Skip to content

Workforce

Author: Rick Bell

Posted on May 7, 2018July 30, 2018

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Age Discriminator

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Today’s nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is Seasons 52, a national, Orlando-based restaurant chain.

Last week, it agreed to pay $2.85 million to settle a nationwide class age discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The lawsuit included significant direct evidence of age discrimination.

From the agency:

The EEOC’s lawsuit sought relief for applicants age 40 and older that had been denied front-of-the-house and back-of-the-house positions at 35 Seasons 52 restaurants around the country.

During the course of the litigation, over 135 applicants provided sworn testimony that Seasons 52 managers asked them their age or made age-related comments during their interviews, including: “Seasons 52 girls are younger and fresh,” “Most of the workers are younger,” “Seasons 52 hires young people,” or “We are really looking for someone younger.”

If you reject older job applicants as a matter of corporate policy, you might be the worst employer of 2018.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Holy Harasser

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Arresting School Board

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Camera Creep

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the (in)Humane Society Harasser

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Political Pension Preventer

The 6th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Sadistic Sergeant

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Pregnancy Provoker

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on May 3, 2018June 29, 2023

This Is How You Reasonably Accommodate a Disabled Employee

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I’ve spent a lot of time over the past 16 months discussing bad employers — those that so mishandled employees that they earned a spot on my list of America’s Worst Employers.

Today, I thought I’d take a look at the brighter side — an employer that handled a tricky employee issue correctly.

Jablonski v. WalMart (9th Cir. 4/26/18) concerns an issue that often confounds employers and presents many opportunities for mistakes that lead to difficult lawsuits — the sick or injured employee who needs repeated reasonable accommodations.

Lidia Jablonski worked as a supervisor in the dairy, frozen and meat departments of a Las Vegas WalMart. She took 12 weeks of FMLA following a workplace injury suffered from a falling box of frozen chicken.

Here is how WalMart accommodated Jablonski’s injury following her FMLA leave:

  • Near the end of her leave, WalMart reached out to Jablonski to see if she needed an additional leave of absence, which it granted upon her request.
  • When that leave expired, Jablonski’s doctor certified her to return to work under certain temporary restrictions. Accordingly, WalMart offered, and Jablonski accepted, a 90-day temporary cashier position under WalMart’s Temporary Alternate Duty program.
  • Ultimately, Jablonski’s doctor released to permanent light-duty restrictions. Two supervisors met with her and offered the only vacant position at the store at the time that fit her restrictions, as a part-time cashier.
  • Jablonski declined the offer, stating that she could only accept a full-time cashier position. Since there was no such position available, WalMart considered her “voluntarily terminated.”
Jablonski sued, and lost. And appealed, and lost.

As noted by the court of appeals:

WalMart officials corresponded with her about her leave, granted multiple leave requests, and spoke to her about her future position. WalMart offered Jablonski several accommodations: personal leave when she ran out of FMLA leave, a ninety-day TAD position that accommodated her medical restrictions, and eventually a permanent cashier position — which she rejected. Jablonski argues that WalMart should have transferred her to another store. But she did not ask to be transferred at the time, and she has not presented any evidence that there were vacant positions for which she was qualified at other stores.

The lessons?

    1. When you can demonstrate a documented history of accommodating an employee’s disability, you make it that much more difficult for the employee to establish discriminatory animus, even if you later deny an accommodation request or even terminate the employee.
    2. The ADA does not require employers to be mind readers. If an employee does not request a certain accommodation as part of the interactive process, an employer is not obligated to offer it. Thus, even though Jablonski later complained that WalMart did not offer her a full-time cashier position at a different store, she also did not ask for a transfer to an open position.
    3. The ADA also does not require employers to create positions that do not exist as accommodations. It only requires transfers to open and available positions for which an employee is qualified. Thus, WalMart had no obligation to create for Jablonski a full-time cashier position within her store. Because the only open and available position was part-time, WalMart met its obligation.
Next time you are faced with the difficult situation of a disabled employee who needs repeated accommodations, think of WalMart and this case, and ask, have we done all that we could have done for this employee, or is there more we can do? How you answer this question will tell you if you have best positioned yourself to defend a discrimination or reasonable accommodation lawsuit.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on May 2, 2018June 29, 2023

5.1 Million Reasons to Keep Religion Out of Your Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

“Onionhead” teaches people to direct their emotions in a truthful and compassionate way.

It is central to the teachings of the Harnessing Happiness Foundation, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization dedicated to emotional knowledge and intelligence, conflict resolution, and life handling skills.

Onionhead is also central to a religious discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC against United Health Programs of America and its parent, Cost Containment Group. The aunt of the defendants’ CEO is the creator of Onionhead.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants required its employees to participate in “group prayers, candle burning, and discussions of spiritual texts,” all as part Onionhead, and fired anyone who refused to participate. The EEOC alleged that Onionhead is a religion, and forcing it upon employees violates Title VII.
Last week, a unanimous Brooklyn federal jury agreed with the EEOC, and awarded 10 employees a total of $5.1 million.
According to EEOC Trial Attorney Charles Coleman, Jr., “This case featured a unique type of religious discrimination, in that the employer was pushing its religion on employees. Nonetheless, Title VII prohibits religious discrimination of this sort and makes what happened at CCG unlawful. Employees cannot be forced to participate in religious activities by their employer.”

He is 100 percent correct. If you’re thinking of holding a prayer meeting, conducting spiritual discussions or rituals, or doing anything else remotely related to religion at your company, don’t. Religion has no place at work. Your intentions may be absolutely pure. Your employees however, have the unfettered right to practice the religion of their choice, or not to practice any religion at all.

Whatever you call your deity — God, Jesus, Jehovah, Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Krishna … or even Onionhead—leave it at home. The workplace and religion do not mix. An employer cannot force its employees to conform to, follow, or practice, the employer’s chosen religious practices and beliefs. Anything different violates Title VII.

Posted on April 30, 2018June 29, 2023

Hair Discrimination: Not a Thing

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

“Give me a head with hair, long beautiful hair
Shining, gleaming, steaming, flaxen, waxen
Give me down to there hair, shoulder length or longer
Here, baby, there, momma, everywhere, daddy, daddy
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it, long as God can grow it, my hair”

– “Hair”

My recent post about the beauty of baldness got me thinking about hair and employment law.

Or, more to the point, can an employer run afoul of discrimination laws by making an employment decision based on one’s hair style?

The answer is likely no.

Not that employees haven’t tried.

For example, Ewing v. United Parcel Service challenged UPS’s Personal Appearance Guidelines. With respect to hair color those guidelines stated: “Hairstyles and hair color should be worn in a businesslike manner.” Shenitta Ewing, African American, claimed discriminatory enforcement of the policy to prohibit her from coming to work with fuchsia-colored hair. The court disagreed, citing at least four examples of Caucasian employees fired or discipline because of their “extreme” hair colors.

Or consider Viscecchia v. Alrose Allegria LLC, which concerned a hotel’s “hair policy,” which required that hair “be clean, trimmed, well brushed, and neat at all times, prohibited “extreme styles,” and further prohibited the hair of its male employees from landing below the shirt collar. After repeated warnings, the hotel fired Richard Viscecchia for refusing to trim his long hair. He claimed sex discrimination, based on a policy that required men, but not women, to maintain short hair. The court disagreed, holding that gender-differentiated hair length standards do not violate Title VII, and “employers can prescribe different grooming standards for male and female employees.”

Or EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, which concerned an employer’s blanket prohibition against dreadlocks, and an African-American applicant’s rejected claim that such a policy intentionally discriminates on the basis of race.

One potential exception that could make hair discrimination unlawful is where an employee’s hair style is related to a sincerely held religious belief. In that case, an employer should consider possible reasonable accommodations to avoid a claim of religious discrimination.
Otherwise, to sum up this potentially hairy issue, as long as you are not intentionally targeting one protected group over another, you are free to regulate hair in the workplace.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on April 27, 2018June 29, 2023

What I’m Reading Now: A Lesson in Geography, Genetics and American Values

Andie Burjek, Working Well blog

The benefits and wellness world is so rich that it’s hard to dig deep into every topic that comes up. That said, here are the stories that struck my interest recently.

Health Risks and Health Benefits of Genetic Tests: The genetic testing space fascinates me for many reasons, especially from an overall ethical standpoint. It’s such a recent area of scientific advancement that I find it curious to read about new innovations and trends and the larger moral questions they bring up.

I’ve written before about employees’ concerns about HR 1313 and how some feared they’d be coerced into taking tests they don’t to, and I’ve written about why employers should take issues like genetic discrimination in life insurance into account when they try to market genetic testing benefits to employees. But a recent New York Times article brought a much more basic angle to mind: genetic testing’s actual impact on public health.

The article highlighted many employers like Levi Strauss & Co., SAP, OpenTable and Salesforce that offer genetic testing as an employee benefit. There are many positive effects that can come out of this, the author acknowledges, but we should also consider some basic scientific facts about genetics before we hail genetic testing too enthusiastically as some flawless health innovation.

Many parties — including employers, the Food and Drug Administration and many genetics companies — are embracing broader consumer use of genetic tests, but groups like physicians, doctors and federal health agencies are uncertain if these tests are ready for public adoption. The reasoning? In a generally healthy population or group of people, there’s no evidence that systematic screening has “a net benefit in terms of health outcomes.”

To reiterate, there can definitely be value to genetic testing for certain people, but I wonder, could the same logic about on-average healthy public populations be said about on-average healthy employee populations? Would broad systematic genetic screening truly have a significant impact on the workplace, in terms of overall health or health care costs?

Work-Life Harmony and American Values: The Washington Post just published what I found to be a fascinating op-ed, “America is Obsessed with the Virtue of Work. What About the Virtue of Rest?” Given all the talk about work-life balance or work-life boundaries, many of the ideas in this piece were especially relevant.

Pro-work policies and rhetoric are common on both the left and right, the author writes, but meanwhile there are few pro-rest policies. For example, paid parental leave is lacking for most employees; more than half of workers leave vacation days unused either because they can’t afford to take time off or because they don’t want to look bad to their employers; and retirement isn’t a certainty for many older individuals.

In a time when burnout, balance and holistic well-being are common corporate talking points, companies should consider that employees deserve to have time to take care of themselves, rest or go on vacation. This picture of Walden Pond is from a vacation I took last fall.

The article also argues that although there is dignity and value in work, the majority of one’s life should not be made up of work. For example, the labor movement of the late 1800s championed the eight-hour workday so that workers could have time to get the proper amount of sleep and to pursue their own interests.

None of this is to say that people should be lazy or that work isn’t important. But in a time when burnout, balance and holistic well-being are common corporate talking points, it’s worth pointing out that people do deserve to have time to take care of themselves.

An excerpt from the article: “… Trump isn’t wrong, after all, in identifying work as a cardinal American virtue — and infractions against virtue are the stuff of vice. But in terms of our wider cultural context, it doesn’t appear to me that a lack of respect for work is the No. 1 threat to American dignity. If we undervalue anything to the detriment of dignity, it is the virtue of rest.”

Geography and HDHPs: The prevalence of employers offering high-deductible health plans varies by geography, reported news site HealthPayerIntelligence.com. The site was referring to findings from the BenefitFocus report State of Employee Benefits 2018 — Regional Edition.

I found this report valuable because with so much media attention given to diversity now and how different benefits might appeal to different people depending on age, gender, etc., rarely do I see geography as part of the definition of diversity. But, obviously, people who live in different regions will have different problems or issues that require different solutions, and health care plans are no exception.

An excerpt from the article: “Regional insights may help employers identify the gaps in value of their health plans. Employers could capitalize on these gaps by redesigning health plan offerings, financial contributions and additional benefits to fill these gaps in value.”

Final Read: Last week I wrote about the impact of art on employee stress. So this week I was happy to see the Chicago Tribune publish something about the impact of art on loneliness.

The loneliness epidemic is a talking point in the wellness community (Workforce writer Rita Pyrillis, explored this topic more deeply in the latest issue of the magazine), and although the Tribune article focuses on student mental health and loneliness, the same ideas apply to the workplace. For example, the article mentions that there is a biweekly support group for students with disabilities and their allies. That’s the college version of an employee resource group!

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 26, 2018June 29, 2023

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Pregnancy Provoker

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Kayla Edwards worked as a cashier for Aramark at its location in Gettysburg National Park.

In February 2017, Edwards became pregnant with her third child.

That’s when her troubles at work began, at least according to Edwards’ lawsuit [pdf] (filed earlier this week in federal court in Pennsylvania).

Immediately upon hearing of the pregnancy, Edwards’ supervisor, Suzanne Curtian, is alleged to have called her “dumb.”

The alleged harassment when downhill from there:

  • While Edwards was experiencing pregnancy-related complications, Curtian allegedly expressed: “Well hopefully it’s just a tumor or something and you were wrong about the pregnancy. Nothing cancerous, just something they can remove and you can move on.”
  • As the complications progressed, Curtian allegedly commented, “Maybe you’re miscarrying. If so, that’s just God’s will and what’s best. And then you won’t have to worry about another kid or having to leave [work].”
  • Approximately nine weeks before Edwards’ scheduled C-section, Curtian allegedly instructed her to “keep [her] legs crossed,” so that she could continue working as long as possible.

Two weeks later, Curtian accused Edwards of theft and fired her.

Previous Nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Holy Harasser

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Arresting School Board

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Camera Creep

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the (in)Humane Society Harasser

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Political Pension Preventer

The 6th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is … the Sadistic Sergeant

If you call an employee’s pregnancy a “tumor” and tell her “keep you legs crossed” to remain at work longer, you might be the worst employer of 2018.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on April 26, 2018June 29, 2023

J&J Human Performance Institute Banks on the Science of Behavior Change in the Workplace

Behavior change isn’t easy — not for the employer attempting to change its employees’ bad habits or for the employee seeking to reinvent themselves. But research is looking into scientifically proven ways to motivate behavior change effectively.

Johnson & Johnson
The Johnson & Johnson Human Performance Institute focuses on well-being and behavior change research.

Studies have discovered varying methods of how to motivate behavior change. The field of behavioral economics is fairly new, and just this past year University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler got the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Studies for his work in behavioral economics, which “combines insights from psychology, judgment, decision-making and economics to generate a more accurate understanding of human behavior.”

The Orlando-based Human Performance Institute was founded in 1991 and acquired by Johnson & Johnson in 2008. Johnson & Johnson announced earlier this year that it is investing $18 million in a new research and training facility that will double as HPI’s global headquarters. Construction is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2018, according to an HPI press release.

The expansion is significant in that it will double the facility’s capability to do research on well-being and behavior change and allow the facility to bring more programs to market, according to Lowinn Kibbey, global head of Johnson & Johnson HPI.

Much of HPI’s research focuses on engaging employees in the four dimensions of energy, Kibbey said. There’s physical, or the quantity of energy they have; mental, the focus of that energy; emotional, the quality of the energy; and spiritual, how much that energy is grounded in purpose and meaning.

“If you show up physically, mentally, emotionally, aligned to your purpose and focused on what matters most, it benefits you as a human being, at home or at work,” Kibbey said.

Employee well-being is a growing trend in the workplace, but not every company sees positive results in its employee population, he added. Organizations typically offer more nutritious food in the cafeteria or education on improving some aspect of employee health, like how to sleep better. But there must be more, Kibbey said.

These programs aren’t wrong, Kibbey said, “but if [companies] think that’s going to change behavior on its own, they’ll find they’ll get a fairly low ROI on that.”

Knowledge is an enabler of behavior change but not a motivator, he added. Based on HPI research, this type of change must start with a deep, personal, intrinsic motivator. A company cannot educate behavior change.

“Behavior change has become a bit of a buzzword, but everyone knows, even those who are optimistic, that it’s not easy,” Kibbey said.

One factor that does motivate change is purpose, a component of the spiritual dimension of energy that employees need to be engaged. Kibbey suggests that employers have some sort of structured program in place so that employees can understand their purpose. HPI hosts one-day-long Resilience course and 2 ½-day Performance course. These courses are structured and facilitated so that employees can think about their purpose and discuss it with other people, including trained coaches.

A structured, formal program is ideal, he said, because some people find that thinking about their purpose is daunting and they could benefit from an experience where there’s time and facilitation to move through that process of self-reflection.

HPI’s Resilience and Performance courses are offered to both Johnson & Johnson employees and other organizations, and they range from $650 to $5,700 in cost depending on program length and location. While some companies have covered part or all of the cost as part of its wellness program, Kibbey said, individuals may also pay for their own participation.

Not all organizations need to invest in a formal program for something like this, of course. For employers who are interested in running a similar program on their own, what’s important is that they give employees the space and time to do so, Kibbey said. Someone can facilitate a group conversation in which employees can converse with each other about what gives them a sense of purpose.

The institute’s research has found some interesting findings on behavior change involving purpose, he added. Internal goals like “I want to be happy” aren’t sustainable motivators long term but achievement-based goals like “I want to win Wimbledon this year” can be sustainable, although not necessarily attainable.

“What companies can do as they focus on employee well-being is concentrate on giving their employees time and space to understand what is meaningful in their lives personally,” Kibbey said.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 25, 2018June 29, 2023

Nearly Half of American Workers Admit to Engaging in Workplace Revenge

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

And every time I scratch my nails
Down someone else’s back I hope you feel it

Alanis Morissette

Revenge. So natural, and yet so wrong. “Turn the other cheek” is always the preferred practice, and, yet, often life is more “smack you in the cheek” as you turn away.

Even at work.

According to a recent study, 44 percent of workers admit to partaking in some type of workplace revenge.

The top 10 acts of revenge range from the silly to the diabolical to the downright nasty:

  1. Cause a purposeful decline in the quality or quantity of work.
  2. Spreading an unflattering rumor about a co-worker.
  3. Quit a job in an unconventional manner.
  4. Hide a co-worker’s possession(s).
  5. Get a co-worker fired.
  6. Sabotage a co-worker’s work.
  7. Tamper with a co-worker’s computer or work equipment.
  8. Eat a co-worker’s lunch
  9. Disseminate private information from a co-worker’s social media.
  10. Delete work from a co-worker’s computer.
Here’s the most troubling part. Of those who admitted to taking revenge, 83 percent got away with it, and of those that got away with it, 83 percent had no regrets. Also, of those caught, 55 percent suffered no repercussions whatsoever, and only 11 percent were fired.
Moreover, this conduct might not be unlawful. Generalized workplace bullying is generally legal. Mistreatment against co-workers is only rises to the level of unlawful harassment if it’s because of some protected class (e.g., sex. race, religion, age, national origin, disability, etc.), and to the level of unlawful retaliation if the target had engaged in some protected activity.
Yet, just because an act of revenge isn’t illegal doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t handle it just the same. For starters, whether or not an act of revenge is “because of” some protected class is very much in the eye of the beholder, one person’s non-discriminatory act of revenge is another’s unlawful harassment. Do you want to take that risk?
And, regardless of whether an act of revenge is or is not actionable, it nevertheless impacts your employees the same—increased absences, high turnover, low morale, lost productivity, greater health insurance costs, and the expensive legal bills if it turns into a lawsuit.
In other words, there is no excuse for an employer to turn a blind eye toward one employee’s act of revenge against another employee.
So, what can an employer to do prevent employees from exacting revenge on each other?

For starters…

Foster a culture of kindness.
More specifically, you should be implementing these three steps:

1. Review policies. Do you have an anti-bullying policy? Do you have an open-door policy? Does your anti-retaliation policy cover all workplace complaints? If you are missing any of these components, the odds are that your employees will not feel the necessary level of comfort to come forward to complain.
2. Encourage complaints. Do you promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints of inappropriate misconduct, or just those that could rise to the level of a lawsuit? If you’re not taking all complaints of misconduct seriously with prompt and thorough investigations, you are sending the wrong message to your employees, which could lead to them not complaining at all.
3. Take action. It’s appalling that 55 percent of those caught taking revenge against a co-worker suffered zero consequences. If you conclude that the act of the revenge happened, do something. That something need not be termination, but it should be proportional to the severity of the act and the recidivism of the actor.

Have you ever enacted workplace revenge, been the victim of workplace revenge, or had it occur in your business? And, if so, how did you handle it? Share your experiences in the comments below.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on April 25, 2018October 19, 2021

How to Keep Your Payroll Reports Clean and Data-Driven

CARES Act

Let’s face it, one of the most challenging and stressful things that a business owner faces when it comes to managing their workforce is taking on a payroll, time labor, benefits and HR system migration/implementation.

Workforce management implementations, if done correctly and by someone who is qualified, will streamline human capital processes, but if done incorrectly and by someone who is not qualified, can make an employer’s life a living hell.

Most small to midsize companies experience the latter because they do not have the experienced staff/team, with a broad project management skill set to handle these complex migrations. They also do not have clean, organized data readily at hand.

Here are four tips to help you identify the data, policies, and processes needed to ensure a smooth transition to your new system.

  1. Establish your team, roles, timeline and budget. Identify your internal and/or external resources that are going to be called upon to help with the implementation. Don’t go at it alone. Ideally, your team consists of a project manager, one who takes accountability for the project and who is comfortable in all aspects of payroll, time labor, benefits and HRIS. Your payroll team leader needs to be well-versed in your current payroll system and will be responsible for providing clean, accurate employer and employee payroll data, as well as the company’s chart of accounts (you may have to leverage your external bookkeeper and/or CPA).

Next, your time labor team member is someone who possesses a technical skill-set and is often your resident IT employee, who understands systems, schedules, operational workflows and who is able to test the data integrity. This is most likely the person who you already rely on to manage the time sheets, job costing and labor distribution excel file.

Finally, your HR team member handling the human resource role is usually the hardest role to fill, especially if you are a small to midsize company that generally cannot afford a full-time HR generalist. If you are fortunate to find a skilled HR generalist, they should be familiar with the entire employee life cycle from recruiting, hiring and onboarding to performance reviews, benefits administration and compliance.

As for your implementation timeline, plan on at least 1 to 1 1/2 weeks per module. Most providers will tell you no less than six weeks and as long as 12 weeks. When you take into account training and as for the implementation fee, budget at least $35 to $50 per employee. Some companies will negotiate in competitive situations and/or allow you to roll the fee into your per payroll or monthly cost. The cleaner your data and the more talented/experienced your team, the better. When you are negotiating the implementation fee, if you are doing all the heavy lifting and bringing clean information to the table then that will save you significant time and money, especially with the setup fee.

  1. Scrub your payroll data. Since the most important module is payroll, you want to make sure there aren’t any delays in paying your employees and the key here is to make sure you are entering clean data — information that has been pulled out of the current payroll system and has been scrubbed for accuracy. Just because your prior payroll company handled your implementation does not mean all of your employees were originally loaded with the correct withholding, earnings and deduction codes. PaycheckCity.com provides a great calculator to audit your employee’s pay and ensure that you have them set up correctly
  2. Time labor management policies and processes. Capturing and accruing employees’ work hours, paid time off, sick days and vacations is one of the biggest time wasters for small to midsize companies, especially if done manually. We see many companies who try to manage time through Excel, paper timesheets and/or time clocks that are not integrated with payroll. The complexity of your company and nature of your business will determine the type of time labor system that can handle your individual situation. This is why having organized documentation of your time entry methods, employee schedules, job costing, labor distribution, supervisory roles/approvals, accrual and PTO policy, an employee handbook, lunchbreak policies and locations/job sites are just some of the crucial data needed to ensure a smooth time labor implementation.
  3. Building out your human capital management module. This should be last in line and will require data, policies and processes to be created as you build and customize your system. Most organizations use this as a time to clean up, overhaul and/or create such things as their organizational chart, HR organizational reports and job descriptions as well as recruiting, hiring and performances practices. If you have this documentation already, you are way ahead of the game.

An important area to focus on is the process(es) of recruiting, hiring and onboarding the new employee. The sooner you can capture the employee’s information, within your workforce management platform (without entering it yourself) during the recruiting or hiring process, the more efficient the onboarding process will be for the employee and the cleaner the data will be.

Most importantly, you should remove as much paper from the process as possible. The system can then perform for you and get the data over to who needs it — payroll, benefits administration, the insurance carrier/broker, workers’ compensation and the 401(k) TPA/recordkeeper/adviser.

Paul Aemisegeo is the founder and CEO of PayrollMart. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on April 25, 2018June 29, 2023

The Ugly Truth About Online Assessment Testing

Most people have had the experience of taking an online assessment or test as part of a job application. No matter the industry and position, the format is often familiar. The applicant is asked questions covering everything under the sun about how they would rate their work performance and ability to work well with others, and then they are asked those same questions again in different ways. The answers are usually multiple choice and the assessments can take as long as 20 minutes to complete or sometimes, take several hours and days to finish for the most intensive online screening tests.

A great majority of companies use assessments as key parts of their application. They’re designed to be an unbiased way to narrow down the applicant pool to a more manageable number.

But hiring managers who work for companies that utilize these assessments need to ask themselves a few questions: Do you know what questions are asked on that test? Have you taken it? Can you pass it?

Many hiring managers and talent acquisition staff have never seen some of the questions they ask job candidates, and in many cases, they would be the first to fail these tests. The reality is that online tests and assessments have become an out of sight, out of mind tool for HR teams. Hiring managers know these tests exist as part of their company’s application process but that might be the extent of their knowledge.

In the job market of years past, companies could get by with this type of practice. Unemployment was high post-recession, and there were plenty of applicants to every position. Companies had the upper hand and could be choosy and select the best person available.

With unemployment standing at a 17-year low in 2018, jobseekers and employees are beginning to wield the power. They can be selective where they choose to apply and whom they want to work with. Meanwhile employers are struggling to find talent.

Employers and hiring managers need to scrutinize things they didn’t have to scrutinize before. They may need to take a hard look at the online pre-screening assessment tests, which may be inadvertently costing the company highly skilled and talented future employees.

How to Stay on Top

Companies lose otherwise qualified candidates for a variety of reasons in the application process, but they frequently lose them at the assessment stage. Jobseekers exit out of the process if they view the test as too lengthy or time consuming. They also bail on a company if the assessment content is not perceived as relevant or if that content startles them.

Think of a forklift operator applying for that job who takes an assessment with nothing but sales related questions, even if the job description did not mention sales at all. Believe it or not, this type of thing happens all the time. This jobseeker thinks they may be applying to the wrong position and leaves the application. Or even worse, they think the company may not have their act together thus damaging the company’s brand in the process.

So how can hiring managers and companies capture the talent they may be losing because of candidate drop-off in the online assessment process? A good start is by following these three best practices:

Know what is on the test. Many talent acquisition personnel have no idea what content or questions are on their current online assessment. The best companies have assessments that their personnel are familiar with and that relate to key characteristics that successful workers should have at that company.

Do not have a test just to have a test. Involve hiring managers and talent acquisition personnel in the design of this tool to make it more effective. Every individual responsible for hiring at a company should know what is being asked of applicants.

Keep the length of your test under control. Are you getting enough qualified candidates? If a company’s online assessment takes too long to complete, they could lose many great people.

A hiring manager may say, “Well for our company, if that jobseeker doesn’t want to invest the time to complete this, then we don’t want them.” But the job market is changing. Employers have had the upper hand for quite some time, but the unemployment rate is low and forecasted to get even lower

There is going to come a time where companies are going to need those qualified jobseekers who do not want to spend half a day completing an online quiz. There is a happy medium, but employers need to be vigilant so that top talent doesn’t take flight over something this trivial.

Do you really care? Are you sure?. What do I mean by that? As an example, I work with jobseekers with disabilities with applications, interview preparation, and everything in between. When applying online, nearly all the online tests list either a 1-800 number or an email address that people with disabilities can reach out to if they need assistance or help with the application/assessment.

Shockingly, though, a large percentage of these 1-800 numbers are either non-functional or they lead to an impersonal, confusing answering machine. After all of these missteps, the final insult is that oftentimes those messages left by jobseekers with disabilities are either not monitored by anybody or they are never returned.

I challenge you to test your company’s 1-800 numbers and email addresses. Individuals with disabilities are the largest untapped labor pool in the United States. If they were to apply to your company, have an issue that required assistance and get an impersonal response, they might exit out of the application and choose a company that really cares.

Online application assessments are here to stay. They can be valuable and helpful tool for all parties if given the attention that they deserve. As a hiring manager though, it’s your job to make sure they act as an effective resource to finding qualified candidates as opposed to a barrier that eliminates potential talent.

Keith Meadows is a hiring and engagement consultant at Disability Solutions. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 … Page 95 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress