lawsuit is resolved.

Moot point?

Many observers seem to think the Texas decision could well be moot, since the Supreme Court will hear several same-sex marriage cases this term — and likely rule that federal law requires the states to recognize those unions.

Stay tuned.

Cite: State of Texas v. United States of America

For more HR News, please visit: FMLA compliance keeps getting trickier: 46 states get new rule

Source: News from HR Morning

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s been busy. Here’s a look at just three of the numerous cases it’s won — or settled — in the past few days.  

$1.5M jury verdict for sex harassment and retaliation

A federal appeals court in Memphis upheld a jury verdict of over $1.5 million in the EEOC’s lawsuit against a High Point, N.C.-based logistics services provider for sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to the EEOC’s suit, New Breed Logistics unlawfully discriminated against three female workers in its Memphis warehouse who were sexually harassed by a New Breed supervisor, and retaliated against them after they objected to his sexual advances. The EEOC also charged that a New Breed supervisor retaliated against a male employee who verbally opposed the supervisor’s sexual harassment and supported the women’s complaints.

Two years ago, a federal district court jury found in favor of the EEOC, and awarded the discrimination victims $1,513,094. The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the jury finding.

New Breed Logistics, a logistics services provider that helps companies design and operate supply chains, warehousing and distribution, operates five Memphis warehouses. The company also has warehouses in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Texas, Los Angeles and Kearny, N.J.

$14.5M to settle race/national origin bias cases

Patterson-UTI Drilling Company LLC, a Snyder, Texas-based multistate oil drilling company, will pay $14.5 million and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit filed by the EEOC and to resolve several cases through separate conciliation agreements, the agency announced.

The EEOC charged the company with race and national origin discrimination, harassment and retaliation at its facilities throughout the country.

The EEOC’s lawsuit charged that since at least 2006, Patterson-UTI engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination based on race and national origin on its drilling rigs, including assigning minorities to the lowest level jobs, failing to train and promote minorities, and disciplining and demoting minority employees disproportionately.

The EEOC also claimed that Patterson-UTI tolerated a hostile work environment on its rigs.  Among other things, the EEOC claimed that these employees endured frequent and pervasive barrages of racial and ethnic slurs, jokes, and comments, as well as verbal and physical harassment and intimidation of minority employees.

The EEOC added that employees who opposed or complained about discriminatory practices suffered retaliation, including discriminatory discipline and discharge.

The settlement requires Patterson-UTI to put $12,260,000 into a settlement fund for distribution to the class of discrimination victims, that’s not the full extent of the tab. Related charges filed with the EEOC resulted in separate out-of-court conciliation agreements with the Commission.  When combining the money from the decree and the conciliation settlement agreements, the monetary relief for the victims totals $14.5 million.

Systemic sex bias suit costs $400k

Unit Drilling Company, a nationwide oil drilling company, will pay $400,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

According to the EEOC’s suit, when women applied for jobs at Unit Drilling, they were told that the company did not hire women. Rejected female applicants testified that they were told by Unit employees that the company did not hire women because it only had “man camps,” that women were “too pretty” and that their presence would “distract the men,” the EEOC said.

Under a federal court decree, Unit Drilling will pay $400,000 to five women whom, the EEOC alleged, Unit Drilling refused to hire because they are women. In addition, Unit Drilling will change its policies, provide training against sex discrimination, post anti-discrimination notices, and provide detailed hiring information to the EEOC, which will monitor Unit Drilling’s compliance with the decree.

Unit Drilling Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Unit Corporation and owns drilling rigs all over the country. The company operates approximately 90 onshore drilling rigs in the Anadarko and Arkoma Basins, the Rocky Mountains, and the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.

A full rundown of all of EEOC’s recent settlements can be found on the agency’s web page.

For more HR News, please visit: EEOC rakes in the dough for sex and race bias, retaliation violations

Source: News from HR Morning