SALES & MARKETING MANAGER, Page 30 Tag

More employees want the option to work remotely from home, but telecommuting can bring up hurdles companies have to plan for. 

Some employers have held off on giving workers chances to telecommute, believing the perk is more beneficial for the employees than their companies. They worry that working remotely makes it harder to keep staffers productive and accountable.

However, research over the last few years has shown that telecommuting can be a great perk for workers and their companies.

A great perk, but …

Recently, ConnectedSolutions, a cloud-based storage provider, surveyed hundreds of workers to investigate how telecommuting affected their performance. The study suggests that telecommuters don’t shirk their duties, but actually work harder to hold onto the perk.

For example, researchers found:

• 77% of respondents said they were more productive while telecommuting
• 30% said they accomplish more in less time
• 24% said they accomplish more in the same amount of time
• 23% were willing to work longer hours while telecommuting, and
• 52% said they were less likely to take off when working remotely, even if they were sick.

But although there are a lot of advantages to telecommuting for both employees and companies, working remotely can also make it difficult for managers to communicate with telecommuters. And feeling disconnected can leave telecommuters unmotivated and less productive, negating the benefits.

3 steps to maintain productivity

Employment law attorney Doug Oldham from the firm Barnes & Thornburg LLP (btlaw.com) suggested some steps managers can take to overcome this problem in an article he penned for The Metropreneur Columbus.

According to Oldham, employers can reduce telecommuting problems by:

• setting up times for regular updates and feedback. Consistent communication is key because telecommuters may feel like if they’re out of sight, they’re also out of mind. Setting up regular update and feedback sessions can help them feel like they still have a voice, as well as help managers keep tabs on workers’ progress. It’s also important that managers use these communications to recognize telecommuters’ hard work to keep their morale from dipping.
• spelling out goals and expectations ahead of time. Be sure telecommuters understand what’s expected of them from the get-go. In addition to setting performance goals, this may mean explaining your expectations that an employee be reachable during certain hours of the day, regardless of their location. Ideally, you’ll want to put these details in writing, and have telecommuters read and sign the document so it’s clear they understand what’s expected of them.
• hiring independent self-starters. As you know, telecommuting’s not for everyone. So if you plan on expanding your telecommuting opportunities, you need to make sure your workforce has the right qualities to use the program effectiely. You’ll want to find workers with strong communications skills and the ability to stay motivated without someone looking over their shoulder.

For more HR News, please visit: 3 best practices to keep telecommuting programs productive

Source: News from HR Morning

There are plenty of reasons for HR to encourage employees to get a good night’s rest. Here’s one that’s bound to resonate with the C-Suite: Workers lack of sleep could have disastrous consequences on the company’s bottom-line. 

A Gallup survey recently took a closer look at workers’ sleep and discovered that workers weren’t getting enough Z’s — and it was ultimately impacting their employers.

Overall, the Gallup survey found that four in 10 U.S. workers (nearly half) don’t get at least seven hour of sleep per night, which is the recommended minimal number.

Specifically, here is the percentage of employee who get at least seven hours of sleep per night by age group:

• 59% (ages 18-29)
• 55% (ages 30-44)
• 57% (ages 45-64), and
• 66% (ages 65 and older).

And quantity is the only thing that’s a problem when it comes to sleep. According to a separate sleep study by by the Virgin Pulse Institute, around 30% of employees reported being unhappy or very unhappy with the quality or quantity of their sleep

That study found that 76% of workers said they felt tired most days of the week, 40% doze off during the day at least once per month and 15% admit they doze off during the day at least once per week.

Link to lower well-being

The Gallup survey also found a link between lack of sleep and low overall well-being scores, which is determined by factors such as diet, exercise, rest, etc.

As the Gallup researchers pointed out:

“Not getting enough sleep is not only linked to lower well-being for individuals, but it is also costly to the U.S. economy. Employees may not have enough time to sleep because of working long hour, family obligations, insomnia  or having poor well-being in other areas. For example, poor physical well-being, social isolation or financial strain could adversely affect quantity of sleep.”

So what can HR pros do to help employees get more sleep? The Gallup researchers recommend flexible scheduling, whenever possible, which can make it easier for staffers to balance work and family demands — and still get enough rest.

Another tactic: Talk to your broker or wellness vendor about providing employees with information on healthy sleeping habits, guides on getting more restful sleep, online programs geared toward improving sleep habits or sleep-tracking tools.

For more HR News, please visit: Why HR pros should be concerned with workers’ sleeping habits

Source: News from HR Morning

It’s an easy task to overlook. But keeping your employee manual up to date is crucial in today’s ever-shifting maze of workplace rules and regs.

Need an example? Consider this: Paid sick leave tops the list of emerging issues most commonly addressed in employee handbooks, with an impressive 79.4% of respondents addressing this new legal trend in their handbooks, according to a new survey of HR pros from XpertHR.

Data privacy is the second most common issue addressed (67.2%) and social media is a close third (64.2%).

Pretty big difference from just five or 10 years ago, right?

Respondents find that keeping their handbooks current with an evolving workplace and workforce (41%) is the most challenging aspect, and keeping it current with the law at a close second (35.6%). A distant third (11%) is getting employees to comply with handbook policies. Addressing state requirements is the top challenge for a mere 3.4%.

Other issues begin to emerge

Other issues are just starting to rear their heads: Wearable technology, such as so-called smart watches, isn’t yet making its way into handbooks in any significant way, with only 4.1% of respondents indicating they have incorporated this budding technology into their handbooks. Medical marijuana, now legal in nearly half of the states, yet still against federal law, is a challenging issue for workplaces — but only 6.4% of respondents have explicitly addressed it in their handbooks. Bring your own device (BYOD) policies are addressed by 14.5% of handbooks; Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender (LGBT) protection by 17.2%; and e-cigarettes by 20.6%.

Of the 521 individuals surveyed, 91.9% report having an employee handbook. Those with handbooks are generally diligent about keeping them updated, with 78% reporting updates within the last two years; 14.2% within three to five years; 3% within six to nine years; 2.1% within 10 or more years; and 2.8% unsure when updates were last made.

Sector plays a significant role in whether an employer has a handbook. 92.6% of the private sector reports having a handbook, while that figure is 86.1% for the public sector and 94.9% for nonprofits.

By far the majority (58.5%) of employee handbooks are prepared in-house by HR with review by a lawyer; 18.8% prepare handbooks in-house without review by a lawyer. Roughly one in five of the respondents produce multiple handbooks for various employee groups, generally for one of the following categories: seasonal employees vs. permanent employees, corporate vs. locations by state, hourly vs. salary, union vs. non-union, field workers vs. office workers, staff vs. faculty vs. administration, exempt vs. non-exempt, and manager vs. employee.

Handbooks continue to be distributed primarily via print (64.5%), although intranet is a close second at 55.3% and email at 28.2%.

The maintenance of the handbook falls squarely on HR’s shoulders, with 83.4% of respondents reporting that in-house HR is responsible for updating their handbooks, distantly followed by in-house legal (3.7%), outside law firms (1.4%), and outside consultants (2.5%).

For more HR News, please visit: Employee handbooks: Is yours keeping pace with the times?

Source: News from HR Morning

Nearly half (48%) of employers offer a consumer-driven health plan (CDHP) — which is one of only proven ways to keep rising health costs at bay — yet just 7% of firms offer this plan as their only option. Here’s how to change that. 

The key to making the eventual move to a CDHP-only workplace is in the transition. So says Deb Dominianni, the vice president of strategy for Pinnacle Care, a health service company.

Because the transition is a difficult one for employers and employees alike, here are some Dominianni’s suggestions to make the process as painless as possible:

1. Ease their confusion

Even the most traditional health options can be confusing. So a CDHP that requires employees to make regular, educated decisions can be overwhelming. Because CDHPs shift both costs and responsibility onto workers, the move can cause plenty of negative feelins — and even hurt worker productivity and engagement.

So HR pros must be able to guide workers through the ins and outs of the process and show workers how the plan can benefit both them (decreased premium costs) and the company as a whole.

2. Offer expert help

HR pros shouldn’t have to shoulder the transition to a CDHP on their own. Healthcare brokers are a great resource to help answer workers’ questions and alleviate any unfounded concerns.

Another option: Health advisory services. These services can provide workers with one point of contact for access to expert resources and second opinions. When it comes to high-cost medical claims, these contacts encourage better, more-educated decisions, which in turn leads to lower costs, absences, etc.

3. Make it personal

One of the most effective ways to speed up the CDHP-transition process is to tailor it to your specific worker groups. How? By offering education that’s tailored to specific worker groups. Example: One company held separate CDHP education meetings for families, domestic partners and single employees, so each group could focus more closely on their unique concerns.

Another option: Use real-life examples or hypothetical “personas.” Jennifer Benz, founder of Benz Communications, says creating personas – or “people-like-me” scenarios – that show how the plan will apply to various employee groups makes it easier for employees to understand how CDHPs will impact them.

For more HR News, please visit: 3 keys to creating a CDHP-only workplace

Source: News from HR Morning

Firing a disabled employee while he’s out on medical leave is usually a recipe for disaster. But it can be done in limited circumstances. However, the potentially discriminatory nature of this firing was a little too obvious for the EEOC to overlook. 

Meet Doug Johnson. He drove a van and took nursing home patients to medical appointments for his employer Paloma Blanca Health Care Associates, a health and rehabilitation center in Albuquerque, NM.

Almost three years into his tenure, Johnson suffered a heart attack and was diagnosed with a number of other cardiovascular conditions.

He then requested a reasonable accommodation under the ADA in the form of a request for FMLA leave.

Paloma Blanca approved him for 12 weeks of FMLA leave.

So far so good, right?

Fired as part of an ‘RIF’

Five weeks into his medical leave things took a sharp turn.

Johnson was terminated.

Firing a person while on medical leave is enough to perk up the EEOC’s antenna. But Paloma Blanca didn’t stop there.

It notified Johnson that it had eliminated his position and was laying him off due to a “reduction in force.”

Granted, a legitimate RIF is actually one of the ways employers can terminate individuals on medical leave — assuming it could be proven those workers would’ve been let go regardless of their medical condition or leave of absence.

But problem for Paloma Blanca was this looked like anything but a legitimate RIF, at least according to the info contained in the EEOC’s press release on the matter.

No other Paloma Blanca employees were subjected to an RIF at that time, the EEOC said, and there were no department- or facility-wide reductions in force around that time either.

So the EEOC sued Paloma Blanca under the ADA for disability discrimination and for failing to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled individual.

Perhaps seeing how bad this looked, Paloma Blanca decided to settle the lawsuit by providing Johnson $145,000 in monetary relief.

As part of the settlement, Paloma also agreed to:

• expunge from Johnson’s personnel file any references to the allegations of discrimination, his participation in the lawsuit or his disabilities
• review and distribute to employees its policies regarding disability discrimination and retaliation
• provide its employees with training regarding disability discrimination and procedures for handling requests for reasonable accommodations, and
• post a notice emphasizing the company’s equal employment opportunity policy and reaffirming its commitment to providing reasonable accommodations for employees and applicants with disabilities.

For more HR News, please visit: Company’s shady-looking ‘RIF’ leads to 5K payout

Source: News from HR Morning

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:

• Drive engagement and build relationships
• Connect a geographically dispersed team
• Improve productivity and performance
• Inspire employees to meet goals

Click here for your free guide!  

For more HR News, please visit: The Manager’s Field Guide to Recognition

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:

• help an employer determine whether a medical condition will prevent an employee from performing the essential functions of his or her job, or
• determine if an employee will pose a direct safety threat because of his or her medical condition.

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 incentives to participate in the screenings were so extreme — they could cost non-participating employees up to $4,000 — that they rendered the wellness program involuntary (the alleged ADA violation), and
• the screenings illegally tied incentives to the collection of family members’ medical history (the alleged GINA violation).

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.

What employers, Congress took issue with

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 agency never issued any regulations specifying when a wellness incentive or penalty would be so steep as to render a program involuntary, and
• the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has said that employers can offer wellness incentives/penalties as long as they don’t exceed 30% of the value of an individual’s insurance premiums (50% if the incentives are tied to smoking cessation).

What the new bill would do

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 Congress’ proposed fix for wellness incentives

Source: News from HR Morning