Download this guide and share it with your managers and help them use recognition more effectively. They’ll learn how to successfully use recognition to:
Click here for your free guide!
For more HR News, please visit: The Managerâs Field Guide to Recognition
Source: News from HR Morning
There’s simply no end to the crazy stuff people will do or say when they’re trying to nail down a job.
Our latest list of bizarre applicant behaviors comes from, of all places, the Reader’s Digest. RD collected anecdotes from HR pros, Robert Half Technology and Washingtonian.com for a pretty extensive list of out-of-the-ordinary actions of jobseekers.
Here are our favorites:
We ask prospective job applicants at our business to fill out a questionnaire. For the line ‘Choose one word to summarize your strongest professional attribute,’ one woman wrote, ‘I’m very good at following instructions.’
An individual applied for a customer-service job, and when asked what he might not like about the job, he said, ‘Dealing with people.’
I had somebody list their prison time as a job. And an exotic dancer who called herself a ‘customer service representative.’
Applicant put up posters of himself in the company parking lot.
The candidate arrived in a catsuit.
Applicant announced his candidacy with a singing telegram.
Candidate specified that his availability was limited because Friday, Saturday, and Sunday was ‘drinking time.’
Candidate explained an arrest by stating, ‘We stole a pig, but it was a really small pig.’
Advertising is a tough business. Which may be why one prospective adman wrote a cover letter boasting, ‘I am getting to my goal, slowly but surly.’
A job applicant came in for an interview with a cockatoo on his shoulder.
A guy who forgot dark socks to wear with his suit colored in his ankles with a black felt-tip marker.
The candidate told the interviewer he was fired from his last job for beating up his boss.
An applicant said she was a âpeople person,â not a ânumbers person,â in her interview for an accounting position.
A candidate complained that she was hot. She then said âExcuse meâ and removed her socks. After placing them on the desk, she continued as if everything was normal.
Applicant rented a billboard, which the hiring manager could see from his office, listing his qualifications.
I swear this is true: Someone threw his beer can in the outside trash can before coming into the reception area.
Got your own bizarro-applicant story? Send it along.
For more HR News, please visit: Weird applicants: Beer, singing telegrams and a cockatoo
Source: News from HR Morning
At-will employment agreement or not, try to babysit your employees this much and you’re likely to get burned.
PAM Transport Inc. was recently ordered by a U.S. district court to deliver nearly $500,000 to 12 former truck drivers.
The court ruled the employer violated the ADA when it required its drivers to submit to what the ADA terms “overly broad medical inquiries.”
The EEOC sued PAM Transport on the drivers’ behalf after learning the employer had, according to the agency, ordered them to “notify the company whenever the driver had any contact with a medical professional, including a routine physical.”
The requirement was spelled out in the employer’s medical clearance policy, the EEOC said.
Under the ADA, employees can only be made to submit to medical inquiries if the inquiries are job-related and consistent with business necessity.
In other words, the inquiries have to:
There are also certain allowances for medical inquiries when an employee requests a disability accommodation and it isn’t immediately clear to the employer what the need for the accommodation is.
But asking employees to report to their employer every time they see a doctor, that’s a big no-no.
As a result, the court ordered PAM Transport to cough up $225,998 in back pay and interest, $49,114 in compensatory damages, and $202,287 in punitive damages to the 12 former truck drivers.
It also ordered the employer to revise its medical clearance policy and even ordered a retired judge to serve as third-party decision maker to assist PAM Transport in making the necessary changes.
For more HR News, please visit: This is what asking for too much employee medical info looks like
Source: News from HR Morning
If you’re frustrated by the EEOC’s recent lawsuits against wellness programs, and are confused about what a legal wellness incentive is nowadays, you’ll probably like this:
The Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act was just introduced in both the House and Senate. It’s a short bill that aims to clear up the confusion sparked by the EEOC around what’s an acceptable wellness program incentive and what isn’t.
As you may recall, the EEOC sued Honeywell International Inc. late last year, claiming the company’s wellness program biometric screenings violated the ADA and GINA because:
The lawsuit against Honeywell came on the heels of two other lawsuits in which the EEOC charged two other employers with similar violations of the ADA.
The ADA says medical examinations — like the biometric screenings Honeywell and others wanted employees to participate in under their wellness programs — are only legal if they are voluntary or job-related and consistent with business necessity.
The EEOC said the employers’ penalties for non-participation were so steep, they rendered the examinations involuntary.
Now here’s the rub: Employers and various members of Congress believe the EEOC has overstepped it’s bounds issuing these wellness lawsuits because:
The new bill, if passed, would set the record straight once and for all.
Quite simply, it says that wellness programs would be in compliance with the ADA if they’re in compliance with the ACA.
The bill also addresses GINA violations by saying:
“the collection of information about the manifested disease or disorder of a family member shall not be considered an unlawful acquisition of genetic information with respect to another family member participating in workplace wellness programs, or programs of health promotion or disease prevention offered by an employer or in conjunction with an employer sponsored health plan … and shall not violate titles I or title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008.”
In other words, collecting medical info on employees’ family members who’ll participate in a company wellness program — whether the incentives are tied to the collection of this info or not — won’t violate GINA.
For more HR News, please visit: Introducing Congressâ proposed fix for wellness incentives
Source: News from HR Morning
You know those complex fee-disclosure statements you have to make sure your employees get regarding their 401k plans? If the DOL has its way, workers may have to get the same type of info about their health insurance.
This is one of the surprising details that was tucked away in the Obama Administrationâs Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget proposal.
Benefits consultant ERISA Diagnostics Inc. recently pointed out this proposal, which seemed to fly under the radar after the budget was released.
There have been a string of health-plan fee lawsuits â Hi-Lex Controls Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Dykema Excavators v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) â where plan administrators were accused of fiduciary responsibility violations.
So it looks like the DOL is looking to make providers in the healthcare industry as accountable for and transparent about plan fees as providers in the retirement field.
Initially introduced back in 2011, the proposal was tabled until it was listed as a top priority by the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) this year.
Why the sudden urgency from the EBSA? One reason is because self-insured health plans are becoming more common, and the feds believe self-funded plan sponsors may not be fully aware of the fees theyâre actually paying their administrators.
Fee info related to these plans, which are paid out of the general assets of the employer, canât be found on the Form 5500.
Although there is a section of Form 5500 â Schedule A â that lists broker commissions, this section doesnât require that these services be broken down on a line-by-line basis.
While employers wait for the DOL to take action on this priority, there are several things that can be done to prevent paying excessive health plan fees.
For one, ERISA Diagnostics says employers should âreview welfare plan [i.e., health plan] fees with the same scrutiny and diligence as you review 401(k) plan fees.â
And sponsors of self-insured plans can even go a step further. In the Hi-Lex lawsuit, the DOL filed a detailed amicus brief regarding âextensive discussion regarding plan assets.â
Employers can look at the DOLâs thoughts on this subject and then use that info to discuss fees with their administrators and brokers.
For more HR News, please visit: Feds are pushing for fee-disclosure rules for health plans
Source: News from HR Morning
A snapshot of the current technology and engineering hiring market reveals several major trends that are creating a challenging landscape for employers and recruiters. Economic factors, changing candidate behaviors and increasing social media usage have converged to reshape the way recruiters and HR staff connect with candidates. Companies are advised to build an integrated sourcing strategy that capitalizes on positive trends and reduces the negative effects of other trends. Download the whitepaper to learn what three trends are impacting the market and how to address them.
For more HR News, please visit: Three Trends that are Impacting the Hiring Market Right Now
Source: News from HR Morning
The recent economic upswing has created an unwelcome, and unexpected, consequence for HR — and no, it’s got nothing to do with employees fleeing into a healthier job market.
The real estate market is on the rebound — especially the commercial real estate market, according to the latest figures from CoreNet Global, a commercial real estate association.
Result: The increased demand for commercial space has not only caused real estate purchase prices to club, but also caused rent to go shooting skyward.
So where does HR come in? The fallout from the commercial market’s recent surge has many businesses shrinking their offices to save cash.
In fact, CoreNet Global is reporting the average office space per worker in North America has shrunk to around 176 square feet — down from 225 square feet back in 2010.
In other words, employees’ work spaces are shrinking — and their will be consequences.
This is likely one of the reasons more employers have adopted the “open office” concept in which cubical walls come down and employees work at shared workstations. Some researchers suggest that “open” designs improve communication.
But the consensus seems to be this will also lead to more distractions.
What the overall impact on productivity will be remains to be seen. But either way, it’ll fall on HR’s shoulders to provide ways for employees to break free from their co-workers when they need to work uninterrupted.
Evil HR Lady Suzanne Lucas agrees the working world is trending toward shrinking offices, and she’s even seen the consequences — both the good and the bad — firsthand.
She also acknowledges employers will have to find a way to help workers break away from the “noise” shrinking and shared work spaces will create.
In an article she penned for Inc.com, she offers up for ways to help workers cope with working in close confines:
For more HR News, please visit: The next great HR challenge: 4 ways to prep
Source: News from HR Morning
Are you a fan of this potential drain on your company’s 401(k) plan?
In President Obama’s proposed 2016 budget, his administration included a provision that, if passed, would allow unemployed individuals to withdraw up to $50,000 from their individual 401(k) accounts penalty free.
Presently, early withdrawals (those made before age 59-1/2), are subject to a 10% penalty, plus income tax requirements.
The president’s proposal would eliminate the 10% penalty, but there are some rules attached to the plan.
The fine print:
It’s unclear how likely the provision is to pass (presidential budget proposals usually undergo significant changes), but NBC News is reporting the provision appears to have bipartisan support.
How the business community would react is another story altogether. Generally, employers do all they can to discourage early withdrawals, as they know what kind of damage they can do to employees’ and ex-employees’ long-term retirement savings.
For more HR News, please visit: Obama plan would increase early 401(k) withdrawals
Source: News from HR Morning
Even though the âCadillac Taxâ doesnât take effect until 2018, itâs one of HR prosâ biggest concerns regarding the entire Affordable Care Act. Now, for the first time, the feds are offering guidance on how this tax will be calculated.
Starting in 2018, employers will be required to pay a 40% excise tax on the value on any healthcare coverage that exceeds $10,200 for single coverage or $27,500 for families in premium costs.
Many firms have already determined theyâre likely to be impacted by this tax in 2018 or soon after.
But even though theyâve been making decisions in anticipation of that tax, until now, the feds havenât given any details on what to expect.
In the guidance, Notice 2015-16, the IRS was clear that employer contributions to an HSA are subject to the 40% Obamacare tax. Whatâs less clear, however, is exactly how employee pretax contributions will be treated.
Specifically, the IRS said that the agencies (HHS, DOL and IRS/Treasury):
anticipate that future proposed regulations will provide (1) employer contributions to HSAs, including salary reduction contributions to HSAs, are included in applicable coverage, and (2) employee after-tax contributions to HSAs are excluded from applicable coverage.
Based on how the IRS plans to treat pretax HSA contributions, many employers will be subject to the Cadillac Tax unless they limit the amount that workersâ can contribute to their HSAs.
The guidance also said the feds were considering excluding self-insured vision and dental plans, which are considered excepted benefits, from the Cadillac Tax by using their âregulatory authority.â They will also look into doing the same for EAPs that fall under the excepted benefit category.
Under current health reform regs, fully insured dental and vision plans are excluded from the excise tax.
Finally, the IRS guidance touched on the type of onsite medical clinics that would likely be excluded from the Cadillac Tax.
The onsite clinics the IRS guidance refers to are the type that only offer de minimis (i.e., minimal) care to workers. The IRS cited a COBRA reg to spell out the type of clinics that will likely be excluded from the tax. According to that reg, an onsite clinic isnât considered a group health plan if:
If an employerâs onsite clinic meets this criteria, it likely wonât be subject to the ACAâs excise tax, the IRS said.
The IRS also made it clear that there was more guidance to come on the types of care that will trigger the Cadillac Tax.
The feds are accepting public comments on the details of this notice until May 15, 2015, after which theyâll release additional guidance followed by proposed regs on the Cadillac Tax.
Specifically, the feds are requesting employer comments on onsite clinics that provide the following health services in addition to first aid:
For more HR News, please visit: Feds offer a first look at the upcoming âCadillac Taxâ
Source: News from HR Morning
You know that employers have to tread carefully in their social media policies concerning what employees can and can’t say about work. But does that same leeway apply when it comes to employees posting negative comments about customers?
A case in Hawaii could give us some answers. A brief rundown:
Maurice Howard was a regular customer of a Hertz car rental agency. He alleged that Hertz employees posted messages on Facebook that constituted “an attack on [his] race, sexual orientation and financial state and condition.”
Howard pointed to several insulting Facebook posts made by Hertz employee Shawn Akina. Several of Akina’s co-workers also posted comments on Akina’s page, Howard alleged.
Howard originally sued for assault, racial and sexual orientation bias, libel, and violation of privacy. He later dropped those counts, however, and maintained his claims for negligent supervision by the employer, negligent retention and negligent training.
Here’s the rub: Howard said that Hertz management knew of Akina’s activities — he had supposedly made negative comments about customers on two previous occasions — but took no action against him or provided him with training on what is and isn’t acceptable on social media.
Akina’s early posts should have gotten him suspended or fired, Howard claimed, and added that Akina’s comments about him “caused him to sustain injuries and losses.”
The federal District Court judge ruled that Howard “sufficiently alleges that … Akina posted ‘hostile and harassing content’ on Facebook’ about a Hertz customer and Hertz manager in the past. It is therefore at least plausible that similar conduct in the future may have been foreseeable.” The case continues.
Bottom line: Hertz is looking at a big legal bill for a court fight, or writing a big check for a settlement.
As you know, a number of employer policies dealing with social media have been found to be too broad by the National Labor Relations Board, which staunchly protects employees’ right to discuss the “terms and conditions” of their work. And it seems possible that such discussion might occasionally include a mention of a specific customer.
There’s a fine line to walk here. It seems safe, however, to prohibit insulting, negative postings about specific customers, especially when they have no connection with workplace conditions.
The case is Howard v. The Hertz Corporation (link courtesy of law firm Hall Render).
For more HR News, please visit: Are employees protected when they post negative comments about customers?
Source: News from HR Morning
