5 Tips For Employers To Earn Respect From Employees

In a previous blog (R-E-S-P-E-C-T: How To Earn Respect At Work), I discussed ways employees can earn respect at work. But earning respect shouldn’t be a one-way street – it should also be embraced by employers. Respect isn’t just something subordinates are forced to give managers. It’s a valuable asset for employers to show and earn in the workplace. Earning employee respect isn’t always easy, but when employers find ways to build respect at work, positive benefits ensue. How do you build employee respect at work?

 According to Bruce J. Avolio, Ph.D., executive director at the Center for Leadership and Strategic Thinking in the University of Washington’s Foster School of Business, five tips for employers/managers to earn the respect of employees.

To continue Reading, click here.

Privacy Laws for Employees and Employers

Federal, state, and local legislation provide a basic source of protection against invasion of privacy by private parties, including employers.Legislation also limits privacy rights, however, that may otherwise exist under common law or other statutes. Also important to remember is that the law on privacy varies greatly from state to state.

For a limited time, receive a FREE HR report, HR’s Guide to Workers’ Comp. This comprehensive report includes workers’ comp basics, a lexicon of helpful terms, a workers’ comp checklist to help you manage the process, and information about your employees’ role in workplace safety.

Searches
Simply posting a sign in the parking lot that cars are subject to search, for example, doesn’t always preclude employees’ rights to privacy in all areas of the country. It’s important for employers to determine what they legally can search – such as desks, lockers, and lunchboxes – and under what circumstances before a problem arises. Employers also need to communicate clearly to employees what their expectations of privacy in the workplace are.

To continue Reading, click here.

Fewer Employers Offering Defined Benefit Pension Plans to New Salaried Employees

The percentage of the largest U.S. employers that offer a defined benefit pension plan to new salaried employees continues to fall, according to new research.

As of June 30, 30 percent of Fortune 100 companies offered a defined benefit plan to new salaried employees, according to New York-based Towers Watson & Co. That’s down from 33 percent at the end of 2011, 37 percent in 2010 and 43 percent in 2009.

As recently as 1998, defined benefit plans were the norm among the nation’s largest employers, when 90 percent of Fortune 100 companies offered the plans to new salaried employees.

Since then, large employers have moved away from the plans. “Large employers have been reassessing their retirement offerings for some time. … The shift is motivated by several factors, including employers’ desire to reduce overall retirement costs — perhaps due to higher compensation and benefit costs elsewhere, especially health care — perceptions that workers prefer more portable plans, market trends, and the belief that such a shift reduces financial risk,” Towers Watson said in an article posted Oct. 2 in The Insider, a company publication.

To continue Reading, click here.

Should Employers Be Allowed to Monitor Employee E-mail

Do employers have a right to monitor employees’ e-mails while on the job? This important issue is raised in a lawsuit filed earlier this month against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The legal issue is whether employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using personal e-mail accounts on workplace computers.

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month by six whistle blowers at the FDA who allege that their private e-mails were extensively monitored after they began complaining to lawmakers about serious irregularities in the agency’s medical device review process. In the complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the six alleged that the FDA installed spyware on their workplace computers to monitor and intercept their communications.

The complaint acknowledges that the intercepted correspondence was created, transmitted, received, and viewed on government-issued computers and government-owned networks. But it noted that the e-mail was private, password protected, and sent using third-party, non-governmental e-mail services such as Yahoo and Gmail.

The intercepted communications also included e-mail sent from private e-mail accounts on private equipment by family members, friends and associates, but viewed on FDA-issued computers.

To continue Reading, click here.here.

Diabetes in the Workplace: A Guide For Employers and Employees

People with diabetes often face discrimination in the workplace simply because others do not understand diabetes and how it is managed. The word “diabetes” often leads employers to concerns about loss of work time and productivity, thereby influencing their willingness to hire, continue to employ or promote a person with diabetes.

People with diabetes may conceal their disease from their employers and colleagues in order to avoid negative reactions, rejection or outright discrimination. As a result, an insulin injection may be missed, a blood glucose test forgotten or a meal postponed, consequently jeopardizing an individual’s overall health and perhaps his or her safety on the job.

A person with well managed diabetes does not pose a threat to his or her colleagues or to the efficient operation of a business.  In fact, the employer of a person with diabetes may well benefit in the long run; it has been observed that people with well managed diabetes often miss fewer days due to illness because, in order to manage their blood glucose effectively, they must lead generally healthier lifestyles.

To continue Reading, click here.

There is No Cumulative Safety Net for the Armed Services

I walked into the Economist Buttonwood Conference to hear Mitt Romney’s chief economic adviser– Glenn Hubbard, the Dean of Columbia Graduate School of Business– bluntly claim that the nation “cannot afford a large welfare state for everyone,” underscoring the brutal political fight to develop after Nov. election day over the extent of entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

More stunning yet was the revelation I had not heard previously that unlike retired workers from the private sector, there have never been funds set aside for benefits on behalf several million federal government employees, especially members of all the Armed Forces. There has never been any accumulation from their compensation monthly pay checks to trust funds for Social Security or Medicare that would protect them in retirement. This is an astonishing and expensive hole in the safety network of a significant part of the population.

To continue Reading, click here.

Women in Business: Their Own Worst Enemy?

With women holding so few key roles and leadership positions in boardrooms around the world, you might think we’d spend time building each other up rather than tearing each other down. But it seems that despite constant calls for more stringent gender equality measures in the workplace, it can often be women themselves sabotaging progress.
In 2010 Kelly Valen released a hard-hitting book entitled The Twisted Sisterhood, which revealedthat almost 90 percent of the 3,000-plus women who took part in her survey frequently felt “currents of meanness and negativity emanating from other females” and that almost 85 percent of those who took part in the 50-question survey admitted having suffered “serious, life-altering knocks at the hands of other women”.
Valen went on to say that there was “a distinct undercurrent of meanness and negativity plaguing our gender, and that these secret, social battles are waged, in many cases, by the very same women singing the praises of girl power, feminism, and female friendship in their lives”.
It’s a ‘Man’s World’ — so why aren’t we women helping one another?
It is speculated that such ‘sniper sister’ attitudes stem from a distinct feeling that there’s not enough success to go around; because we live in what is still a male-dominated society, women are apt to feel like they are presented with fewer opportunities, and thus have more motive for one-upmanship (or one-upwomanship) than men perhaps do.
Research by the Institute of Leadership and Management on ambition and gender found different attitudes between men and women. Compared to their male counterparts, they tend to lack self-belief and confidence — which leads to a cautious approach to job opportunities and a reluctance to take risks in order to further their careers.
Traditionally, young girls are also taught conflict avoidance roles — not necessarily a bad thing in school, but in a workplace environment this can lead to a continuation of passive-aggressive patterns into adulthood. Instead of addressing a conflict directly, some women whisper – not all, but it only takes a few to have a knock-on effect on another woman’s career. Whether perpetuating rumors that a female colleague only got the job because she’s good-looking or even because she must be sleeping with the boss, such spite takes its toll.
As well as this, young girls are often socialized not to compete, according to a Women In Higher Education article which goes on to state that relationships are particularly central to women’s lives, and that they expect their friendships to be on a level playing field; thus, when something affects this balance, such as a promotion, it raises feelings of insecurity. It seems women are far more likely to judge their professional abilities against those of other female colleagues than those of males.
In fact, a recent Oxygen Media poll found that 65 percent of women resent other women who are either in power, or act like they are.
This pervading culture of comparison could work for the positive; but only if women start treating the issue as one of a non-gendered meritocracy and use it to healthily fuel their own and other women’s ambitions.
Instead, often women still think they should be handed things just for being women – a problem which perpetuates feelings of resentment and negativity from both those struggling to promote for gender equality and professional meritocracy as well as those who are happy to take such isolated individuals as spokespeople for the equality movement and use it for their own misogynistic means.
Intentionally or not, it seems many of us women are guilty of at least one of the above. Whether by harboring insecurities which prevent us from stepping forward and taking on a new challenge, intentionally deriding the success and progress of other women or even nurturing illusions of inviting social condemnation simply because we happen to be women, we need to work together to stop this kind of behavior.

Pregnancy Leave: Study Suggests Flexible Schedules Could Be Better For Bottom Line

Pregnant women face numerous challenges at work – discrimination in hiringand the absence of federally mandated maternity leave, to name two. However, one of the issues they deal with gets much less press than the others: pregnancy-related sick leave. A recent study suggests that flexible schedules might reduce the amount of time pregnant women take off due to pregnancy-related illness.
The research, conducted by the Division of Psychiatry at Norway’s Stavanger University Hospital and published in the November 2012 issue of BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and examined the relationship between the number of sick days pregnant women take and their work schedules. The findings, summarized in a press release, indicated that women working for employers who granted them greater flexibility took fewer sick days. The results seemed to support the idea that flexible schedules make pregnant workers more, not less, productive while enabling them to better attend to their prenatal health.
The researchers tracked 2,918 pregnant working women via questionnaires distributed at weeks 17 and 32 in the women’s pregnancies. They found that 75 percent went on sick leave at some point in their pregnancy and that the duration of work missed ranged from one week to 40 weeks with an average of eight weeks. Most notably, the researchers found that the 60 percent of women who cited flexible working environments took on average seven fewer sick days.
Thirty-five percent of women cited fatigue and problems with sleep as their main reason for taking time off, followed 32 percent with pelvic girdle pain – pain centered in the lower abdomen and back — and 23 percent with nausea or vomiting.
Granted, this study was conducted in Scandinavia, a region famous for its ample parental leave, where companies are also required to provide generous compensation for sick days. (The U.S. Federal Government, in comparison, does not force companies to provide any paid sick leave to employees.) However, John Thorp, BJOG Deputy-Editor-in-Chief, argued in a press release that “the factors that affect pregnant women are universal” and that the study “shows a clear link between working conditions and the duration of sick leave, which highlights the potential benefits for employers to have a support system in place.”
Dr. Signe Dorheim, who co-authored the study with Bjorn Bjortvatn and Malin Eberhard-Gran, noted that flexible work schedules make sense for most women with health conditions. While nausea and pelvic girdle pain are pretty inextricably linked to pregnancy, participants’ fatigue could also have been tied to excessive stress at work. A flexible schedule would give women more opportunities to manage that fatigue, making them more productive in the long run. “Women who suffer from work-related fatigue, such as insomnia, are likely to require more time off” in a traditionally structured work week, Dr. Dorheim told Yahoo Lifestyle UK.
The findings appear to contradict the idea that accommodating the needs of pregnant women is bad for business and could provide an incentive for employers to offer more flexible schedules to pregnant employees.

Food Safety Update: Employee Training

The Food Safety Update section of Food Manufacturing is designed to offer our readers insight into the state of food safety concerns across the industry. We received hundreds of responses to this month’s survey on employee training.
 

Proper employee training is vital in maintaining adequate food safety standards throughout a food manufacturing facility. A plant is only as safe as its least-safe employee, and the quality of final products produced in a plant depend on the diligence of the workers employed there.

When we surveyed readers this month to find out about the effectiveness of their employee training plans, we found that many readers struggle to keep their employees up to speed and engaged. As seen in the chart below, food manufacturers report a wide variety of obstacles to proper plant floor training. Of the readers who selected “other,” over half noted a failure of training programs, materials or software to adequately address the training needs of their plant.

To continue Reading, click here.

Tips to Avoid Injury in the Workplace

Accidents at work cost a business time and money, and cast a dubious shadow over a business’s moral, and not to mention legal obligations in the eyes of employees, officials and members of the public. Workers have the right to work in a controlled environment that minimizes hazards and dangers, and employers have a duty to keep employees trained, educated and informed on an official basis.

Remember that it is not just your interest and livelihood at stake, but the interests and livelihood of everyone in contact with and related to your business. It is easy to prevent accidents at work – all you need is some good old-fashioned common sense and the right health and safety training – and this guide covers your obligations and the most important steps to take.
Risk Assessment
A thorough risk assessment is crucial to understanding the dangers in your workplace and implementing an effective safety solution. Depending on the number of employees in your business, your assessment and implementation may or may not need to be officially recorded and/or displayed in the workplace.

To continue Reading, click here.here.

Should Employers Have The Right To Access Employees Social Media Accounts?

It has been said that, just as the right to free speech does not imply a right to be heard, the right to free expression does not confer absolute privacy of that message. This concept has been used, by many employers, to identify those individuals who do not conform to the culture those employers are trying to maintain at their places of business.

In a nutshell, this means that they will often access a potential employee’s social media sites to determine what they could never find out during the interview process. By looking at social media sites, employers can often discover things that are embarrassing to the potential hire and discover things that a person might not otherwise volunteer. For example, the applicant might confess to drug use or the rant about a previous employer.
Things like this will be interesting to the Human Resources personnel assigned to the hiring task. After all, the HR has a responsibility to protect the company and hire the best candidate. Personal accounts on such places as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and LinkedIn, can provide a lot of information that might keep some people from getting the job, and save the company the hassle of hiring an undesirable worker. There are a larger number of business experts who would accept the scanning of these accounts as a pre-hire exercise. However, there are quite a number policies that have been put in place in regards to the use of such information. British Columbia, as one such example, regulates the collection and use of this material for the purposes of hiring decisions. Regardless of whether there actually are any laws against this use, complaints of violations to a person’s privacy can always be lodged.

To continue Reading, click here.

Disturbing’ level of harassment in the federal public service

Nearly one in three federal public servants report they have been harassed at work over the past two years and in at least one government agency that level stands at more than 50 per cent, an analysis by i Politics reveals.

The analysis of the latest Public Service Employee Survey, conducted in 2011, found that 51 per cent of employees at Indian Oil and Gas Canada said they had experienced harassment on the job — 53 per cent of women and 40 per cent of men. That was a sharp increase from the already high level of 44 per cent reported in the last survey in 2008.

The agency, set up in 1987 as a special agency within then Indian and Northern Affairs to manage and regulate oil and gas resources on First Nations lands, edged out Correctional Service of Canada for the highest level of harassment reported by employees. The survey found 42 per cent of Correctional Services employees reported they were harassed — 44 per cent of women and 39 per cent of men.

 To continue Reading, click here

Sexual Harassment Fact Sheet

While sexual harassment has been a pervasive problem for women throughout history, only in the past three decades have feminist litigators won definition of sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination and have women come forward in droves to demand remedies and institutional change. In the United States, sexual harassment in employment, housing (harassment by a landlord or building manager), or academia is illegal.

What to Do if You or Someone You Know is Sexually Harassed

Women around the world are beginning to tell their stories and expose the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in their societies. A 1992 International Labor Organization survey of 23 countries revealed what women already know: that sexual harassment is a major problem for women all over the world. Sexual harassment affects women’s mental and physical health as well as their social and economic status. The level of tolerance for sexual harassment varies from culture to culture. For information on the incidence of and remedies for sexual harassment in a variety of countries, see Shockwaves: The Global Impact of Sexual Harassment by Susan Webb (MasterMedia Limited, New York, 1994)

 To continue Reading, click here.

Former Midway Ford employees claim sexual harassment, discrimination

Two former employees of Midway Ford have sued the Roseville company for sexual harassment and discrimination, alleging that they endured an atmosphere more akin to a college frat house than a workplace.

Renee Woitas, 58, a fleet sales worker, and Angeline Rodrique, 28, a sales consultant, said they were forced out after years of lewd comments, unwanted touching and sabotaged sales, according to the suit filed Friday, April 13, in Ramsey County District Court.

The perpetrators of the unwanted conduct allegedly included the CEO, the general manager, the used-car manager, the commercial vehicle sales manager, the new-car manager, the parts manager, the lease coordinator and others.

“Midway Ford has denied the allegations and intends to vigorously defend the case because it believes the allegations are improper and inappropriate,” said Marshall Tanick, attorney for Midway Ford.

He called the company a “good, welcoming place to work (that) has many satisfied employees, both men and women, and values its employees and its customers.”

 To continue Reading, click here.

US diplomats in Pakistan facing harassment: State Department

Such harassment and obstruction is described by US embassy staff as “deliberate, willful and systematic,” according to the 76-report by the department’s watchdog, the office of inspector general.

“Official Pakistani obstructionism and harassment, an endemic problem in Pakistan, has increased to the point where it is significantly impairing mission operations and program implementations,” the report said.

Harassment included such things as delaying visas for staff, blocking shipments of materials for aid programs and construction work, and surveillance of staff and contractors.

The official report, made available Thursday, comes after a February fact-finding tour of the US diplomatic missions in Islamabad, Karachi, Peshawar and Lahore.

It urged US officials to ensure that the issue of harassment is raised in bilateral talks with the Pakistani government.

To continue reading, click here.

HARASSMENT PREVENTION TRAINING: RECENT CASES REMIND US OF THE IMPORTANCE

In 1996, Massachusetts General Laws c.151B (“Chapter 151B”) was amended to require employers to distribute written sexual harassment policies (with specific required provisions) to all new employees and to every employee on at least an annual basis.  That law also encourages employers to provide sexual harassment training to all of their employees on a regular basis.  Unfortunately, many employers still fail to take those steps, exposing themselves to legal liability and the prospect of substantial damages awards, including back wages for terminated employees, emotional distress, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

 Moreover, many employees are not aware that they can be held individually liable for engaging in or aiding and abetting sexual harassment.  In one recent case, Martin v. Irwin Industrial Tool Company, et al., No. 12-30048-KPN (D. Mass. May 3, 2012), the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that rank-and-file employees (i.e., not only supervisors and managers) may be liable for harassment and retaliation under Chapter 151B.

To continue reading, click.here.

2 Univ. of Akron Employees Resign after Harassment Claim

Two University of Akron employees, including a Republican candidate for Summit County, Ohio sheriff, have resigned their positions after a university investigation concluded they violated the school’s sexual harassment policy.

Sheriff candidate Randy Rivers and his supervisor, Michael Jalbert, stepped down from their jobs.

Their actions followed an Aug. 3 complaint filed by a female employee that alleged Rivers began sexually harassing her after he joined the university in July 2011 as part-time commander of the Law Enforcement Training Center, according to an article Saturday in The Beacon Journal. Jalbert was criticized for not adequately responding to her concerns.

The newspaper declined to name the woman consistent with its policy on sexual harassment and sex crimes cases.

Rivers told The Associated Press in an interview Saturday that the university pressured him to leave his post. He said that he had not been warned that any statements were considered inappropriate.

“I told these people yesterday that I felt like I was blind-folded and being led down a set of railroad tracks,” Rivers said.

To continue reading, click here.

In harassment case, Supreme Court ponders: Who qualifies as a supervisor?

Imagine this scene of workplace harassment, envisioned by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.:You really hate country music. The senior employee in your office picks the music everyone listens to.“And the senior employee says . . . ‘If you don’t date me, it’s going to be country music all day long,’ ” Roberts hypothesized.

Roberts and his Supreme Court colleagues on Monday were debating the standards for when a co-worker becomes more like a supervisor and thus opens the company up for damages under federal employment discrimination laws.

Some federal courts have said that only someone who can hire and fire people is a supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Other courts, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have said that definition is too limiting and that the law should cover those who have the ability to control a co-worker’s daily work activities, regardless of their title or job description.

The distinction is important in employment discrimination law. If a supervisor is creating a hostile work environment or threatening to fire an employee, the employer can be held liable. But if a co-worker does so, the company is liable only if it knew about the treatment and did nothing to stop it.

 To continue reading, click here.

US: Sexual Violence, Harassment of Immigrant Farmworker

(New York) – Hundreds of thousands of immigrant farm worker women and girls in the United States face a high risk of sexual violence and sexual harassment in their workplaces because US authorities and employers fail to protect them adequately, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The current US Senate bill reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) would go some way toward fixing the problem and should be enacted, but much more needs to be done, Human Rights Watch said.


The 95-page report, “Cultivating Fear: The Vulnerability of Immigrant Farm workers in the US to Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment,” describes rape, stalking, unwanted touching, exhibitionism, or vulgar and obscene language by supervisors, employers, and others in positions of power. Most farm workers interviewed said they had experienced such treatment or knew others who had. And most said they had not reported these or other workplace abuses, fearing reprisals. Those who had filed sexual harassment claims or reported sexual assault to the police had done so with the encouragement and assistance of survivor advocates or attorneys in the face of difficult challenges.

“Rape, groping, and obscene language by abusive supervisors should not be part of the hard labor conditions that immigrant farm workers endure while producing the nation’s food,” said Grace Meng, researcher in the US Program at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “Instead of being valued for their contributions, immigrant farm workers are subject to a dysfunctional immigration system and labor laws that exclude them from basic protections most workers take for granted.”

 To continue reading, click here.

Can current retirees feel secure with today’s insecure economy?

It’s a tough situation for anyone to figure out. Let’s examine some of the challenges that are facing current retirees. The stock market has been on a roller coaster ride for the past few years, all of the fluctuations are bound to make nervous those who depend on stocks and bonds as part of their portfolio.

The media is constantly warning us about some fiscal crisis or cliff we are going to go over, which makes investors and those who rely on the stocks quite apprehensive about what will come to pass and quite anxious.

Even though retirement can be an exciting time, the current economic climate makes individuals rethink their retirement strategies. They may wish to push back their retirement or to continue working another part time job while retired to think about stretching their dollar further.

Financial planners suggest that retirees know what they want to do with their money, that they take stock of their money prior to retirement, and make decisions about how they want to spend their golden years. There are certain things that individuals can do with their retirement funds and taking stock of all of these choices prior to retirement can make good economic sense. Make sure to take the following steps when planning for retirement.

To continue reading, click here.

FAIR WAGES FOR WORKERS WITH DISABILITIES

Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) allows entities holding what are called “special wage certificates” to pay their disabled workers less than the federal minimum wage.

These entities are almost always segregated workplaces, sometimes called “sheltered workshops,” that employ workers with various disabilities, including sensory, physical, and cognitive or developmental disabilities. Federal law requires that certain goods and services procured by the federal government be purchased from these sheltered workshops in order to provide workers with disabilities with employment, but these workers do not have the same protections that other American workers have. Most importantly, over 300,000 workers with disabilities do not receive the federal minimum wage.

People with disabilities have the right and ability to work in the same jobs earning the same wages as nondisabled workers.  There are many examples of individuals with significant disabilities who, when provided the proper training and support, have acquired a competitive job skill to earn at least minimum wage.  Very few, if any, disabled or nondisabled individuals acquire a competitive job skill through performing menial tasks in sheltered, segregated, subminimum-wage work environments.  We must set higher expectations and provide real training and support for all people to become fully participating members of society.

 To continue reading, click here.

Disability Insurance Benefit Amounts

For claims beginning on or after January 1, 2012, weekly benefits range from $50 to a maximum of $1011. To qualify for the maximum weekly benefit amount ($1011) an individual must earn at least $23,872.73 in a calendar quarter during the base period.

EDD Debit Card^SM

The EDD, with Bank of America, will provide eligible individuals with an EDD Debit Card^SM that is valid for three years from the date of issue. Once the card is received, all authorized benefit payments will then be deposited to the EDD Debit Card^SM account. The same EDD Debit Card^SM will be used to deliver both State Disability and Unemployment Insurance payments. No action is required to receive the EDD Debit Card^SM.

Weekly Benefit Amount

An individual’s weekly benefit amount is approximately 55 percent of his or her earnings up to the maximum weekly benefit amount. He or she may receive up to 52 weeks worth of Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. The daily benefit amount is calculated by dividing an individual’s weekly benefit amount by seven. The maximum benefit amount is calculated by multiplying an individual’s weekly benefit amount by 52 or adding the total wages subject to State Disability Insurance (SDI) tax paid in an individual’s base period, whichever is less.

 To continue reading, click here.

Counting People with Disabilities

As most visitors to this blog are aware, the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act on July 26, 1990 represented a major milestone. The law guaranteed equal opportunity for people with disabilities in public accommodations, commercial facilities, employment, transportation, state and local government services and telecommunications. A common question, however, that still pops up during discussions of disability policy is, “How many people with disabilities are there in the United States?

Coinciding with the 22^nd anniversary of the ADA, the Census Bureau released a new report – Americans With Disabilities: 2010 – that presented a new look at the prevalence of a wide range of specific disabilities, the degree of severity and the well-being of the population with disabilities. The report showed the number of people with disabilities increasing over the previous five years to 56.7 million people in 2010 (54.4 million in 2005), while the proportion of the population with a disability remaining unchanged at 18.7 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population.

To continue reading, click here.

Nearly 1 in 5 People Have a Disability in the U.S., Census Bureau

About 56.7 million people — 19 percent of the population — had a disability in 2010, according to a broad definition of disability, with more than half of them reporting the disability was severe, according to a comprehensive report on this population released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The report, Americans with Disabilities: 2010, presents estimates of disability status and type and is the first such report with analysis since the Census Bureau published statistics in a similar report about the 2005 population of people with disabilities. According to the report, the total number of people with a disability increased by 2.2 million over the period, but the percentage remained statistically unchanged. Both the number and percentage with a severe disability rose, however. Likewise, the number and percentage needing assistance also both increased.

“This week, we observe the 22nd anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, a milestone law that guarantees equal opportunity for people with disabilities,” said Census Bureau demographer Matthew Brault. “On this important anniversary, this report presents a barometer of the well-being of this population in areas such as employment, income and poverty status.”

 To continue reading, click here.

Preventing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

As an employer, you have a responsibility to maintain a workplace that is free of sexual harassment. This is your legal obligation, but it also makes good business sense. If you allow sexual harassment to flourish in your workplace, you will pay a high price in poor employee morale, low productivity, and lawsuits.

The same laws that prohibit gender discrimination prohibit sexual harassment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the main federal law that prohibits sexual harassment. (For more information on Title VII, see Nolo’s article Federal Antidiscrimination Laws.) In addition, each state has its own anti-sexual harassment law.

This article explains what sexual harassment is and provides some prevention strategies. If you need more detailed information on your legal obligations, or your company has been hit with a harassment complaint, pick up a copy of The Essential Guide to Handling Workplace Harassment & Discrimination, by Deborah C. England (Nolo).

To continue reading, click here.

Female Bosses Sexually Harassed More Than Subordinates, Study FindS

She’s the fresh-faced secretary, preyed on by the high-powered partner. She’s the college intern, who becomes the butt of her boss’s dirty jokes. She’s the junior associate, propositioned by her manager. When it comes to sexual harassment in the workplace, popular culture has a favorite image: The powerful man leching on his female underling.

But according to a new study, female supervisors are actually sexually harassed more than female subordinates. The researchers at the University of Maine and the University of Minnesota analyzed the Youth Development Study, which surveyed 1,010 individuals at regular intervals, starting when they were high school freshmen in St. Paul, Minn., in 1988. They looked at the responses from when these individuals were 29 and 30, and then interviewed 33 of them in depth.

 To continue reading, click here.

Slip-ups To Avoid When Conducting Performance Appraisal Meetings

Appraisals can attract different responses from different employees. However, within organizations, these meetings are responded to with a lot of negativity. Many managerial offices fail to understand the power behind an appraisal as well as how it can damage the confidence and overall performance of employees.

The power behind employee evaluations

Handling performance appraisal meetings is important. When done amicably, it can get your staff stirred up to reach their personal goals and those of the company. In most meetings, there are disagreements or tension that builds between the employers and the employees.

You need to be able to consider the aftermath of the appraisal. This is because your employees should always maintain a positive attitude of the organizations. In most cases, the employer ends up having the upper hand in the meeting and the employees becomes distasteful over their duties. Performance levels of an organization depend on how these meetings are conducted.

Biggest mishaps in performance appraisals by management officers.

 To continue reading, click here.

Sexual Harassment Still Pervasive in the Workplace

Want to hear a collective groan throughout your office? Mention a mandatory sexual harassment meeting. “Nobody ever wants to sit through that three-hour seminar of old, grainy videos and lectures,” says human resource manager Karen Holt.

And yet, sexual harassment continues to be a pervasive force in the workplace. And no, it is not confined to politicians, members of the clergy, movie stars or professional athletes.

According to an AOL Jobs Survey, one in six persons has been sexually harassed in the workplace. Out of those harassed, 43 percent say it was from a manager and 51 percent say it was from a peer. Only 35 percent of people harassed reported it; women (47 percent) are more likely to do so than men (21 percent).

To continue reading, click here.

Bullying and harassment

If you are the victim of bullying or harassment it’s important to know how they are seen in the eyes of the law. ATL solicitor Elizabeth Doherty explains.Bullying and harassment in the workplace are serious matters.

All individuals have the right to be treated with dignity and respect, and work in an environment that is free from unlawful discrimination or degrading treatment. It is an employer’s responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent such behaviour taking place and to have policies and procedures in place for dealing with the bullying and harassment of staff.

The terms ‘bullying’ and ‘harassment’ are often used interchangeably and it is not uncommon for bullying to be considered a form of harassment. However, in law they are two very different points.

The Equality Act 2010 defines harassment as: “Unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and the conduct has the purpose or effect of… violating an individual’s dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for an individual.”

To continue reading, click here.

11 Sexual Harassment Settlements Cost the State $5 Million

ALBANY — The state paid out at least $5 million to settle sexual harassment cases from 2008 to 2010, according to newly released records provided by the New York attorney general’s office under the Freedom of Information Law.

Five of the 11 cases involved a single agency, the State Department of Corrections and Community Services, and three involved employees of public universities. The largest settlement, nearly $1.8 million, came in January 2009 after the state settled a nearly nine-year-old case involving allegations brought by Lisa Borrello, a cook at the Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility. Ms. Borrello alleged that a supervisor sexually harassed and physically threatened her, and gave favorable treatment to male employees.

Scrutiny of the state’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against public officials and workers has increased since the Assembly acknowledged it had used more than $100,000 in public money to settle two accusations against a prominent Brooklyn Democratic assemblyman, Vito J. Lopez.

The attorney general’s office said the records it produced this week, all reflecting cases from the years when Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, was attorney general, represented only a portion of the harassment settlements paid by the state; the office said it was continuing to review its files for other records.

The Lopez settlement has been controversial in part because it included confidentiality language intended to keep the allegations secret. None of the settlements for which records were released this week included confidentiality provisions, suggesting that the use of such language is not common in government settlements, although the state previously released documents indicating that in one racial bias case, Mr. Cuomo’s office had approved a settlement with confidentiality language.

 To continue reading, click here.

Hey baby! Women speak out against street harassment

(CNN) – Head down, look straight ahead. Earbuds in, volume off. Walk quickly, but with purpose. Don’t make eye contact unless you need to. Look behind you every few blocks, make sure you’re not being followed. Don’t be obvious.

It’s not nighttime. You’re not in a known drug zone, or the sketchy part of town.

This is simply how many women steel themselves when walking down a city street in broad daylight, or even when boarding crowded public transportation. Why? Because many women, regardless of age, weight, or appearance, say they’ve heard something along the lines of “Hey baby, you want some of this?” or “I like what I see” or “nice ass.”

All of those statements are sexual harassment. And while some men might consider them compliments, to many women, they are a threat.

To continue reading, click here.

Working without fear: workplace sexual harassment in 2012

In late October 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission released its third report on workplace sexual harassmententitled Working Without Fear: Results of the 2012 Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey. The Commission considered the prevalence, nature and reporting of sexual harassment in Australian workplaces since the survey was last conducted in 2008¹ and made several key findings on these issues based on the data obtained.

Summary

• Workplace sexual harassment damages workplace morale and can significantly affect performance and productivityin your organisation.
• The results of the 2012 survey show that sexual harassment is prevalent in Australian workplaces, male co-workers are most likely to be the perpetrators of harassment, and targets of harassment are less likely to report or complainabout sexual harassment.
• Despite legislative enactments, including changes to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) in 2011 to enhance safeguards around sexual harassment, levels of workplace sexual harassment have not fallen by any real or significant extent.
• To create workplaces that are safe, secure and free from all forms of sexual harassment, a holistic approach is needed involving leadership and commitment from the government, unions and employers across all industry sectors.
• Employers need to consider new and innovative ways of addressing workplace sexual harassment, including effective prevention strategies, educating and training employees at all levels, improving access to reporting mechanisms and encouraging reporting of sexual harassment. 

 To continue reading, click here.

Is office harassment really a thing of the past?

In her history of the feminist movement, In Our Time, Susan Brownmiller writes about the moment when the term “sexual harassment” first began being used publicly.

It was the mid-1970s, and a group of women activists at Cornell University in the US were organising a “speak-out”, and wanted to define their subject matter appropriately. They considered “sexual intimidation”, “sexual coercion” and “sexual exploitation on the job”, before finally arriving at sexual harassment. That was it. That was the term that described what women had been experiencing in offices and factories the world over, a description that could encompass everything: the suggestive, slyly intimidating remarks from bosses, the badgering for sexual favours, the constant comments on a woman’s appearance, the groping, knee-touching, bottom-slapping shame of it all.

The problem was ripe to be named. In the past week, as part of the fall-out from Jimmy Savile‘s alleged predations, there have been constant reminders of that era, of the casual sexism, often tipping into outright misogyny, that affected so many women in the workplace. DJ Liz Kershaw, for instance, has said she was routinely groped by another presenter when working at Radio 1 in the 1980s; while broadcasting, she would suddenly feel “wandering hands up my jumper fondling my breasts”.

To continue reading, click here.

Should employers have the right to implement policies to search employees for concealed weapons?

The world is not as safe as it was 20 years ago. There are more people, more guns, and more violence than ever before. It has become increasingly easy for an average, every day citizen to purchase a gun. Guns are everywhere.

To continue reading, click here.

Administration Defines Benefits That Must Be Offered Under the Health Law

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took a big step on Tuesday to carry out the new health care law by defining “essential health benefits” that must be offered to most Americans and by allowing employers to offer much bigger financial rewards to employees who quit smoking or adopt other healthy behaviors.

The proposed rules, issued more than two and a half years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act, had been delayed as the administration tried to avoid stirring criticism from lobbyists and interest groups in the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

Insurance companies are rushing to devise health benefit plans that comply with the federal standards. Starting in October, people can enroll in the new plans, for coverage that begins on Jan. 1, 2014.

The rules translate the broad promises of the 2010 law into detailed standards that can be enforced by state and federal officials. Under the rules, insurers cannot deny coverage or charge higher premiums to people because they are sick or have been ill. They also cannot charge women more than men, as many now do.

“Thanks to the health care law, no one will be discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition,” said Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, who issued the rules with Phyllis C. Borzi, an assistant secretary of labor, and Steven T. Miller, the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

To continue reading, click here.

The Basics of Employee Benefits

Once you have great employees on board, how do you keep them from jumping ship? One way is by offering a good benefits package.Many small-business owners mistakenly believe they cannot afford to offer benefits. But while going without benefits may boost your bottom line in the short run, than penny-wise philosophy could strangle your business’s chances for long-term prosperity. “There are certain benefits good employees feel they must have,” says Ray Silverstein, founder of PRO, President’s Resource Organization, a small-business advisory network.

Heading the list of must-have benefits is medical insurance, but many job applicants also demand a retirement plan, disability insurance and more. Tell these applicants no benefits are offered, and often top-flight candidates will head for the door.

The positive side to this coin: Offer the right benefit, and your business may just jump-start its growth. “Give employees the benefits they value, and they’ll be more satisfied, miss fewer workdays, be less likely to quit, and have higher commitment to meeting the company’s goals,” says Joe Lineberry, a senior vice president at Aon Consulting, a human resources consulting firm. “The research shows that when employees feel their benefits needs are satisfied, they’re more productive.”

To continue reading, click here.

Analysis: Employees to face healthcare sticker shock

(Reuters) – Visit to New York City orthopedist: $223. One X-ray: $50. One follow-up magnetic resonance imaging test: $766. Total bill for checking out that aching shoulder: $1,039 – all to be paid by the patient, rather than the insurer.

Healthcare has gone retail.

Over the next 18 months, between one quarter and one half of Americans who get insurance coverage through their employers will pay more of their doctor bills themselves as companies roll out healthcare plans with higher deductibles, benefits consultants say. The result: sticker shock.

“They have huge out-of-pocket costs before they get any insurance coverage, it’s a real slap in the face,” said Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a healthcare advocacy group.

High-deductible plans set a threshold for medical expenses that an individual must pay for, often in the thousands of dollars, before insurance kicks in. Studies show people on these plans are three times more likely to delay or skip care than people on traditional plans, where doctor or emergency room visits are covered by a relatively low co-payment.

To continue reading, click here.

A New Challenge for Drug-Free Workplace Programs

Drug testing has evolved into a high-technology industry in the United States, one that has produced dramatic advances that allow easier and more accurate, sensitive, and specific testing. There are many settings in which the identification of drug use is important to enhance public health and safety, including the transportation industry, law enforcement, health care, the military, the nuclear power industry, and many other “safety-sensitive” industries.

Workplace drug testing also has expanded to non-safety sensitive industries, such as retail and commercial workplaces, to reduce theft, accidents, and lost productivity. Drug testing is vital for identification, treatment, and monitoring of those with addictions.

Drug testing became common in the workplace with the implementation of federal drug test requirements of the late 1980s. Although these regulations applied only to federally mandated drug and alcohol testing, they were widely used as a model for unregulated workplace programs. They focused on testing for five illegal drugs of abuse in urine: opiates/heroin, cocaine, marijuana, PCP, and amphetamines. While these federal regulations have been useful, it is past time to update workplace drug testing in the face of rapidly changing drug epidemic and rapidly evolving testing technology.

To continue reading, click here.

Drug Testing in Tennessee

Tennessee’s drug-free workplace law applies to employers covered by the state’s workers’ compensation law who choose to maintain drug-free workplace programs and who include on the posted notice of policy a specific statement that the policy is being implemented pursuant to Tennessee’s drug-free workplace law.

If an employer implements a drug-free workplace program in accordance with Tennessee’s drug-free workplace law that includes notice, education, and procedural requirements for testing for drugs and alcohol pursuant to rules developed by the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the covered employer may require the employee to submit to a test for the presence of drugs or alcohol.

If a drug or alcohol is found to be present in the employee’s system at a level prescribed by statute or by rule adopted pursuant to Tennessee’s drug-free workplace law, the employee may be terminated and forfeits eligibility for workers’ compensation medical and indemnity benefits.

Also, an employer who establishes and maintains a drug-free workplace program under Tennessee’s drug-free workplace law may qualify for workers’ compensation premium discounts.

To continue reading, click here.

Drug- testing ‘will creep’ into workplaces

Drug-test manufacturers will be the big winners from the Government’s plans to screen beneficiaries, the Drug Foundation is warning. Yesterday the Government announced further details of its plans to drug-test beneficiaries. Legislation will be introduced to Parliament next month, with the proposed changes due in July next year.

Opposition parties immediately accused the Government of trying to distract attention away from the publication of the children’s commissioner’s child-poverty report.

Details of the Government plan revealed that experts would carry out “robust clinical assessments” to determine whether beneficiaries were recreational drug users or drug addicts. Companies would also be reimbursed for drug tests that beneficiaries failed.

Drug Foundation chief executive Ross Bell said drug tests were expensive and manufacturers stood to gain.

“They will be more actively going into workplaces and saying ‘Buy our services and don’t worry, the Government’s going to pick up the tab’.” Testing would creep into workplaces where safety was not an issue, he predicted.

To continue reading, click here.

Pros & Cons of Drug Testing in the Workplace

More than 17 million people over age 18 were illicit drug users in 2007, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, and more than 75 percent were currently employed. Thus, it is clear that drug testing is necessary to maintain a safe, drug-free workplace. Drug use can contribute to workplace accidents and cause an increase in absenteeism.

Increases Safety

Drug testing makes the workplace safer and increases employee confidence, according to testcountry.org. It is always better to catch a drug or alcohol problem before an employee becomes a hazard. Knowing a drug-testing system is in place generally helps employees be more productive because they do not have to fear a drug- or alcohol-related incident jeopardizing their welfare in any way. Also, if workplace drug testing leads an employee to seek treatment, so much the better. Some employers may opt to refer anyone testing positive to a drug treatment program so that employee has a chance to become productive again.

To continue reading, click here.

The ADA and workplace drug testing: what are an employer’s rights?

An employee who works under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work may, at the very least, have diminished productivity and poor work performance; at worst, he poses a serious safety risk to himself and those around him. As an employer, you have both a right and an obligation to maintain a safe and healthy work environment. Enacting a clear drug testing policy to eliminate workplace substance abuse is an important step toward maintaining a safe work environment.

In developing and enforcing a drug testing policy, you want to protect your managerial rights while respecting your employees’ legal rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects recovering and recovered alcoholics and drug addicts from discrimination, which can present difficulties in enforcing an effective drug testing policy. How do you navigate the ADA’s regulations while maintaining an alcohol- and drug-free workplace? Below are some tips for ensuring your policy complies with the ADA, as well as recommendations for components that should be included in an effective drug testing policy.

To continue reading, click here.

The Facts about Workplace Drug Testing

Companies hoping for greater efficiency seek also to cut down the costs associated with abuse Since the 1990s, studies have shown that substance abuse is not only prevalent in the workplace, but that it is extremely costly to employers.

About 70 percent of all drug users (including those that drink alcohol heavily) hold a job.
The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that drug use costs employers between $75 billion and $100 billion each year in lost time, accidents, health care and workers compensation costs.

The Small Business Administration further determined that employees with substance use issues cost their employers an average of $7,000 annually.

Sixty-five percent of all accidents on the job are related to drugs or alcohol, and employees who abuse substances cause 40 percent of on the job injuries.

The workers with a high rate of illicit drug use include construction workers, sales personnel, food preparation, wait staff, bartenders, handlers, helpers, laborers, and machine operators and inspectors.

 To continue reading, click here.