HR Morning News, Page 4 Category

Work/life balance is among the most common buzzwords — and the slipperiest issues — around HR today. Wonder what jobs offer the best of this elusive ideal? Read on.  

Recently, Glassdoor identified the 25 Best Jobs for Work/Life Balance, compiled using employee feedback shared on the career consultant’s website over the past year.

Glassdoor’s clients rated their satisfaction with their jobs’ work/life balance on a 1-to-5 scale — 1 being totally unsatisfied, 5 being very satisfied. Turns out work-life balance has decreased in recent years, as employees have reported an average work-life balance satisfaction rating of 3.5 in 2009, 3.4 in 2012, and 3.2 thus far in 2015.

So here’s Glassdoor’s lineup of this year’s 25 best jobs for work/life balance (listing includes average salary and number of available positions on the Glassdoor jobs board):

1. Data Scientist

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 4.2
• Salary: $114,808
• Number of Job Openings: 1,315

2. SEO Manager

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 4.1
• Salary: $45,720
• Number of Job Openings: 338

3. Talent Acquisition Specialist

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 4.0
• Salary: $63,504
• Number of Job Openings: 1,171

4. Social Media Manager

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 4.0
• Salary: $40,000
• Number of Job Openings: 661

5. Substitute Teacher

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.9
• Salary: $24,380
• Number of Job Openings: 590

6. Recruiting Coordinator

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.9
• Salary: $44,700
• Number of Job Openings: 446

7. UX (User Experience) Designer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.9
• Salary: $91,440
• Number of Job Openings: 338

8. Digital Marketing Manager

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.9
• Salary: $70,052
• Number of Job Openings: 640

9. Marketing Assistant

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $32,512
• Number of Job Openings: 384

10. Web Developer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $66,040
• Number of Job Openings: 2,117

11. Risk Analyst

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $69,088
• Number of Job Openings: 208

12. Civil Engineer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $65,532
• Number of Job Openings: 809

13. Client Manager

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $71,120
• Number of Job Openings: 503

14. Instructional Designer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $66,040
• Number of Job Openings: 782

15. Marketing Analyst

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $60,000
• Number of Job Openings: 341

16. Software QA Engineer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $91,440
• Number of Job Openings: 457

17. Web Designer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $53,848
• Number of Job Openings: 500

18. Research Technician

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.8
• Salary: $36,525
• Number of Job Openings: 299

19. Program Analyst

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $71,120
• Number of Job Openings: 524

20. Data Analyst

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $58,928
• Number of Job Openings: 1,954

21. Content Manager

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $60,960
• Number of Job Openings: 409

22. Solutions Engineer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $92,456
• Number of Job Openings: 652

23. Lab Assistant

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $27,550
• Number of Job Openings: 779

24. Software Developer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $80,000
• Number of Job Openings: 3,330

25. Front End Developer

• Work-Life Balance Rating: 3.7
• Salary: $75,000
• Number of Job Openings: 1337

We’re struck by a couple of things here: First, how many of these jobs are in technology — don’t we keep hearing about how hard it is to find qualified tech people, and how overworked current staffers are?

Second, we wonder how many of these jobs would have even existed if similar research was conducted 15 years ago. Not too many, we’d think.

 

Behold the perils of dealing with the FMLA in the Golden Age of Employment Litigation: After clearly catching its employee in the act of FMLA leave abuse, this employer still got sued. 

Cue the groans. But hold on, this story has a happy ending … for employers.

Lucy Fitterer worked for the State of Washington Employment Security Department and had been granted intermittent FMLA leave periodically throughout her employment to help her deal with migraine headaches.

As a result, nothing seemed out of the ordinary when she requested two weeks of FMLA leave in January of 2011.

Then, through the grapevine (i.e., Fitterer’s step father mentioned it to one of her co-workers), the employer found out that Fitterer and her husband were planning to use her FMLA leave to slip away for two weeks on a cruise.

As a result, HR reached out to her doctor to verify her need for FMLA leave (warning: failing to get the employee’s permission to do this could also get you sued).

What did the doctor say? He said Fitterer was not incapable of working during the time she would be on FMLA leave. He also indicated she wasn’t seeking treatment while on leave.

So when Fitterer returned to work, her welcome-home present was a pink slip. She’d been fired, and a stated reason for her termination was a violation of the company’s leave policy — a.k.a., FMLA abuse.

Is that interference?

Following her termination, Fitterer sued claiming FMLA interference.

Thankfully for employers everywhere, the court quickly dispatched Fitterer’s lawsuit and ruled her termination should stand.

In explaining its ruling, the court said Fitterer had no evidence that she was incapacitated during her two weeks of leave, and there was no evidence that the two-week cruise was necessary to deal with her medical condition.

This is a good sign that courts won’t put up with FMLA abuse, either. Plus, it shows courts will back your punishment of leave abusers when you can build a strong enough case against them — as this employer did, not by making assumptions about Fitterer’s leave, but instead by seeking clarification from her doctor.

Cite: Fitterer v. State of Washington Employment Security Dept.

With the deadlines just months away, ACA reporting is priority number one for many HR pros. Here’s some help with that monumental compliance task.  

The reporting requirements can be broken down into two categories:

• the forms you need provide employees by Feb. 1, 2016 (Form 1095-C for insured plans), and
• the forms you need to get to the IRS by Feb. 29, 2016(Form 1094-C for insured plans).

And if your company will be filing more than 250 or more returns for 2016, the IRS requires you to do it electronically.

But you do get an extra month to get those forms to the feds – that deadline is March 31, 2016.

Note: The feds recently let employers know that there is a way to get a 30- or even 60-day ACA reporting extension in some situations.

From start to finish

To ensure your firm has everything in order by the time the deadlines roll around, here is a five-point checklist:

1. Keep all key requirements in mind. If you’re an employer with between 50 and 99 full-time employees, you’ve got reporting requirements under the law – even if you qualify for transitional relief or if you don’t offer healthcare coverage.

What’s more, regardless of your own plan year, ACA reporting is based on a calendar year basis and generally must be reported for each month of that calendar year.

2. Make sure everybody is on the same page. The reporting process requires a lot of communication between different departments (HR/Benefits, Payroll, Finance) and, in many cases, a software vendor is also involved.

Example: For many firms, Payroll tracks the hours worked during the measurement period – the period where employers determine workers’ full-time status.

After the tracking, will Payroll also put together a report on each employee’s total hours of service or will that task fall on HR and Benefits? If so, what info does HR need?

3. Make sure all necessary data is being collected. During the plan year, firms should be collecting a variety of data from workers for reporting purposes.

This includes: enrollment and termination of coverage dates, acceptance or coverage waivers, coverage eligibility documents, employee’s share of lowest cost monthly premium for self-only minimum value coverage, wage info (for the Affordability test), documents on coverage offers to employees, and their spouses and dependents.

4. Familiarize yourself with the forms, instructions now. Employers should review the IRS’ instructions and familiarize themselves with the sample forms. This will ensure the process is much smoother come crunch time.

When it comes to the actual reporting, Form 1095-C can be broken down into parts I, II and III (section for self-funded plans).

Because it’s complex and time-consuming, Part II is expected to cause employers’ the most trouble.

Among other things, Part II will be used to track firms’ monthly compliance with the Shared-Responsibility regs and whether employees, spouses and dependents are eligible for a premium tax credits, whether minimum, affordable coverage has been offered and what safe harbor, if any, is available.

5. Doublecheck all reporting. This can’t be stressed enough. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expecting filing errors to be the ACA’s single largest revenue generator over the next decade.

President Obama just signed into law the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act, a bill that received rare bipartisan support. For many smaller employers, the law comes as welcome news.  

Because of PACE, employers won’t have to worry about an upcoming health reform provision that was slated to alter the definition of “small group employer” in 2016.

Definition remains unchanged

Under the ACA, the definition of small employer was slated to increase to any business with one to 100 employees on January 1, 2016.

For the purposes of the exchange and the insurance market ACA regs, a small employer is currently defined as one with one to 50 employees. Under PACE, that definition remains intact. However, under the new law, states do have the option of using the 100-employee threshold if they wish.

PACE will also limit participation in Obamacare’s SHOP exchanges to employers with no more than 50 employees (unless states expand the threshold).

The 100-employee threshold would have forced “mid-sized” firms (51-100 employees) into the small group market where plans are subject to a number of additional ACA requirements. This, critics argued, would drive up healthcare costs.

The EEOC continues to crack down on allegations of sexual harassment in the agricultural industry. Latest settlement cost: $450,000.  

Two potato packing companies will ante up the cash and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for sexual harassment and retaliation brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency announced.

EEOC charged Smokin’ Spuds, Inc., d/b/a MountainKing Potatoes, and Farming Technology, Inc., d/b/a MountainKing Potatoes, with violating federal law by subjecting more than a dozen women to regular verbal sexual harassment and unwelcome physical contact from a supervisor.

EEOC also claimed that the companies unlawfully discharged three of the women in retaliation for refusing to submit to the harassment or making complaints about the harassment to other management officials.

The two companies operate a potato packing plant in Monte Vista, CO.

The EEOC suit alleged that supervisor Samuel Valdez engaged in various sexually inappropriate actions, including making sexual comments and gestures, propositioning female employees, touching them on their buttocks and breasts, and in at least one instance, pulling a female employee onto his lap.

Complaints to management went unheeded, according to EEOC, and in some circumstances, women were actually fired after complaining. As a result, the harassment continued unabated for several years.

Third win

This is the third case in which the EEOC has successfully settled charges of harassment in the agricultural industry. The first case, EEOC v. Spud Seller, Inc., settled for $255,000 and a consent decree was entered on Jan. 31, 2013. Just last month, EEOC obtained a $17 million jury verdict in its sexual harassment case against Moreno Farms, Inc.

In addition to paying the $450,000, the defendants in the recent case are also subject to a three-year consent decree which enjoins them from engaging in any future employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, and from retaliating against individuals who oppose such practices.

Additionally, the decree requires:

• extensive training for employees, supervisors and human resources officials on employment discrimination laws
• letters of regret to the affected women
• posting a notice regarding employees’ rights to be free of harassment and retaliation
• distribution of EEO policies, including Spanish versions, and
• establishing a consent decree monitor with various oversight responsibilities.

The companies will also report to EEOC regarding compliance with the decree.

They’ve also agreed to part ways with Samuel Valdez.

 

 

Recently, we ran a post outlining seven areas you need to cover when navigating the interactive process of the ADA. This time around, a look at the landmines you need to avoid.  

These guidelines come courtesy of attorney Kelli Gemelli of JacksonLewis, writing on the California Workplace Law blog.

The reasonable accommodation process “can be tricky,” she says in a masterpiece of understatement, and mistakes are easy to make. Some of the most common:

Not recognizing an accommodation request was made. Sounds outrageous, but think about it: Managers don’t always pick up on what employees say, and employees don’t always express themselves clearly. “A best practice is to have a policy that requires employees to consult with your human resources department – rather than supervisors – if they need an accommodation,” says Gemelli.  “By doing so, companies limit the amount of confidential information being reported to supervisors.”

Asking for too much medical information. Federal and state law limit how deeply employers can dive into employees’ medical files. The guideline: Ask only for information that directly relates to the employee’s limitations in performing the essential duties of his/her job.

Denying an accommodation request because the employee did not provide a solution. Even if the employee can’t define what he or she is seeking, the employer is still required to go through the interactive process. It’s entirely possible a reasonable answer might be found during the process.

Ending the accommodation dialogue because you can’t find a reasonable accommodation that would allow the employee to perform the job’s essential functions. “If an employee cannot perform the essential functions of the job, the employer should see if other accommodations can be made such as reassigning the employee to an open position, allowing the employee to work part time or providing the employee with an unpaid leave of absence,” says Gemelli.

Invoking the “we’ve never done things that way before” defense. No way that flies in court. A reasonable accommodation is a reasonable accommodation, no matter what company history says.

Failing to document the process. You saw this one coming, right? As the saying goes, “No paperwork, no defense.”

Stretching the “undue hardship” parameters. It’s important to remember, Gemelli says, that cost alone rarely qualifies as an undue hardship on an employer.

 

 

How long do you retain job seekers’ application materials? Why does it matter? A recent EEOC lawsuit against Coca-Cola reveals why you must keep them (for a while, at least) and what can happen if you don’t. 

The Coca-Cola Bottling Company’s bottling plant in Mobile, AL, is under fire from the EEOC.

The agency is suing the soda maker, claiming Coke violated federal law — twice — when it refused to hire Martina Owes.

Here are the charges levied against Coke, according to the EEOC:

• Sex discrimination. The EEOC claims Coke violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Owes on the basis that she’s a woman. The lawsuit alleges that the company, after refusing to hire Owes for two vacant warehouse positions, hired two less-qualified men to fill the positions. The EEOC alleges Owes had all of the warehouse and forklift experience required for the positions.
• Recordkeeping violations. The agency also claims Coke violated federal recordkeeping requirements by not preserving all of the application materials related to those positions.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit after failing to reach a settlement through its conciliation process. Our only guess as to why Coke didn’t settle is because it feels it has a strong defense and can show a court it had a non-discriminatory reason for denying Owes employment.

Still, based on cases like this we’ve seen in the past, it’s likely difficult for Coke to prevail on the recordkeeping charges. After all, it either has the records or it doesn’t.

What to keep, and for how long

Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the importance of retaining application materials. Chances are when the EEOC starts snooping around for wrongdoing in your hiring process, it’s going to request all of your hiring materials — past and present. And you’d better be able to produce them, or expect the agency to come after you.

So how long do you have to keep application materials, anyway?

The rule under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is a minimum of one year. But if you’re aware the applicant is over 40, it’s smart to retain them for at least two years. This rule also applies to resumes, references checks and background check materials.

What about personnel and employment records?

The EEOC requires you to keep them on file for at least a year.

Payroll records?

Three years.

Now if your company is to be charged with some form of wrongdoing, then you’ve got to keep all of these materials until the matter is resolved.

In the EEOC’s lawsuit against Coke, the agency is seeking back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, a job for Owes and an injunction against future discrimination.

You know better than to ask a job candidate how old he or she is. But employee-side lawyers are crafty, and can build an age discrimination lawsuit around queries that seem a lot more innocent. 

What not to ask

Some examples from a recent post on The EmpLAWerologist blog:

• How long would you stay with us?
• How long do you plan to work?
• How’d you feel about working for someone younger than you?
• When did you graduate?
• How many years of experience do you have?

Obviously, these questions are dangerous because they could draw out someone’s approximate age.

And they’re also kind of dumb. What response can you expect if you ask a candidate, “How long would you stay with us?” “Well, just until I get enough dough together to run away to Mexico”?

Nonetheless, these kinds of questions do get asked of candidates on a depressingly regular basis. And if a rejected candidate sues for age bias, it’ll be hard to prove you didn’t base your decision on his or her answers.

A couple additional reminders

Obviously, you need a lot of information before deciding to hire someone. And that means asking a lot of questions.

Much of the problems come in the phrasing. Everything you ask should be related to the person’s ability to do the job, but some questions might inadvertently come out in a way that reveals off-limits details on things like race, religion, disabilities, etc. You need to phrase those questions in a way that only addresses the work-related details.

Along with the kinds of questions listed above, here are another two areas where you need to tread carefully:

“Family responsibility” discrimination

You can’t ask if a candidate has kids. That’ll leave the company open to sex discrimination charges if it looks like you treat men with children differently than you treat similarly-situated women. You’re better off not knowing about familial status. If you’re filling a position that requires odd hours or a lot of overtime, just make sure the candidate understands that and ask if availability will be a problem for any reason.

Disability discrimination

Finally, you should avoid questions regarding health and physical abilities, such as those about height, weight, injuries, disabilities, etc. Instead, ask specific questions about what’s required for the job, for example, “You’d have to carry boxes weighing up to 50 pounds – can you do that?”