Author: Rick Bell

Posted on

More Employers Are Dropping Domestic Partner Benefits

The legalization of same-sex marriage was a win for civil rights but it could mean lost health care coverage for some American couples as more employers drop domestic partner coverage.

In 2016, the year after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the country, 48 percent of employers provided benefits to same-sex partners compared to 59 percent in 2014 — a decline of 11 percent, according to a recent study by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, a research organization based in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Gay marriage was deemed constitutional in June 2015.

“We expected to see a drop and it’s not insubstantial,” said Julie Stich, associate vice president of content at the foundation. “Many employers were covering same-sex domestic partners when they could not get married, but the ruling changed that. Another factor is that it’s an administrative complexity to have all these different programs and keep track of who is a domestic partner versus a spouse. It’s understandable that they wanted to get rid of them.”

Health care benefits for domestic partners has grown slowly but steadily since 1992 when the first Fortune 500 company began offering them, according to statistics from the Human Rights Campaign, a Washington-based LGBTQ advocacy group. At the time fewer than two dozen U.S. employers offered “spousal equivalent” benefits to same-sex couples. By 2006, more than half of the Fortune 500 offered them, according to the HRC.

The trend continued until 2015, according to figures provided by consulting firm Mercer. In 2010, 39 percent of large employers offered same-sex domestic partner benefits increasing to 62 percent in 2015 before seeing a slight drop last year.

“There was a gradual but steady increase in number of large employers offering coverage but subsequent to the Supreme Court case we saw the first downturn in many years,” said Barry Schilmeister, a consultant at Mercer. The drop occurred mostly among employers that provided health benefits to same sex partners only, he said.

“The data suggests that there were two employers out there: Those who covered same sex partners only and the much larger group that covered both,” he said. “The employers who dropped coverage came from group that covered only same sex couples. The group that covered both same-sex and opposite-sex partners didn’t change very much. It suggests that those covering both groups were doing it as a philosophical position, offering coverage to those who couldn’t legally marry.”

In states that legalized same-sex marriage before the Supreme Court decision on Obergefell v. Hodges, some employers began dropping coverage after the legislation passed. Soon after New York legalized same-sex marriage in 2011, Corning, IBM and Raytheon began requiring same-sex partners to marry in order to qualify for coverage, according to The New York Times.

Some employers cite the administrative headaches as one reason to drop coverage for domestic partners and require all couples to marry, according to Schilmeister.

“In order to qualify for domestic partner coverage you need show an affidavit, something that shows that you are financially interdependent, like a joint checking account or a mortgage,” he said. “That’s outside the automated administration system and it’s more cumbersome. Another administrative difference involves taxes.”

After the Supreme Court decision, executives at EnerNOC, an energy software company, briefly discussed dropping domestic partner benefits but decided to keep them, according to Laurana Bianco, benefits manager at the Boston-based firm. The company began offering these benefits in 2008.

“As you know, benefit offerings are a key factor in deciding to join an organization and being in a tight recruiting space we want to attract the best and the brightest,” she said. “We have a number of employees in domestic partnerships in both categories that had coverage and we didn’t want to take it away from them. The ROI outweighs any administrative burden, which is really quite minimal.”

While more employers will likely drop coverage in the coming years, the majority of companies will continue to offer benefits to both same and opposite sex domestic partners, according to Schilmeister.

“I think the biggest shift has occurred already and we’ll see a leveling off,” he said.

Rita Pyrillis is a writer in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

The Automation of HR: Take Us to Your CHRO

Back in 2014 the Associated Press started using automation software to write quarterly corporate-earnings reports.

This software, known as Wordsmith, is able to produce 3,000 such stories every quarter, which, according to the AP, is a tenfold increase from what its writers and editors were able to produce in the same time period.

By employing automation software to churn out corporate earnings stories, AP journalists are able to dedicate more time on reporting and breaking news. Journalism may not be the only traditionally white-collar field to be affected by automation if software expert predictions are correct.

Automation software — as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning — is on the brink of becoming ubiquitous in offices around the world, taking the repetitive, transactional work out of many traditional white-collar jobs, including many manual functions of human resources roles.

In short, jobs once thought to be immune from automation are likely to be transformed by it within the next 10 years. As automation software begins to creep into more businesses, the role of HR is set for a major transformation. In fact, the Society for Human Resource Management labeled automated HR one of its “Nine HR Tech Trends for 2017.”

“I think there are two ways to think about the implications for HR: How does the department operate, and how does the HR function report to the rest of the enterprise?” said Michael Chui, partner at McKinsey Global Institute, a global management consulting firm.

According to Carolyn Broderick, a member of SHRM’s HR Tech Expertise Panel, HR departments have their work cut out for them when it comes to workforce automation.

Please also read: Coming to Grips With the Effects of an Automated Nation on Workplaces

“I believe HR has a role for planning in the future. Jobs will have to be redesigned. Certain jobs are going to be enriched if mundane tasks are going to be automated,” said Broderick, who is senior HRIS analyst at Mount Sinai Health System in New York. “HR has to consider how humans and machines will work together.”

The Wave of Automation

Automated labor often leads to dystopian thoughts of a future where humans in the workforce are rendered obsolete by robots. However, the automation of tasks is nothing new for the American workforce, even in traditionally white-collar sectors. Spell checkers, Excel formulas and out-of-office replies are simple examples of automation already in use that make office jobs easier.

Most occupations have the potential for some automation, and it’s estimated that about half of all the activities people are paid to do in the world’s workforce could potentially be automated by existing technologies, according to a recent report from McKinsey.

“What this says to us is that there is a wide-ranging scope of automation technology, which, over time, will affect every role,” Chui said. “Not just workers who earn lower wages, but MBAs, JDs or MDs. We find the potential for automated work in many occupations.”

The difference between automation already in use and the automation revolution many experts predict is that new advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning are able to automate tasks that were thought to be too difficult for a machine to do accurately.

In other words, it was more efficient, quicker — and ultimately cheaper — for a human being to do them.

“I can automate a lot of things like email, for example,” said Jason Hite, founder and chief people strategist at Daoine Centric, a Virginia-based HR consultancy. “It’s just a ping and an echo. But the difference between automation and artificial intelligence and machine learning is that an email is now read by an AI algorithm. The email you get back is now responding to you with an answer to the question you asked. You’re getting a tailored response.”

Speed and efficiency have always been among the main drivers behind automation in the workforce, as it allows for increased productivity. The same holds true for the current economic climate.

“Automation of activities can enable businesses to improve performance by reducing errors and improving quality and speed, and in some cases achieving outcomes that go beyond human capabilities. Automation also contributes to productivity, as it has done historically,” the McKinsey report states.

It’s possible that automation programs could displace highly skilled jobs in the distant future. But in the near future, the jobs most susceptible to automation are those in manufacturing, accommodation and food service, retail trade and some middle-skill jobs. These jobs share certain commonalities such as physical activities in highly structured and predictable environments, as well as the collection and processing of data.

“There are certain jobs involving data prep or data entry that will be affected. People spend an awful amount time scrubbing data,” Broderick said. “With automation taking over that process, folks can spend more time analyzing data and writing about it. There are already programs that can do that.”

When it comes to HR, Hite said there will be opportunities to automate many transactional tasks and noted that some forward-thinking companies have already started to do so. As an example, he pointed to companies using smart devices to help keep track of employees on leave.

“There are a number of companies that have already integrated with Amazon Echo. As a manager, you can ask it, ‘How many people are on leave today?’ ” said Hite, a 2016 Workforce Game Changer. “There’s no need to call HR about that anymore.”

Experts predict the adoption of automation technology will push HR in new directions, drastically transforming the department’s role within organizations, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence and machine learning.

It’s an Automated World and HR’s Just Livin’ in It

One of the benefits of automating transactional HR tasks is, like AP using Wordsmith to allow reporters to focus on breaking news, that HR departments can focus on activities that bring value to the organization. By adopting sophisticated automation technology with artificial intelligence, HR will have the opportunity to focus more energy on the employee experience.

For example, a benefits expert will no longer need to spend time answering emails with simple questions about the company’s benefits packages. That person can set up a chatbot, which is a computer program that conducts a conversation via auditory or textual methods. The chatbot would respond with the correct information while the employee gets to focus on the analysis of how workers are using the organization’s benefits packages.

“The creative part of benefits will need to be handled by humans,” Broderick said. “ ‘What’s the message?’ ‘How do we tailor it and change it?’ and ‘How will people react?’ There should probably always be some kind of human touch point in HR communications. Every company is different, every culture is different. I don’t really see that being taken over by a computer.”

Similarly, automated recruiting programs would allow companies to improve the human element of their talent acquisition processes.

Currently, 82 percent of job seekers are frustrated with an overly automated recruiting experience, according to a Randstad U.S. report released in August. While automation has seemingly created a problem for organizations, it has also created an opportunity for HR to develop a solution that makes the recruiting process more enjoyable for job seekers. In fact, 82 percent of job seekers said the ideal interaction with a company is one where innovative technologies are used behind the scenes and come second to personal, human interaction.

“Even if parts of recruiting can be automated, there are certain things that can’t be replaced. The grunt work can be automated. Entering data about candidates, if that’s automated, recruiters can be more strategic on selecting the best candidates,” Broderick said.

What’s more, automated recruiting technology may help organizations stay compliant with hiring laws since, theoretically, bias and emotional decisions could be removed from the recruiting process. However, Broderick said that would only be true as long as the process, which was first developed by a human, is free from bias to begin with.

Hite agrees with Broderick on this point.

“If the data is bad, the output will be bad. That’s why we need to start thinking about where this is going,” he said. “I think this is really going to be a big moment for HR. It’s going to test who’s leaning forward.”

Change Management

Perhaps the biggest opportunity for HR related to automation technology is managing the change that will take place within organizations. On one hand, processes in place will need to be evaluated and possibly revamped in order for the benefits of automation technology to be fully realized. Furthermore, HR will need people to create communication strategies related to automation changes. And strategies to train — or even re-train — employees to use these new tools will need to be developed.

“Change management is going to be huge,” Hite said. “It’s going to force HR to look at the end user. I really think the break point will be when HR starts to understand how these advances will improve the lives of their stakeholders. If it only complicates the end user’s life even a little bit, that’ll be an issue.”

Higher productivity is a clear benefit of a more automated workforce. However, as organizations stand to gain from this impending technological shift, HR will also need to plan for the negative impact that a portion of the workforce will ultimately endure.

Max Mihelich is writer in Chicago. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Cravings Are Key to Long-term Wellness

Humans are very bad at making good decisions about things that matter in the long term. Whether it’s choosing to workout over watching TV, a cookie over a salad, saving money or a new car, there are so many ways we satisfy our desires today instead of doing what we know will set us up for success tomorrow. 

It’s not that we don’t know what’s good for us. It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that if we keep eating those cookies every day, we’ll eventually gain weight. Rather, it’s that we value what feels good in the moment more than what we know is right for us in the long term. This phenomenon is widely studied by behavioral economists and is called “hyperbolic discounting.” HR leaders and benefits pros see this in action — and are frustrated by it — every day.

Much of benefits design and communication is about overcoming this incredibly ingrained human trait. We know employees can — and should — just do simple things today that would pay off big time down the road. But they don’t. Understanding why they don’t and how to counter this behavior can help you create more effective benefits programs and better outcomes for your organization.

One of our favorite experts on the topic, Nir Eyal, published a recent guest post on his blog “Nir And Far” by Lakshmi Mani on this topic. Titled “Why You Make Terrible Life Choices,” it explained hyperbolic discounting and the ways to overcome it. Mani summarizes the dilemma perfectly:

“A caveman did not have to contend with the same complex choices we do today. Cavewoman Lakshmi never had to choose between eating a pig today versus investing it in a pig 401(k) that would yield a 4x return in the future. Under harsher living conditions, we didn’t know if we would survive till the end of the day so our species evolved to choose the immediate option that most increased our chance of passing down our genes. Our brains are wired to choose immediate sure-things rather than the potential of a far-off future reward.”

So, there you have it — getting people to save more in their 401(k) requires overcoming the cognitive traits developed over thousands of years of evolution. No easy task!

But acknowledging this challenge gives us more perspective into how to help people make good decisions. We must remember that what we ask employees to do today for their health or financial security doesn’t come naturally to them. Simply not having to worry about surviving every day is a relatively recent development for humankind. Even more recent is the idea that you should stash away a lot of money over the span of 40 to 50 years so you can spend it in the future. Or that you should give up a meal today so that you’re healthier in the future.

Does this mean the situation is hopeless? Not at all. But we have to be realistic about what it takes to get people to trade short-term rewards for long-term potential.

One of the lessons we have learned time and again is that education isn’t enough. We can’t just tell people what they should do — they still won’t make the trade-offs between now and the future.

But we can make good decisions easier and bad decisions harder by taking a very deliberate and thoughtful approach to designing smart plans and systems. Whether that is by automatically enrolling employees in their 401(k) or putting the fruit on the counter and the candy in a drawer, there are countless ways to design programs and workplaces to support smart choices.

Another way we can do this is through the messages we choose to push out. Instead of focusing on what someone needs to do in the future, focus on the things they want to do now. Someone may need to lose weight to prevent the onset of diabetes a few years down the road, but that same person may want to lose weight now to look good in the designer clothes they’ve been coveting. That’s exactly where you should focus: what feels good now.

Most importantly, we can and should embrace HR’s role as the architect of these choices. We know what employees should do to protect their long-term health and financial security. Every choice about designing programs and communicating them should help nudge and influence the right behaviors.

Posted on

Parental Status Discrimination Is NOT a Thing. But Should It Be?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

I received some great feedback on LinkedIn on last week’s post on New York’s new paid family leave law.

That law grants paid leave for the same general reasons one can take unpaid leave under the FMLA. What it does not do, though, is create a new protected class.

Indeed, discrimination based on one’s status as a parent is, in and of itself, NOT illegal.

Case in point? Spink-Krause v. Medtronic (E.D. Mich. 10/23/17).

In that case, the plaintiff, a medical sales rep and working mom, claimed sex discrimination. The alleged discrimination? Her boss made her job as working parent more difficult by reassigning all of the accounts close to her home to other reps, thus requiring her to travel further from her children.

The court dismissed her sex discrimination claim, because Title VII protects against sex discrimination, not parental discrimination:

If Plaintiff were to allowed to take her sex discrimination claim to trial by showing that she was treated differently than a female who does not have children, then the claim she would present to the jury would be a parental discrimination claim — not a gender discrimination claim.

This is not to say that “parental status” can never be a valid basis for a discrimination claim, but it must equate to sex discrimination. In other words, one can claim parental status discrimination, so long as one can show that the employer treated the parent differently because of the parent’s gender (i.e., the employer treats working moms worse than working dads, or vice versa).

So, here’s my Monday question for y’all. SHOULD parental status discrimination be a thing?

Leave me your comments below, or jump over to LinkedIn and let me know your thoughts there. I’ll curate the best thoughts in a future post.

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

Busy Recruiters Call on Job-Seekers to Follow Up

After a job candidate hits submit, send, upload or done with their résumé the “what do I do next” phase begins.

Days or sometimes weeks go by and the employer still hasn’t reached out. In such instances, according to a survey by Accountemps, 81 percent of senior managers want candidates to follow up within two weeks of applying for a position.

recruiting
Both phone and email are acceptable ways to follow up with an employer after submitting a résumé., hiring managers say.

“Our survey shows that 100 percent of hiring managers think candidates should follow up after submitting application materials,” said Michael Steinitz, executive director of Accountemps. “Hiring managers who do not want candidates following up should note that in the job posting.”

If a job seeker does follow up on their résumé Steinitz believes that it shows “initiative and demonstrates to hiring managers that they are enthusiastic about the opportunity. It’s also a chance for job seekers to initiate a discussion with the hiring manager and highlight how they can contribute to the organization’s success.”

Both phone and email are acceptable ways to follow up with an employer after submitting a résumé. The Accountemps survey also found that 64 percent of hiring managers prefer email over 21 percent preferring a phone call.

Alison Doyle, a job-search expert for financial wellness company The Balance, explained the benefits of both.

“The easiest way to follow up is by email. If there’s an email address listed in the job posting, you can use that. Or, you could try to find the name of the hiring manager if there isn’t one listed and write to him or her inquiring about the status of your application,” Doyle said. “Another option is to call, and if you are able to find a contact person, a phone call may give you the opportunity to talk directly with hiring manager and pitch your credentials.”

Steinitz said the employer could have priorities and hasn’t gotten around to the hiring process. Job-seekers shouldn’t be discouraged.

“HR managers may be juggling several priorities at one time, so job seekers shouldn’t become upset if they don’t hear back from an employer right away,” Steinitz said. “If you don’t get a response after a couple attempts, continue your job search or connect with a specialized recruiter in your market.”

There isn’t an exact time equation of when it is best to follow up with a potential employer. Doyle explained that “if the position has an application deadline listed, wait to contact the company until after the deadline has passed because they may not begin reviewing résumés until they have received them all.”

Once a job seeker follows up, Doyle said that “if you can get in touch with the person at the company who is responsible for scheduling interviews, following up is a way to show the employer that you’re really interested in the job.”

Accountemps made a list of do’s and don’ts while following up with a hiring manager.

According to Accountemps, do communicate through email or phone, express interest and ask about the next steps. But don’t be pushy, discuss salary and get discouraged.

Sometimes there may be an answer to why a job seeker has not heard back from a company.

“You may not hear back from a company unless they are interested in scheduling an interview with you,” Doyle said. “Some companies let candidates know when they are not being considered for a job, but many don’t.”

If a job seeker does not hear back it is suggested that they do not get discouraged but to move on, edit or update their résumé and take the time to find other opportunities.

Alexis Carpello is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Is New York the Beginning of the End for America’s Terrible Family Leave Laws?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

It is freakin’ hard to be a working parent in America. It is even more difficult when both mom and dad work.

It’s not just child care, but also doctors’ appointments, kids’ sick days, summer vacations, winter and spring breaks, Labor Days, Memorial Days, and all the other “Days” (and don’t get me started on “teacher in-service days”).

Beginning Jan. 1, New York is implementing the start of solution for any employees that work in that state.

On that date, New York’s Paid Family Leave law — the nation’s most comprehensive to date — takes effect.

It provides job-protected and employee-funded paid leave (eight weeks in 2018, scaling up to 12 weeks by 2021) to care for a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, parent-in-law, or grandparent with a serious health condition; to care for a newborn child during the first 12 months after the child’s birth or after the first 12 months after placement of the child for adoption or foster care; and for when a spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent is called to active military duty.

In other words, it takes the FMLA, adds “domestic partners,” and pays for the job-protected time away from work via insurance proceeds funded by mandatory employee payroll deductions.

If your business employs anyone in New York, this law, for obvious reasons, is a really big deal.

Yet, New York’s move on paid family leave should matter to all employers even if you never have and never will employ anyone in that state. This law matters to all because it moves the needle on this issue.

To compete in the job market against those employers that offer paid leave, other companies will have to begin voluntarily offering paid sick leave as a fringe benefit. Thus, over time, paid sick leave will spread to most, if not all, employers nationwide, whether by government fiat or voluntary adoption.

Those of you who’ve been reading for a while know that I’m not a fan of government mandates. Yet, it is embarrassing that America lags so far behind the rest of the world on employee paid time off.

This law illustrates what happens when the private sector delays making necessary changes. Because our nation’s businesses are so out of touch on the issue of paid leave, governments are compelled to step in.

Bottom line? It’s time to get ahead of the curve on the issue of paid sick leave. Given how far we have to catch up, it presents an amazing recruitment and retention opportunity for the American employer.

Or, look at it this way. Now is the time to board the paid sick leave train. It’s leaving the station one way or the other. The only question is who is going to be the conductor — employers or the government.

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

Apple Employee Gaffe Illustrates Risk Posed by YouTube Videos in Protection of Trade Secrets

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

An Apple employee lost his job this week after his daughter, Brooke Amelia Peterson, posted a YouTube video of her dad’s brand new, unreleased iPhone X.

ReCode has the details:

Peterson posted a five-minute video of a September day in Silicon Valley, which mostly included shopping for makeup and clothing. Harmless, and not unlike other YouTube videos posted by teenagers.

But then, in the video, she visits her father on Apple’s campus in Cupertino for what seems like dinner. As they munch on pizzas in the company’s cafeteria, Peterson’s dad hands her his iPhone X to test. That’s when YouTube viewers got about 45 seconds of footage of Peterson scrolling through various screens on the new design and showing off its camera.

After Peterson’s video went viral (including its republication on a variety of popular Apple blogs), Apple fired her dad. According to The Verge, Apple strictly prohibits filming on its campus, and the at-issue video not only revealed the unreleased iPhone X, but also information on other not-yet-released products.

The video itself may have seemed like an innocent hands-on, but it did include footage of an iPhone X with special employee-only QR codes. A notes app was also shown on the iPhone X in the video, which appeared to include code names of unreleased Apple products.

No company takes its trade secrets more seriously than Apple. This story is an excellent illustration of the steps that companies are compelled to take to keep their trade secrets, well, secret.

One of the key elements courts apply to determine whether a claimed trade secret is worthy of protection is the steps the purported holder takes to maintain its secrecy. While Apple cannot preemptively stop all video recording on its campus, it can terminate employees who violate that policy.

Courts have held that the public posting of a YouTube video of a purported ‘trade secret’ will strip said trade secret of its protection as such. For example, consider Madison Oslin, Inc. v. Interstate Resources, Inc., in which a Maryland federal court concluded that a company forfeited trade secret protections because of a publicly available YouTube video describing the purported ‘secrets.’

Apple really had no choice but to fire Peterson’s dad. An employee violated its policy, which resulted in secret information becoming very, very public.

Brooke Amelia Peterson learned a valuable, in her case, cruel lesson. When a company takes its trade secrets seriously, you best do so too, lest you cause a termination, or, worse, a 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

An Open Letter to HR Professionals: Stop Enabling Sexual Harassment

Dear HR sisters and brothers:

The recent Harvey Weinstein allegations have caused an outpouring of personal experiences with sexual harassment shared under the hashtag #metoo. What is deeply disturbing are the accusations that HR has been complicit and has failed to take appropriate action to address this scourge.

In Laurie Ruettimann’s Oct. 18 Vox post, “Let’s face it. HR is powerless to help women who are harassed,” she suggests that many of you are simply ignoring complaints of sexual harassment in your workplaces because HR’s function is to protect the company from employment-related risks.

Is that really how HR is thinking?

It is a huge risk for companies when you consider the enormous cost of turnover, low productivity and poor morale that happens when complaints are ignored. Even more devastating and tragic is the debilitating harm to employees, not only to the employee experiencing the harassment but also to other employees who are deeply affected when learning of or seeing their colleagues being mistreated. Sexual harassment creates a hostile working environment and it cripples an organization.

One very important thing that you need to know that Ruettimann does not mention in her article: Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal. It is a crime. If you fail to stop sexual harassment in your workplace, you are aiding and abetting criminals. You are breaking the law.

Drive vs Sexual Harassment abstract with words related to sexual harassment.

Ruettimann recommends that employees bypass you and form their own affinity groups or quit their jobs. I have a better idea, HR: Do your job and don’t participate in or allow criminal activity! There are effective actions you can take right now to rid your workplace of this scourge and be a champion for your employees. The law is on your side. Start now to:

  • Inform everyone in your company, including your board of directors, that sexual harassment is illegal and you have a zero-tolerance policy. This means that anyone found to be harassing anyone in the workplace will be fired or kicked off the board. Full stop. No second chances.
  • Make it very clear what is illegal behavior. This is straight from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: It is unlawful to harass a person (an applicant or employee) because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.

Both the victim and the harasser can be either a woman or a man, and the victim and harasser can be the same sex.

Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

  • Inform everyone in your company that everyone is responsible for reporting sexual harassment in the workplace even if they are not the target. If you see something, say something! Failure to report is also cause for disciplinary action.
  • Immediately suspend the alleged perpetrators and get them out of the work environment. Yes, you can still pay them while you conduct the investigation but you cannot take the risk of further harassment or interference with the investigation. If they communicate with the person(s) alleging harassment or talk to any potential witnesses while on suspension, fire them. (This will be policy.)
  • Establish an independent third party confidential hotline for those who are afraid of reporting incidents of sexual harassment directly to you. Keep in mind that zero tolerance means that if you — the HR professional — fail to address sexual harassment in your workplace, you will be terminated.

The above strategies work. As a 30-year HR veteran, I have used these strategies to address sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse in very diverse settings from corporate to nonprofit, including international operations.

The bottom line for HR: No excuses. Take action now. Do not enable sexual harassment.

Colleen Striegel is the vice president for HR and administration at the American Refugee Committee, a humanitarian and relief agency based in Minneapolis with operations in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. She has worked with a United Nations agency team to investigate sexual abuse of refugees by aid workers in Africa and was a part of an independent task force charged with examining how allegations of clergy sexual misconduct were handled by the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

Posted on

China Gorman Helps Unleash New HR Tech Industry Event

China Gorman
China Gorman will lead the Unleash HR technology conference in the spring.

When human resources leaders talk about China there’s a fair chance they’re referring not to the Asian nation but to China Gorman, the one-time Great Place to Work CEO, former Society for Human Resource Management chief operating officer and longtime industry thought leader, adviser and speaker.

HRN, a European-based event organizer that’s behind a fledgling U.S. HR technology conference, is counting on Gorman’s strong personal brand and deep industry connections to boost its presence stateside.

The outfit tapped Gorman Oct. 23 to manage its North American operations, including helping it rebrand and run its second U.S. conference. The event, once known as HR Tech World and rebranded as Unleash as of Oct. 24, is set to take place next May in Las Vegas.

In building its American operations, HRN is going head to head with the existing HR Technology Conference. The LRP Publications-run event all but created the HR technology exposition phenomena when it kicked off its first gathering 20 years ago.

HRN’s focus on the future of work and unique programming separates it from existing conferences, Gorman said. “This isn’t our parents’ HR tech conference, that’s for sure,” she said.

An HR Technology Conference spokeswoman declined to comment.

The rival conferences hope to appeal to HR practitioners at a time when companies are using more cloud-based services for payroll, benefits, performance, learning and other aspects of people management. At the same time, venture funds are pouring an unprecedented amount of capital into HR technology startups.

The trends, along with a low barrier to entry for software-as-a-service providers, have led to an explosion of workplace apps, and to new platforms for helping HR technology departments navigate available options. Close to 500 vendors exhibited at the HR Technology Conference in mid-October, which also took place in Las Vegas.

AI Works
AI Works was among the nearly 500 vendors at this year’s HR Technology & Exposition conference in Las Vegas. (Photo by Rick Bell)

The past few years also have seen a proliferation of HR tech blogs, review sites — including some with crowdsourced reviews — and other content devoted to assessing HR technology. HR executives need help understanding how HR systems can help them innovate instead of succumbing to thinking of them as a “silver bullet,” said HR tech consultant Nov Omana, chief executive and co-founder of Collective HR Solutions Inc.

Today, information on what’s available comes in many forms, including news sites, webinars and whitepapers. “Tech conferences are getting less attendance by buyers and more by vendors, especially startups looking for” partners, Omana said. “We need to change how we seek knowledge on technology and what it can do for us, and it won’t be through conferences.”

Economic and other trends make it critical for organizations to focus on their people, not just when they’re at work but in their personal lives, and HRN and its founder Marc Coleman get the repercussions that has for HR technology, said Jason Averbook, co-founder of workplace consulting firm LeapGen, and a speaker at previous HR Tech World and HR Technology Conference meetings. “We live in a world where the focus must be on the workforce, the changes required to service a new workforce and everything needed to unleash that workforce to reach its full potential,” Averbook said.

Technology is just part of what Unleash will cover, Gorman said. Of equal importance is helping organizations understand the changing nature of work and its impact on business growth, competition, budgets, innovation and people. “Unleash will focus moving forward with people at the heart of everything we do,” she said.

Gorman will work for Unleash part time from her home base in Las Vegas. “I see myself as a rocket booster for the Unleash team,” she said.

She remains a director at for-profit companies Motivis Learning and Swedish-based Universum Global, nonprofits Human Resource Certification Institute and Jobs for America’s Graduates, and continues as a member of Kronos’ advisory board. She’s also continuing as managing director of the Future Talent Council, a startup members-only group on talent and the economy.

From 2013 to 2015, Gorman was chief executive of Great Place to Work Institute, the San Francisco management consultant that teams with Fortune magazine to produce the annual “Best Companies to Work For” list series.

She was SHRM’s COO from 2007 to 2010 and before that held management positions at several outplacement and HR services firms.

Michelle V. Rafter is a Workforce contributing editor in Portland, Oregon. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

 

Posted on

When Should HR Call Its Lawyer?

Dan posits that there are some instances when a business almost always should get legal involved with an employee issue, such as when it receives a “lawyer letter”, receives service of an agency charge or lawsuit, needs to conduct a privileged investigation, or confronts a complex or novel legal issue.
I’d like to address this same question from a more macro level.
Many companies choose to do it alone, and not involve their legal counsel on employee issues, out of a fear of the expense of engaging counsel.
Yes, lawyers can be expensive. And, yes, I usually do not charge my clients for the five-minute phone call to talk through a quick issue.

Moreover, what these cost-conscious businesses fail to realize is—

  1. They are experts in their businesses, not the laws that govern them.
  2. They don’t always recognize the (fuzzy) line between a business issue and a legal issue.
  3. When the line from business issue to legal issue has been crossed, the longer you wait to involve counsel, the more expensive you make your problem.
I know what you’re thinking. “Jon, you are advocating for your own self-interest and bottom line.”
Wrong. In fact, the opposite is true. My bottom line increase when you ignore the above wisdom. Litigation is a profit center. Compliance is not. Yet, most companies ignore the latter, cross their fingers, and pray that the former does not catch up with them.
I’m not suggesting that every fly needs a sledgehammer, but some flies are baby dragons. Don’t let that dragon grow, especially if you’re not trained to recognize the difference between the fly and the dragon.
HR can handle many problems on their own, but if there is any doubt or gray area at all, I prefer that my clients pick up the phone (if for nothing other than a sanity check).
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.