The magic number that helps your benefits program boost retention

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

When it comes to benefits, the number of perks you offer employees is a very important metric.  

At least that’s what MetLife’s 13th annual U.S. Employee Benefit Trends Study discovered.

The MetLife study questioned more than 5,000 U.S. workers, with half of the respondents being benefits managers.

Multiple benefits = great company

In a nutshell, benefits are a huge factor in workers’ happiness with their employer and their willingness to recommend that employer as a “great place to work.”

Case in point: At businesses where no benefits are offered, fewer than half (46%) of employees would recommend their employers as “great places to work.”

Then, at companies where workers are offered between one and five benefits, the recommending percentage jumps to 53%.

Now here’s the kicker: At companies where employees are offered 11 or more benefits, the percentage of workers who recommend their employers as great places to work jumps all the to 66%, that’s 20 percentage points higher than at firms where no benefits are offered.

Plus, around 40% of workers said a wide selection of benefits would make them feel more loyal to their employer.

These findings seem to suggest that the more benefits you offer, the more satisfied your employees will be. But, of course, blindly introducing a huge selection of benefits offerings isn’t the way to go. One suggestion: Survey workers on the benefits they’d be most likely to use and offer as many of those perks as you can.

Other key findings

The MetLife study also uncovered some important findings on employers’ benefits communication and employees’ work and financial concerns.

Other highlights from the study:

  • Just 45% of employees said that they strongly agree that their employers’ benefit communications helped them to understand how they would pay for specific services and effectively educated them on their benefit choices
  • 41% of employers said retention was their top employee benefits objective
  • 51% of employees were concerned about job security (up from 46% in 2014) make it the top employee concern
  • Only 34% of workers said they have a saving cushion of three months’ salary (down from 46% in 2013), and
  • 49% of employees said they’re experiencing financial stress and look to their employer for financial security help.



For more HR News, please visit: The magic number that helps your benefits program boost retention

Source: News from HR Morning

Find the Best Applicant Tracking Software – One Minute Could Save You Days of Frustration

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

The recruitment process can be arduous for both employers and candidates. From sourcing candidates to tracking current applicants and ultimately hiring the ideal candidate, an ATS will reduce the time and expense of hiring new employees for both HR departments as well as recruiting and staffing agencies. There are hundreds of ATS solutions currently on the market, with different solutions for organizations of different sizes, industries and hiring models. Software Advice’s team of independent experts have reviewed more than 60 applicant tracking systems and are ready to provide you with reviews and price quotes from the vendors that best meet your needs.

Click here to learn more!  



For more HR News, please visit: Find the Best Applicant Tracking Software – One Minute Could Save You Days of Frustration

Source: News from HR Morning

Female managers outpace males in the fight for employee engagement

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News
Female managers outpace males in the fight for employee engagement

female managers

Female managers are better at boosting employee engagement than their male counterparts.  

Research giant Gallup. in its State of the American Manager: Analytics and Advice for Leaders, says that employees who work for a female manager in the U.S. are actually more engaged, on average, than those who work for a male manager.

Here’s the rub: Only 33% of American workers actually report to a female supervisor.

A little background, from Kimberly Fitch and Sangeeta Agrawal, writing on the Gallup website:

“If you were taking a new job and had your choice of a boss, would you prefer to work for a man or a woman?”

Gallup first put that question to workers in 1953, and the results were, well, what you’d probably expect in 1953:

  • 66% said they preferred a male boss
  • 5% said they preferred a female boss, and
  • 25% said it made no difference to them.

Gallup asked that same question of employees last fall, and things have changed:

  • 33% would prefer a male boss
  • 20% would prefer a female boss, and
  • 46% say it doesn’t make a difference.

An intriguing note from last fall’s survey: Though women are more likely than men to say they would prefer a female boss, they’re still more likely to say they would prefer a male boss overall.

Going down the list

Using data it’s compiled over the years, Gallup has come up with a 12-item checklist — called, logically enough, the Gallup Q12 — to define positive qualities employees find in their managers. The topics range from manager expectations to positive feedback to whether or not employees feel their ideas are valued.

Fitch and Agrawal provide a snapshot of Gallup’s recent research:

Employees who work for a female manager are six percentage points more engaged, on average, than those who work for a male manager — 33% to 27%, respectively. Female employees who work for a female manager are the most engaged, at 35%. Male employees who report to a male manager are the least engaged, at 25% — a difference of 10 points.

Gallup found that employees who work for a female manager are 1.26 times more likely than employees who work for a male manager to strongly agree that “There is someone at work who encourages my development.” “This suggests that female managers likely surpass their male counterparts in cultivating potential in others and helping to define a bright future for their employees,” the authors wrote.

Additionally, female managers are not only more likely than male managers to encourage their subordinates’ development — they’re also more inclined than their male counterparts to check in frequently on their employees’ progress. Those who work for a female boss are 1.29 times more likely than those who work for a male boss to strongly agree with the statement, “In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress,” said Fitch and Agrawal.

Those who work for a female manager are 1.17 times more likely than those with a male manager to strongly agree that “In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.”

And, finally,  employees who work for a female manager outscore those who work for a male manager on every Q12 element except one: “At work, my opinions seem to count.” Overall, female managers eclipse their male counterparts at setting basic expectations for their employees, building relationships with their subordinates, encouraging a positive team environment and providing employees with opportunities to develop within their careers, according to Agrawal and Fitch.

Engagement breeds engagement

So why are female managers better at building employee engagement? It may well be because they’re more engaged themselves.

According to Agrawal and Fitch, Gallup finds that 41% of female managers are engaged at work, compared with 35% of male managers. In fact, female managers of every working-age generation are more engaged than their male counterparts, regardless of whether they have children in their household.

“If female managers, on average, are more engaged than male managers, it stands to reason that they are likely to contribute more to their organization’s current and future success,” the authors write.

Let talent be the deciding factor

Here’s how Fitch and Agrawal sum up the significance of the research:

While the explanation behind these findings is subject to debate, there are a few possible reasons as to why female managers and their employees are more engaged. Gallup’s employee engagement data show that men and male managers are more likely to hold jobs that tend to be less engaging, such as production jobs.

However, it is also likely that gender bias still pervades leadership and management in America. As such, female managers might be somewhat more adept and purposeful in using their natural talents to engage their teams because they need to exceed expectations to advance in their organization.

Though some may find Gallup’s findings surprising, the management implication is quite clear: U.S. organizations should emphasize hiring and promoting more female managers. To do this, organizations should use talent as the basis for their selection decisions. Talent is an equalizer that removes gender bias in the hiring process. Talent gives organizations a proven, scientifically sound method for choosing the best candidate, regardless of gender.

 

 

 

 

 



For more HR News, please visit: Female managers outpace males in the fight for employee engagement

Source: News from HR Morning

Finally! The DOL’s finished revising the FLSA’s overtime rules

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

It has been a long, nervous year for the business community ever since President Obama ordered the DOL to revise the FLSA’s overtime exemption rules — to make more salaried workers overtime-eligible. 

Well, the wait for the new rules is almost over. On the DOL’s blog, Labor Secretary Thomas Perez announced that the new proposed rules have been submitted to the federal Office of Management and Budget for review.

We won’t get a peak at the rules until they’re approved by the office, but we’re not completely in the dark as to what they’ll look like.

What’s set in stone:

There are two rock-solid certainties that we know of so far.

The proposed rules will seek to:

  1. Make more — a lot more — salaried employees overtime-eligible, and
  2. Increase the minimum salary a person must earn to be exempt from overtime.

What’s up in the air:

What we don’t know yet is exactly how much the minimum salary level will be increased — but it’s expected to be significant. The level currently sits at $455 per week or $23,660 per year.

Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, an organization that holds a lot of sway with Democratic policymakers, told The Huffington Post that his talks with White House officials have lead him to believe the threshold will be increased to somewhere around the $42,000 mark.

Tammy McCutchen, a former administrator for the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, who has sat in on a number of “listening sessions” with Perez about the reg changes, is reporting it’s possible the figure could be even higher. McCutchen, who’s now an attorney for the law firm Littler Mendelson P.C., wrote on her firm’s blog that “30 congressional Democrats sent a letter to Secretary Perez calling for a salary level of $69,000.”

Most predictions, however, are that the level will be set closer to the $42,000 mark.

Another change employers can expect is a revision of the “duties tests” used to determine whether employees are exempt from overtime.

McCutchen wrote that she expects the DOL to propose adopting a California-style rule requiring employee to spend more than 50% of their time performing exempt work to be classified as exempt. She also wrote that it’s possible the DOL eliminates the concept of “concurrent duties.” Under the existing concurrent duties test, managers can be exempt even if they’re doing the same work as direct reports, as long as managing others is their “primary” function.

What’s next?

Once the Office of Management and Budget approves the proposed rule changes, they’ll be published in the Federal Register. At that point, the public will have its first look at them (and we’ll have a full breakdown for you).

Once in the Federal Register, the public will have an opportunity to comment on them. The DOL will then review the comments and make changes to the proposed rules if its deemed necessary. At that point, the rules will be re-released in their final form, and an effective date will be announced.

Bottom line: The rules aren’t likely to take effect until late 2015, early 2016. But start gearing up as soon as the proposed rules are released. It’s likely the finalized rules won’t be much different.



For more HR News, please visit: Finally! The DOL’s finished revising the FLSA’s overtime rules

Source: News from HR Morning

Will Congress repeal health reform’s ‘Cadillac Tax’?

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

We know what you’re thinking: This is just the latest attempt by Republicans to shoot holes in the Affordable Care Act. But it’s not; this bill’s backed by 71 co-sponsors, and only three of them are Republicans. 

It’s called the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act of 2015 (H.R. 2050), and it was introduced by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT).

The goal: Repeal the ACA’s “Cadillac Tax,” which is a 40% excise tax on health insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,000 for family coverage.

The tax takes effect in 2018, after having already been pushed back from its initial start date of 2013 — and therein lie one of the problems.

Those thresholds were meant to be in place five years ago, when health plans were cheaper than they are today (although they’ve never been “cheap”).

Many in Congress, including a very large contingent of Democrats, believe the law is A) outdated, B) too flawed to have ever been passed to begin with, and C) tied to the wrong escalator — consumer spending and not healthcare costs.

The original delay of the bill was the result of lawmakers’ concerns over its potential impact (the old “kick the can down the road” routine). And now that its enactment is growing closer, they want it scrapped altogether.

In a release on his website, Courtney said:

“The excise tax is a poorly designed penalty that will put a dent in the pocketbooks of many families and businesses with health insurance plans that do not resemble the ‘Cadillac’ plans originally targeted when this policy was adopted — instead, the excise tax will punish people living in higher cost areas, with ‘Ford Focus’ level plans.”

Part of lawmakers’ concern is the tax thresholds (i.e., the $10,200 and $27,000 figures) are tied to consumer spending, which means that while they’ll increase over time, they won’t increase nearly as fast as healthcare costs.

As a result, it’s only a matter of time before every plan is considered a “Cadillac” plan.

The consulting firm Towers Watson went to work crunching the numbers. What it found was that in 2018, 48% of large employers with health plans will be affected by the tax. Then by 2023, that number will grow to a whopping 82% of large employers.

Courtney continued:

” … The excise tax is not a smart reform — it is a flawed, one-size-fits-all penalty that will degrade workers’ benefits, lead employers to choose less comprehensive plans, and force families to pay more out-of-pocket health care costs. Fortunately, we have the opportunity to eliminate this tax before it goes into effect, and I am proposing this legislation to ensure that America’s working families are protected from an uneven, unnecessary cut to their hard-earned health care benefits.”

Does the bill have a chance of passing? And even if it does, will it get vetoed by the president?

It’s too early to tell. But one thing’s for sure: Few bills seeking to rollback a large chunk of Obamacare have received this much backing from Democrats.



For more HR News, please visit: Will Congress repeal health reform’s ‘Cadillac Tax’?

Source: News from HR Morning

Why you’ll want to go for the FSA carryover option

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

If your company hasn’t implemented the FSA carryover option yet, you may want to make it a priority.

Firms that adopted the carryover option for 2015 saw a double-digit increase in FSA enrollment among employees, according to a recent study.

What’s more, the study from WageWorks and Visa shows a majority (60%) of employers have either amended or are planning to amend their FSAs to include the carryover.

Participation = savings

As firms know, the carryover rule allows FSA users to carry over up to $500 into the next plan year.

And that $500 doesn’t count toward the ACA limit on FSA contributions ($2,550 for 2015).

Despite the perks, some firms aren’t sold on the carryover option.

For one thing, it means you can’t offer the “grace period” option where leftover FSA funds can be used for expenses incurred in the first two-and-one-half months of the following plan year.

Plus, some firms had gotten used to workers forfeiting FSA funds at year-end and using those funds to administer the accounts.

But, according to WageWorks CCO Jody Dietel, the greater the employee participation in FSAs, the fewer dollars being subject to payroll taxes.

Those savings are likely to make the carryover a “standard design” in FSAs soon, Dietel says.

If employees have gotten used to the FSA grace-period and you’re planning on switching to the carryover, don’t spring the change on workers at the last minute.

Stress carryover benefits

Communication should take place well before open enrollment.
Also, make it a point to stress some of the benefits of the carryover: less worry about spending funds before year-end, $500 carryover is available for the following entire plan year and carryover from one year could rollover year after year.



For more HR News, please visit: Why you’ll want to go for the FSA carryover option

Source: News from HR Morning

30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News
30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

employee handbook

To help employers craft handbooks that don’t violate the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has issued a compilation of rules it has found to be illegal — and rewritten them to illustrate how they can comply with the law.

It was issued as a memorandum by NLRB General Counsel Richard F. Griffin, Jr. to “help employers to review their handbooks and other rules, and conform them, if necessary, to ensure they are lawful.”

Specifically, the memorandum points out employer policies found to violate and conform to Section 7 of the NLRA.

The main area of concern

Section 7 mandates that employees be allowed to participate in “concerted activity” to help improve the terms and conditions of their work.

The NLRB has made it abundantly clear recently that it’s on the lookout for rules that:

  • explicitly restrict protected concerted activity, and/or
  • could be construed to restrict protected Section 7 activity.

One thing the memorandum makes very clear: extremely subtle variations in language could be the difference between having a legal policy in the NLRB’s eyes and having one that’s viewed as violating the NLRA.

What to say, what not to say

Here are many of the dos and don’ts highlighted by the memorandum, separated by topic:

Rules regarding confidentiality

  • Illegal: “Do not discuss ‘customer or employee information’ outside of work, including ‘phone numbers [and] addresses.’” The NLRB said, in addition to the overbroad reference to “employee information,” the blanket ban on discussing employee contact info, without regard for how employees obtain that info, is facially illegal.
  • Illegal: “Never publish or disclose [the Employer’s] or another’s confidential or other proprietary information. Never publish or report on conversations that are meant to be private or internal to [the Employer].” The NLRB said a broad reference to “another’s” information, without clarification, would reasonably be interpreted to include other employees’ wages and other terms and conditions of employment.
  • Illegal: Prohibiting employees from “[d]isclosing … details about the [Employer].” The NLRB said this is a broad restriction that failed to clarify that it doesn’t restrict Section 7 activity.
  • Legal: “No unauthorized disclosure of ‘business “secrets” or other confidential information.’”
  • Legal: “Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information not otherwise available to persons or firms outside [Employer] is cause for disciplinary action, including termination.”
  • Legal: “Do not disclose confidential financial data, or other non-public proprietary company information. Do not share confidential information regarding business partners, vendors or customers.”

The NLRB said the last three rules above were legal because: “1) they do not reference information regarding employees or employee terms and conditions of employment, 2) although they use the general term “confidential,” they do not define it in an overbroad manner, and 3) they do not otherwise contain language that would reasonably be construed to prohibit Section 7 communications.”

Rules regarding conduct toward the company and supervisors

  • Illegal: “[B]e respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  • Illegal: “Do ‘not make fun of, denigrate, or defame your co-workers, customers, franchisees, suppliers, the Company, or our competitors.’”
  • Illegal: “Be respectful of others and the Company.”
  • Illegal: “No ‘[d]efamatory, libelous, slanderous or discriminatory comments about [the Company], its customers and/or competitors, its employees or management.’”

The NLRB said the rules above were unlawfully overbroad because: “employees reasonably would construe them to ban protected criticism or protests regarding their supervisors, management, or the employer in general.”

  • Illegal: “Disrespectful conduct or insubordination, including, but not limited to, refusing to follow orders from a supervisor or a designated representative.”
  • Illegal: “‘Chronic resistance to proper work-related orders or discipline, even though not overt insubordination’ will result in discipline.”

The NLRB said the rules above, while banning “insubordination,” also ban “conduct that does not rise to the level of insubordination, which reasonably would be understood as including protected concerted activity.”

  • Illegal: “Refrain from any action that would harm persons or property or cause damage to the Company’s business or reputation.”
  • Illegal: “[I]t is important that employees practice caution and discretion when posting content [on social media] that could affect [the Employer’s] business operation or reputation.”
  • Illegal: “Do not make ‘[s]tatements “that damage the company or the company’s reputation or that disrupt or damage the company’s business relationships.”‘”
  • Illegal: “Never engage in behavior that would undermine the reputation of [the Employer], your peers or yourself.”

The NLRB said the rules above “were unlawfully overbroad because they reasonably would be read to require employees to refrain from criticizing the employer in public.

  • Legal: “No ‘rudeness or unprofessional behavior toward a customer, or anyone in contact with’ the company.”
  • Legal: “Employees will not be discourteous or disrespectful to a customer or any member of the public while in the course and scope of [company] business.”

The NLRB said the rules above are legal because they wouldn’t lead an employee to believe they restrict criticism of the company.

  • Legal: “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, coworkers, customers and vendors.” The NLRB says employees would reasonably understand that this states the employer’s legitimate expectation that employees work together in an atmosphere of civility.
  • Legal: “Each employee is expected to abide by Company policies and to cooperate fully in any investigation that the Company may undertake.” The NLRB said this rule is legal because “employees would reasonably interpret it to apply to employer investigations of workplace misconduct rather than investigations of unfair labor practices or preparations for arbitration.”
  • Legal: “‘Being insubordinate, threatening, intimidating, disrespectful or assaulting a manager/supervisor, coworker, customer or vendor will result in’ discipline.” The NLRB said: “Although a ban on being  disrespectful’ to management, by itself, would ordinarily be found to unlawfully chill Section 7 criticism of the employer, the term here is contained in a larger provision that is clearly focused on serious misconduct, like insubordination, threats, and assault. Viewed in that context, we concluded that employees would not reasonably believe this rule to ban protected criticism.”

Rules regarding conduct between employees

  • Illegal: “‘[D]on’t pick fights’ online.”
  • Illegal: “Do not make ‘insulting, embarrassing, hurtful or abusive comments about other company employees online,’ and ‘avoid the use of offensive, derogatory, or prejudicial comments.’”
  • Illegal: “[S]how proper consideration for others’ privacy and for topics that may be considered objectionable or inflammatory, such as politics and religion.”
  • Illegal: “Do not send ‘unwanted, offensive, or inappropriate’ e-mails.”

The NLRB said the rules above were unlawfully overbroad because employees would reasonably construe them to restrict protected discussions with their co-workers.

  • Legal: “[No] ‘Making inappropriate gestures, including visual staring.’”
  • Legal: “Any logos or graphics worn by employees ‘must not reflect any form of violent, discriminatory, abusive, offensive, demeaning, or otherwise unprofessional message.’”
  • Legal: “[No] ‘[T]hreatening, intimidating, coercing, or otherwise interfering with the job performance of fellow employees or visitors.’”
  • Legal: “No ‘harassment of employees, patients or facility visitors.’”
  • Legal: “No ‘use of racial slurs, derogatory comments, or insults.’”

The NLRB said the rules above were legal because: “when an employer’s professionalism rule simply requires employees to be respectful to customers or competitors, or directs employees not to engage in unprofessional conduct, and does not mention the company or its management, employees would not reasonably believe that such a rule prohibits Section 7-protected criticism of the company.



For more HR News, please visit: 30 employee handbook do’s and don’ts from the NLRB

Source: News from HR Morning

Are you advertising for ‘digital natives’? You might want to rethink that

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

There seems to be a new code word for coveted young job candidates: “Digital natives.” And if you use it, you could be opening yourself up to an age discrimination charge.  

Vivian Giang, writing on Fortune.com, says that many employers, especially in the media, advertising and tech industries, have gotten away from the phrase “new grad” in favor of the “digital natives” moniker.

She cites a few examples from a Fortune survey:

Virginia Beach, VA-based software solutions firm, StratusLIVE, is currently seeking a lead generation specialist to join its team and according to its ad, the “ideal candidate must be a digital native” who adapts quickly to new technologies.

Zipcar, the car-sharing service, posted an ad for a director of creative and brand marketing and says this person “will be a proven creative leader and digital native.” Being a digital native also is on its list of “minimum” job requirements.

The Gannett-owned CBS TV affiliate in Washington D.C. notes in its ad that it is looking to hire digital natives.

In a posting for a project manager, advertising agency Wunderman, which is part of marketing giant Young & Rubicam Brands, listed as the top requirement being “a digital native” experienced in “existing and emerging digital platforms.”

Obviously, younger applicants are far likelier to be considered “natives” to the digital world than their older counterparts.

So is this new term simply a smoke screen designed to hide employers’ intent to exclude older workers (which we suppose might have to be called “digital immigrants”)?

Three employment attorneys contacted by Fortune said it might very well be.

No formal complaints … so far

Giang points out that age discrimination complaints have spiraled upward, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with 15,785 claims filed in 1997 compared to 20,588 filed in 2014. Out of the 121 charges filed last year by the EEOC for alleged discriminatory advertising, she said, 111 claimed the job postings discriminated against older applicants.

Joseph Olivares, a spokesperson for the EEOC, told Giang the agency has not taken a position on whether using the term “digital native” in an ad is discriminatory. But that’s only because somebody needs to file a complaint before the EEOC can investigate. So far, none have been filed.

So what’s to be learned here? Although there aren’t any claims on the books yet, you can bet there soon will be. And if you’re using the term in your job advertising, you’d better have a pretty strong argument that older workers — that is, workers over 40 — could be considered natives in a digital universe.

Good luck with that.

 



For more HR News, please visit: Are you advertising for ‘digital natives’? You might want to rethink that

Source: News from HR Morning

New notice requirement tucked inside EEOC’s proposed regs

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

Just what you needed, right? Yet another rule requiring you to notify employees of your policies and procedures. 

Well, it looks like you’re going to get one, courtesy of the EEOC’s long-awaited proposed regulations outlining how the ADA applies to employee wellness programs.

Employers have been clamoring — in light of recent lawsuits by the EEOC against wellness programs — for clarity on what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to these programs.

Last month, the EEOC issued that clarity in the form of proposed regulations (here are eight things you need to know about the regs), and in them the agency included a new notice requirement for wellness programs.

The specifics

The notice requirement says that when a wellness program is part of a group health plan (as is often the case), the employer sponsoring the program must provide a detailed notice to participants explaining:

  • what medical info will be collected from participants
  • who’ll receive the medical info
  • how the medical info will be used
  • the restrictions on its disclosure, and
  • the methods that will be used to protect the confidentiality of the info.

This notice requirement is separate from other notice requirements under HIPAA, and the EEOC said it believes it’ll take employers four hours to develop the notice.

The proposed regs also mandate that employers only receive medical info in aggregate from that does not disclose, and is not “reasonably likely” to disclose, the identity of specific individuals.

Complying with existing HIPAA privacy rules will, generally, ensure compliance with the confidentiality requirements of the proposed regs, the EEOC said.

When will it take effect?

The EEOC has asked for public comments on the notice requirement and proposed regs. It’ll be accepting comments until June 19.

The EEOC will then evaluate all of the comments it receives and make revisions to the regs if deemed necessary. The agency will then vote on final regs. After they’re approved, they’ll be sent to the Office of Management and Budget and will be coordinated with other federal agencies before being published in the Federal Register.

So it’ll likely be several months before the final regs are enacted and the new notice requirement kicks in.

Info: For info on how to submit comments, click here.



For more HR News, please visit: New notice requirement tucked inside EEOC’s proposed regs

Source: News from HR Morning

You won’t believe these cases of employee fraud

Posted by On Filed under HR Morning News

For some rogue staffers, lifting office supplies or seeking reimbursement on a few minor “non-business related” charges is mere child’s play.  

Here are seven of the most over-the-top examples that we could find of in-house theft and employee fraud:

  • $1.2 million in false expenses. David Smith, a former Quest Diagnostics manager, managed to get reimbursed for over $1.2 million in false expenses through a complex web of deception. He set up fake companies, created fake invoices and turned in fake expense reports for payments he’d supposedly made to companies on Quest’s behalf.
    The FBI eventually caught on, and Smith was sentenced to five years in prison. His undoing? In addition to poorly named fake companies like Environmental Tech and Rep Med Services, Smith’s mailing addresses didn’t match up. Example: Environmental Tech’s address was an entrance ramp to a Tampa freeway.
  • Security expert finds — and exploits — $1 million hole in company’s internal controls. It’s not an unheard of scenario: A company hires a former “professional” thief as a theft-prevention specialist because of real-life expertise in the security field. In this case, a former embezzler, Barry Webne, was hired at Block Communications, Inc., as a “theft-prevention specialist.” Rather than protection, Webne ended up writing himself checks on company stock — signed with a signature stamp of a co-worker — cashing the checks, then destroying the canceled checks that were returned to the company. He made false entries in the company’s books to cover his actions. Before he was caught, Webne robbed Block of a staggering $1,138,334!
  • A suspiciously long case of jury duty. Joseph Winstead, a Washington, D.C., postal worker, managed to bilk the USPS out of close to $40,000 in unearned wages over a total of 144 days by claiming he was serving jury duty on an extended federal trial. (The USPS worker fabricated court paperwork to support his reimbursement because he was excused before the deliberations began.)
    He would’ve gotten away with it if he didn’t try his luck again — three years later. After a supervisor caught on, Winstead plead guilty to fraud — in the same federal courthouse where he claimed to have spent over 100 days fulfilling his civic duties.
  • Lots of company property goes missing. The proper safeguards are essential to ensure staffers don’t make off with valuable company property such as PCs, laptops, fax machines and … phone books? Instead of delivering phone books, a former Directory Plus employee squirreled away over 100,000 directories over the course of four years. What did she do with all those numbers? She hid her stash in three storage units — taken out in her name. Estimated losses from the missing phone books: Over $500k!
  • Who counts coins anyway? A former Calgary Transit employee, David Hamilton, pilfered almost $375,000 from his company the old-fashioned way. Over the course of seven years, the former fare counter took coins home with him by hiding them in his bag. That’s an average of $200 per day in quarters, dimes and nickels.
  • IKEA worker nets $400K in refunds. After mastering the furniture company’s phone and mail-order system, Suraj Samaroo started issuing himself refunds for purchases made by customers. Samaroo would cover up his rampant refunding by altering inventory records. In less than a year, he stole almost $400,000.
  • Bookkeeper swipes $350K from bookstore. At an independent bookstore in NC, Bookkeeper Anna Susan Kosak was nabbed for embezzling $348,975. Because Ms. Kosak was the only person to handle the company books, she would write — and cash — checks written out to herself without any oversight.

Of course, employee fraud is no laughing matter. And during times of economic uncertainty, employee theft tends to increase — especially for smaller businesses. Here are four safeguards to keep your company safe.



For more HR News, please visit: You won’t believe these cases of employee fraud

Source: News from HR Morning