HR Morning News, Page 34 Category

Human resources departments continue to struggle to build the best workforce. There are plenty of applicants but not enough candidates with the right combination of skills, experience, work ethic, and attitude to be top performers. This guide provides tactics and tips to help you improve the effectiveness of your company’s recruiting, hiring, and onboarding processes.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: The best team wins: Ten tips to hone your recruiting, hiring, and onboarding processes

Source: News from HR Morning

The Affordable Care Act — known to one and all as Obamacare — began its latest legal test before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.  

You recall that last fall, the high court agreed to hear a case challenging the legality of Obamacare subsidies in states that have refused to set up their own healthcare exchanges.

The case, King v. Burwell, is an appeal of a July ruling from the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the subsidies.

The essence of the case is one phrase in the law, which says that subsidies — in the form of tax credits — would be offered in health insurance exchanges “established by the state.” But more than 30 states passed on setting up their own exchanges, so the feds stepped in to do so.

Four Virginia residents — the original plaintiffs in the case —  claim that the subsidies are illegal in the states where only federal exchanges have been established.

It’s been estimated that should the court rule against the administration, up to nearly 8 million people in at least 34 states would lose the subsidies that help low- and moderate-income people buy private health insurance.

Although this case doesn’t directly involve individuals who receive health coverage through their employers, experts agree that if the court rules the federal subsidies illegal, the whole healthcare reform law could be in deep trouble.

A ‘rational reading’ and a ‘death spiral’

Here are some highlights of Wednesday’s oral arguments, courtesy of the Washington Post:

Attorney Michael Carvin opened the proceedings for the plaintiffs, who said that his interpretation of the phrase “established by the State” is the sole reading that would makes sense to “a rational, English-speaking person.”

But earlier, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Carvin, “I’m a little concerned with how you envision this provision working,” adding that without the subsidies, the states with federal insurance exchanges would see the market collapse — a “death spiral” for those who receive coverage through the exchange.

“Tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way,” the Post quoted Sontamayor.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy echoed Justice Sotomayor’s concern. “There is a serious constitutional problem,” he told Carvin.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested a hypothetical she thought applied to the question of whether the subsidies should apply across the board. Quoting from the Post:

She has three clerks, she says: Will, Elizabeth and Amanda. She asks Will to write a memo and Elizabeth to edit it. If Will is too busy, Amanda is to write it. If Will is too busy to write it, should Elizabeth edit it? she asks, eliciting a round of laughter from the audience.

“It’s obvious that Elizabeth should edit the memo,” she says.

Following Carvin’s presentation, Solicitor General Donald Verilli began the administration’s argument, asserting that Carvin’s opinion on who could receive subsidies would make the law “an incoherent statute that doesn’t work … That cannot be the statute Congress intended.”

Justice Antonin Scalia’s icy response: “The question is whether it’s the statute Congress wrote.”

The court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.

For more HR News, please visit: Obamacare faces the music before the Supreme Court — again

Source: News from HR Morning

Some analysts are predicting 2015 will be a big year for hiring. That’s good news. But the bad news is some employers have glaring holes in their hiring processes. 

More than three-quarters (76%) of employers plan to grow their workforce this year, according to HireRight’s “2015 Employment Screening Benchmark Report.” That’s certainly encouraging.

But not all of the findings were as chipper as that figure.

In producing the report, the background check provider HireRight polled more than 3,000 HR, recruiting, security, and management professionals to find out what their hiring practices look like.

It found some employers are making mistakes that could hurt them down the line.

A handful of the most common mistakes:

1. Failing to verify credentials. HireRight found that 50% of employers weren’t checking job candidates’ education backgrounds, and 32% weren’t checking previous employment. This is particularly concerning when you consider that 86% admitted to having caught a candidate in a lie at one time or another.
2. Not re-screening after the initial hire. Just because a person was squeaky clean when you hired him or her five years ago doesn’t mean their record’s still spotless. HireRight warns that failing to spot potentially dangerous additions to an existing employee’s record could leave you open to negligent retention claims down the road.
3. Failing to drug test. Changing marijuana laws are making this a more complex area, but HireRight suggests that more employers consider conducting pre-hire and ongoing drug tests in the name of preserving workplace safety and productivity, and decreasing absenteeism. Currently, 34% of employers don’t conduct any type of drug testing, the poll found.
4. Conducting risky social media screenings. HireRight says 36% of respondents use social media to screen applicants, a figure which is growing. This is an area where employers need to tread carefully to make sure they’re not screening out applicants for discriminatory reasons or digging up protected information.
5. Not going over the border. HireRight says 15% of respondents conduct global screening — a figure it deems too low. The firm says it’s important for companies to take their screenings global and not bypass verifying candidate’s non-U.S. work history and qualification claims.

Cite: “2015 Employment Screening and Benchmarking Report,” by HireRight.

For more HR News, please visit: Don’t do it: 5 costly hiring mistakes employers are making

Source: News from HR Morning

If you’ve noticed pharmacy spending takes a bigger chunk out your healthcare budget with each passing year, you’re not alone. Luckily, there are some practical steps you can take to stave off the increases.  

Buck Consultants, an HR and benefits consulting firm, recently published the Prescription Drug Benefit Survey, and it contained several eye-opening stats.

‘No signs of decreasing’

More than three-quarters (77%) of employers are currently spending 16% or more of their health costs on pharmacy benefits alone, according to the study. On top of being a high figure in and of itself, it’s up from the 72% of employers who reported spending that much in last year’s Buck Consultants’ study.

Another alarming stat: 4.6% of firms are spending more than 30% of their healthcare dollars on pharmacy benefits. That’s double the 2.3% of employers that reported spending that much last year.

One explanation for the increase is the surging popularity of speciality drugs.

As Buck Consultants Principal Paul Burns explained:

With specialty drug costs showing no signs of decreasing, we could easily see the average percentage of total health care spend employers are paying for pharmacy increase from 15 to 20%.

Room for improvement

The study, however, did offer some encouraging news for employers.

Essentially, the folks at Buck Consultants said the bulk of employers could spend their pharmacy dollars more efficiently and prevent the upward trend in pharmacy benefit spending.

How? By getting together with your benefits broker and making sure your pharmacy benefits strategy and policy is consistent with your budget goals.

In addition, Buck suggests that firms conduct competitive bidding process on a regular basis to select a pharmacy benefit manager.

For more HR News, please visit: Getting a handle on skyrocketing employee pharmacy spending

Source: News from HR Morning

In CEB’s Key Imperatives for HR in 2015, learn the four trends disrupting HR and how your team can drive greater business impact this year. Through hundreds of conversations with HR executives, we’ve identified four trends that are disrupting HR’s ability to increase their impact on the business.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Key Imperatives for HR Executives in 2015

Source: News from HR Morning

No matter how meticulous and experienced you are, handling payroll can be a headache. Add in the stress of potentially stiff penalties for tax filing omissions, and you’re left with a financially-induced migraine. In fact, every year approximately 40% of all small businesses pay an average fine of $845 (including penalties and interest) to the IRS. Hiring a qualified payroll service provider can help you increase efficiency and save both time and hassle. Let BuyerZone give you the solid working knowledge you need to evaluate payroll service providers. Then, we can put you in touch with several qualified providers for competitive price quotes – all at no cost to you.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Compare Free Price Quotes on Payroll Services

Source: News from HR Morning

Whether due to overwhelming paperwork, rapid growth, or new efficiency initiatives, companies are turning to time tracking systems in record numbers. Highly-competitive vendors are responding to this demand with products designed for a variety of technical requirements and niche industries. As a result, time and attendance packages can now help your company automate not only the morning roll call but also your labor forecasting and management activities. BuyerZone can help you evaluate and choose the system that is best suited to your needs. We’ll also send you free price quotes from reputable local dealers so you can compare offers.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Compare Free Price Quotes on Time and Attendance Systems

Source: News from HR Morning

If you’ve been following along on HR Morning, you know the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has made some pretty controversial rulings lately in an attempt to protect workers‘ Section 7 speech rights under the National Labor Relations Act. But this time, it may have gone too far. 

Section 7 gives workers at any company (unionized or not) the right to participate in “concerted activity” aimed at improving of their working conditions.

In a nutshell, the rule says employees must be able to freely discuss their working conditions publicly — including topics like pay, managerial treatment, work duties/assignments, the work environment in general, unionizing, etc.

Lately, the NLRB has been on a scorched-earth crusade to find and block any employer action or policy it believes might stymie employees’ Section 7 rights.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit just threw a cold, wet blanket on a recent NLRB decision that was bound to have employers throwing their hands up in disgrace.

Company’s hat policy challenged

The case involves a World Color Corp. printing facility in Nevada. The company had a safety policy that required any hair that hung past a worker’s collar to be secured to the person’s head in production areas.

To do this, the company allowed employees to wear a baseball cap with the company’s logo on it. No other type of baseball cap was allowed.

A labor union took issue with this rule. It wanted employees to be able to wear the union’s hats. So the union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB. It said World Color’s hat policy was overly restrictive and infringed upon worker’s Section 7 rights to discuss unionizing.

An administrative law judge for the NLRB ruled in favor of the union, and the NLRB later backed up the judge’s ruling.

The NLRB said it was:

“undisputed that the policy on its face prohibits employees from engaging in the protected activity of wearing caps bearing union insignia.”

The company then appealed the decision in the D.C. district court, which sent the case back to the NLRB for reconsideration.

A win for uniform policies

The court side the case wasn’t as one-sided as the NLRB made it seem.

It’s reasoning: While it acknowledged World Color did have a policy limiting employees hat options to just the one hat, the company’s uniform policy didn’t prohibit employees from accessorizing their uniforms — hats included — with the union’s insignia.

As a result, the court said there was a dispute over whether the company’s policy was overly broad and facially prohibited the wearing of the union insignia.

It ruled:

“[a]though the hat policy restricts the type of hat that may be worn, it does not say anything about whether union insignia may be attached to the hat.”

The district court’s ruling is a win for employer uniform policies everywhere in that it put the NLRB in check when it comes to its broad interpretation of Section 7. It said the NLRB had to do more digging to determine whether the policy was overly restrictive.

What this case doesn’t do, however, is give employers the green light to enforce strict uniform policies.

World Color’s policy, for example, still needs to pass another test, which the NLRB is likely to put it through now. The test will ask three questions of the policy:

1. Was it put in place due to union activity?
2. Was it created to restrict union activity?
3. Would employees interpret the policy as being one meant to restrict union activity?

If the NLRB finds any of these to be the case, it will likely deem the policy illegal.

Cite: World Color Corp. v. NLRB

For more HR News, please visit: This time the NLRB may have gone too far protecting workers’ speech rights

Source: News from HR Morning