April 2015, Page 4 Archive

The worst kept secret in HR: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is doing whatever it can to “protect employees speech rights” — or, as many employers see it, give workers the green light to say pretty much whatever they want about their employers. 

The latest example involves Pier Sixty LLC, a catering company, and Hernan Perez, a server for the company.

The NLRB just ruled that Pier Sixty violated the National Labor Relations Act and illegally fired Perez for participating in “protected concerted activity.”

Under the act, an employee engages in protected concerted activity when he or she acts with other employees in an attempt to improve working conditions.

Usually, this form of activity manifests itself in the form of workers complaining about their employer or managers together.

The Pier Sixty case follows this familiar narrative. But the troubling thing for employers is that in its ruling, the NLRB blurs the line between what it considers “protected speech” and flat out insubordination that employers will want to quickly stamp out.

Harsh criticism of manager

The actions that got Perez fired involved him taking to his personal Facebook page and posting the following comment about his manager (Bob):

“Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F****R don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! F*** his mother and his entire f*****g family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!”

Not surprisingly, when the employer caught wind of this Facebook rant, it terminated Perez — as most employers probably would.

Perez then filed an unfair labor practice charge against Pier Sixty — such charges can be levied against all employers, unionized or not.

And, to many employers’ chagrin, the NLRB sided with Perez.

Pier Sixty was then ordered to reinstate Perez to his former seniority and pay him any wages lost as a result of his termination, with interest.

Inmates running the asylum?

How did the NLRB justify taking such a seemingly unbelievable move?

Warning: This won’t appease employers. But here’s what it said:

“… while distasteful, the Respondent (Pier Sixty) tolerated the widespread use of profanity in the workplace, including the words “f***” and “motherf****r.” Considered in this setting, Perez’ use of those words in his Facebook post would not cause him to lose the protection of the Act.”

So basically, because the employer allowed employees to use off-color language on the job, it couldn’t punish Perez for the vulgarity of his comments toward his manager.

What’s more troubling, in light of other recent protected speech rulings by the NLRB, it seems unlikely the board would even tolerate many policies banning workplace profanity in the first place.

Bottom line: This ruling takes a little more power out of the hands of employers to stamp out worker subordination.

How much longer before the inmates are allowed to completely run the asylum?

Cite: Pier Sixty LLC

For more HR News, please visit: Unbelievable: NLRB rules worker’s ‘F*** his family’ statement is protected speech

Source: News from HR Morning

Lots of companies load their policies and benefit package details on their in-house networks these days. It’s a reasonably hassle-free way of making critical info available to employees without all that wasted paper. But there are situations where relying on your intranet can expose you to some thorny legal problems.    

Take, for instance, the case of Raymond Thomas, who was trying to collect on the life insurance benefit of his late sister, Judith.

Judith began working for Countryside, a home mortgage provider, in 2002. As an active employee, she automatically received various benefits, including basic life Insurance. She also opted to enroll in Countrywide’s voluntary life insurance plan, which required her to pay “contributions” to cover the premiums.

Judith stopped working for Countryside in 2004, alleging that she was disabled. She never returned to work, and eventually passed away in 2008. Her brother Raymond was named as beneficiary on both her insurance policies.

The company’s benefits policy stated that the life insurance coverage ends when an “employee is no longer in active service.” Since Judith hadn’t been working when she died, the insurance company denied Raymond’s claim for the proceeds of his sister’s policies.

Key clause

And this is where the case starts to get tangled. Countryside had opted to place its summary plan description on the company intranet, rather than distribute written copies. And in that SPD, there was a clause stating that an employee who wasn’t in “active service” could continue her life insurance coverage — with a waiver in premiums — if that employee simply provided proof of her disability within a year of leaving her job.

But Raymond claimed his sister never knew of that clause, because she hadn’t received a copy of the SPD. The company argued that Judith had access to the Countryside intranet — and therefore the SPD — the whole time she had worked for the mortgage provider.

Kenneth Mason, writing on the Spencer Fane law firm blog, described the judge’s decision:

The court concluded that the steps taken by the employer did not comply with the DOL regulations governing the electronic distribution of SPDs.   … [T]hose regulations limit this option to participants who can effectively access electronic documents wherever the participant is reasonably expected to perform his or her duties, and for whom access to the employer’s electronic information system is a regular part of those duties. 

While that may have been true of this employee before she became disabled, it was not the case when she actually needed the SPD.  This was after she had terminated her employment (due to the disability), thereby losing access to the intranet.  As a result, she could not access the SPD during the 12-month period in which she was required to submit proof of her disability.

What’s more, the judge said, Countryside had failed to notify her when the SPD was posted in 2004 — another breach of DOL regs.

Could get costly

So what happens now? Here’s Mason’s take:

Because the employer had effectively failed to provide this employee with an SPD, the court concluded that the insurer’s denial of her claim for the waiver-of-premium benefit was arbitrary and capricious.  As a result, the beneficiary will likely be entitled to the policy proceeds.

Whether this case will end there is an open question.  Typically, employer life insurance policies obligate the employer to provide copies of the SPD to all participants.  Because this employer did not do so, the insurer may expect the employer to reimburse it for some or all of the policy proceeds.

Those proceeds, by the way, would total $208,000.

Case cite: Thomas v. Cigna Group Insurance.

For more HR News, please visit: Posting benefits info on your network: Court points out a potential danger zone

Source: News from HR Morning

Because the focus of this year’s National Employee Benefits Day is Wellness 2.0, it seems appropriate to ask: Is cost-cutting the top reason employers offer wellness programs — or is there a more magnanimous reason behind the healthy living push?   

That question was at the heart of a recent WorldatWork study.

The organized polled 443 HR pros and asked them why their companies offered a wellness program. Here were HR pros’ top responses:

• Improve employee health (cited by 85% of HR pros)
• Because of the perceived value to employees (79%)
• Decrease medical premiums (77%)
• Improve productivity (73%)
• Increase engagement (72%), and
• Reduce absenteeism (64%).

No premium on premiums?

Based on those responses, it looks like employers are putting employee health- and well-being ahead of their own healthcare costs with their wellness efforts.

Of course, it’s easy to say employee health and well-being is the top company priority. Following through with that claim is something else all together.

For its part, WorldatWork did try to see how far employers were willing to go to back up those lofty claims.

The study found that an impressive 96% of the employers supported well-being programs for employees, and 75% of firms plan on beefing up those programs over the next two years.

What’s more, even if employer-sponsored healthcare was eliminated at these firms, just 29% of firms said they drop their disease management program as well and only 26% said they’d discontinue their wellness coaching.

Top-5 trends

Finally, the study also offered some insight into the types of wellness and scheduling trends your peers are offering.

According to the study, the five most common health-related well-being benefits employers offer are:

1. Immunizations (offered by 73% of firms)
2. Physical fitness (70%)
3. Mental/behavioral coverage (69%)
4. Diet and nutrition (62%), and
5. Smoking cessation (60%).

But well-being benefits aren’t limited to health-specific offerings. As WorldatWork Senior Practice Leader Rose Stanley put it: â€œSuccessful organizations are discovering that an innovative approach to well-being goes beyond the employee’s physical health.”

So the study searched out the top work-life balance benefits being offered by employers. These included:

1. Encourage use of vacation (Cited by 66% of companies)
2. Flexible schedules (65%)
3. Community involvement (56%)
4. Child-care assistance (29%), and
5. Elder-care assistance (23%).

For more HR News, please visit: What’s the real motivation behind wellness programs?

Source: News from HR Morning

Rather than relying on gut feel, talent analytics can predict the candidates who are best fit for an organization’s culture and for the unique demands of high value roles. They can help predict the optimal retention strategies to employ with top talent at risk of leaving, and identify who those high risk employees are. With the use of talent analytics, HR can also help analyze social chatter so that organizations can be in tune with changing employee sentiment in real time, and devise strategies to improve it. Hear a panel of HR leaders engage in a conversation about how they are using predictive and prescriptive analytics applied to talent to drive better business results. Join us to explore how you can be more effective in designing pilots, demonstrating the ROI for talent analytics, and translating talent data into talent insight.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Changing the Talent Game: Find and Keep More Rock Stars on Your Team with Analytics

Source: News from HR Morning

We’re all looking for ways to separate the wheat from the chaff in the hiring process. Well, one company found a pretty unique trait a lot of lesser-performing candidates share. 

What is it? They use Internet Explorer or Safari — over other non-default Web browsers like Chrome and Firefox.

That may sound pretty absurd, especially for those of you reading this using Internet Explorer or Safari, but let us explain.

Cornerstone OnDemand is a talent management software company, and it recently analyzed data on roughly 50,000 people who took its online personality test and were eventually hired by firms using its software.

During its analysis, it found out something interesting about people’s habits online that many HR pros probably would’ve never considered.

According to a report by The Atlantic:

“Cornerstone’s researchers found that people who took the test on a non-default browser, such as Firefox or Chrome, ended up staying at their jobs about 15 percent longer than those who stuck with Safari or Internet Explorer. They performed better on the job as well.”

Overall, Firefox users were the most likely to stay at least 90 days, followed by Chrome users, Safari users and then Internet Explorer users.

But why?

What’s the reason for all of this? Unfortunately, Michael Housman, chief analytics officer at Cornerstone, said the company’s research wasn’t able to identify any specific reasons why Safari and Internet Explorer users tend to make poorer hires.

Still, that didn’t stop Housman from offering up his own opinion. He surmised the fact that a person took the time to download a non-default browser says something powerful about a person — and that something is the person made a choice to do something that wasn’t default.

In other words, Chrome and Firefox users are people who are looking for a better way of doing things.

Of course, whether or not Chrome or Firefox are superior Web browsers is a topic of much debate. But you can’t deny the fact that if someone went out of their way to install one of them, they’re at least attempting to improve the way they do things — and that’s a trait any employer wants in a job candidate.

The problem with all of this, of course, is figuring out what kind of browser candidates actually use. After all, it’s not exactly something a person would put on his or her resume.

But if candidates are visiting your website, like to fill out or submit an application, or take an assessment (as was the case with Cornerstone), there are tools available to track the browsers being used to do it.

For more HR News, please visit: Wait, what? Internet Explorer, Safari users make poorer hires

Source: News from HR Morning

The National Labor Relations Board new election rules, dubbed the “ambush election” or “quickie election” rules by critics, is a big windfall for unions. So, naturally, the GOP is staunchly opposed to them. 

The NLRB’s rules were introduced in the waning days of 2014, and are slated to take effect in a little under two weeks (April 14). They reduce the amount of time between when a group files a union representation petition and when a union election will be held.

Some ways the rules accomplish this (among a host of others) include:

• allowing union petitions to be filed electronically
• decreasing the amount of time employers have to produce a voter list to labor organizations from seven to two days
• requiring a pre-election hearing to be schedule to begin eight days after a petition is submitted
• mandating regional directors schedule an election through a direction of election rather than permitting the parties to agree on a date, and
• eliminating the 25-day stay of election following the regional director’s decision and direction of election.

As a result of these rules, a union election can take place in less than two weeks after a union requests a vote. Typically, the process takes longer than a month.

In addition, the rules state employers must provide the personal email addresses and phone numbers of voters on the voter list so that labor organizations can communicate with those voters about the upcoming election.

House and Senate fight back

Upset by what seems like the extremely union-friendly nature of these rules, Republicans tried to block the rules from taking effect using the Congressional Review Act. Under the act, both houses of Congress can vote to pass a resolution disapproving rules created by an executive agency.

With votes mostly along party lines, the House and Senate approved such a resolution to block the NLRB’s election rules.

Obama’s response after seeing the resolution: Nice try. He then pulled his trump card, signing a memorandum of disapproval (essentially a veto).

The Obama Administration hasn’t been shy about creating policy via executive order — rather than going through the typical Congressional legislative process — and it doesn’t appear ready to back down now.

Lawsuit pending

For now, it appears the best hope opponents of the rule have in terms of halting the new regulations is a lawsuit that was just filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Filed by a coalition of organization and industry representative groups — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, National Retail Federation and Society for Human Resource Management — the lawsuit seeks an injunction prohibiting the NLRB from enforcing the rule and an order vacating the rule.

Stay tuned: We’ll keep you posted on the outcome of this suit.

For more HR News, please visit: How Obama responded to GOP’s attempt to burn down union-friendly election rule

Source: News from HR Morning

Good news: The major changes the feds recently proposed to the Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) statements won’t be finalized until at least 2016.
And that means employers have a good amount of breathing room until they must comply with the wholesale changes to the SBCs.

As HR pros know, the Affordable Care Act’s Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC) statements rule require all health plans (grandfathered and non-grandfathered alike) to supply plan participants with SBCs and a glossary of commonly used terms during their open enrollment period.

These SBCs were created to help simplify health info for employees, but they’ve also caused HR and Benefits pros as well as plan administrators some major headaches since the regs took effect.

So when the feds essentially proposed an overhaul to the SBCs that employers were finally getting used to, you can imagine not everybody was thrilled.

Originally slated for 2015

If you remember, the feds issued the new proposed SBC rule right at the end of 2014.

This included reg changes as well as wholesale amendments to the proposed templates of the SBCs, a revised instruction guide and a revised uniform glossary.

Originally, when the feds rolled out the proposed SBC reg, they said the changes would take effect for healthcare coverage beginning on or after September 1, 2015.

Now, according to a new FAQ on DOL’s website, the new SBC templates and documents are expected to be finalized by the Obamacare agencies in January of 2016.

The new forms will then apply to insurance coverage that renews or kicks in on or after Jan. 1, 2017.

So this is quite an extension.

You can view the DOL’s latest FAQ for more details.

For more HR News, please visit: DOL grants employers a major Obamacare break

Source: News from HR Morning

There are innovative strategies that address the changing landscape of digital relationships and networks, and powerful new tools that can seem magical when you’re trying to find the perfect candidate for the available position. Understanding these strategies and harnessing these tools will prepare you to source, screen, interview and hire the best talent for your growing organization. Read this ebook to learn more.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: How to Become a Recruiting Powerhouse: A Practical Guide for HR and Hiring Managers

Source: News from HR Morning