Author: Rick Bell

Posted on

Retiring Well: How to Convince Employees to Save Enough

wf_1111_workingwell_benefitsmgrscomm_articleimage
Experts say there are three motivators for retirement savings: company match, tax benefits and time.

People are worried about their financial future, but are they saving enough for retirement?

I spoke to Ed Farrington, executive vice president at Natixis Global Asset Management about how benefits managers should communicate with employees about their retirement. He referenced the Natixis 2015 Retirement Plan Participant Study, which surveyed 1,000 employees with access to a workplace defined-contribution plan.

A quarter of those surveyed chose not to participate in the plan. Four out of 10 contributed less than 5 percent. And many had borrowed (37 percent) or withdrawn (30 percent) money from their retirement account before actually retiring. None line up with recommended practices, such as not accessing money in your retirement account until you retire and contributing 10 percent, as experts suggest.

Benefits managers, Farrington said, need to focus on employee motivation: What keeps them from participating in a plan? What provides an incentive to start saving for a comfortable retirement?

There are three major motivations: company match, tax benefits and time. If you can prove to people that by not participating in a plan they’re leaving money on the table, then most people will at least consider contributing to a plan. And, of course, the sooner people start saving for retirement, the less they actually have to contribute to reach their goal, thanks to the power of time.

wf_1111_workingwell_benefitsmgrscomm_edfarringtonphoto
Ed Farrington, EVP, Natixis Global Asset Management

“Showing people the power of money in an account is a compelling proposition to make [employees] realize they have a lot of control over their destiny when it comes to what will their life look like at retirement,” said Farrington. “They have control, and the sooner they can takecontrol the better.”

Interestingly enough, the millennial generation was the one that did the best at saving for retirement, according to this survey. Some start saving right out of college. People in this age group were more on track to reach their retirement goals than baby boomers or Generation X.

As a millennial, I wonder what the deeper reasoning is behind this. While many people in my generation deal with high rents, student loan debt and perhaps other type of debt, we also don’t own homes or support family members as much as people in older generations. We’re relatively young and healthy. I wonder if factors like these, or others, contribute to the generation’s level of preparedness for retirement? I don’t have the answer for this, but it seems like something worth looking into.

Finally, the third takeaway from this conversation was the importance of not only understanding what motivates people to participate, but also what motivates people to not participate. In every generation, the main thing that keeps people from contributing to a plan is debt, ranging from student loan debt to credit card debt. A third (34 percent) of those surveyed overall and 40 percent in Gen X, specifically, cited personal debt as a reason for not saving for retirement.

The concern here, Farrington said, is that while people are looking out for their short-term financial needs, meanwhile they’re sacrificing their long-term financial wellness. It’s important for benefits and HR managers to know that debt is keeping people from participating in plans, he added, and for them to educate employees, whether that’s through technology or face-to-face interactions.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

Corporate Travel Benefits Extend to Non-Business Travelers

wf_1102_workingwell_hotelengine_image_articleimage
Crater Lake National Park is one travel option for leisure travel.

I recently came across a pretty unique benefit. Although certain perks are attractive to business travelers — things like deals, loyalty points, the ability to tack on vacation days at the end of a work trip — I haven’t seen many geared toward leisure travelers.

Kind of a bummer for me as someone who obsessively researches Crater Lake National Park every so often, counting down the days when I can finally vacation there (hopefully next summer?).

Which is why some recent news in the benefits world recently struck me. Hotel Engine, a company that provides hotel booking solutions for business, officially launched in the employee benefits space Oct. 20. That is, people can use Hotel Engine for their own personal leisure travel now as a benefit, at no cost to the employee or the employer. They can get discounted hotel prices (between a 25 and 60 percent), the corporate rate for leisure travel.

“It’s one of the benefits that more and more employees are looking for, and so being able to offer them these deeply discounted rates to use when they have vacation is huge,” said Sonia Reid, vice president of marketing and communications at Hotel Engine. “We’ve see a lot of positive feedback.”

Hotel Engine also helps on the implementation side and the marketing side, to make sure the rollout goes smoothly. Also, Hotel Engine extends its customer service and anything it would do for any business travel client to the leisure realm as well. It works because it’s not strictly leisure travel. You have to be part of a business which offers it as a benefit.

“We saw an opening in the market. There was a need for this type of service, and we could offer it,” said Reid.

I know I’ll be interested to see if these types of leisure travel benefits continue to make their way into the benefits space. Of course, there are those business traveler perks already, and sabbaticals for employees who have been at a company for a designated time (example: Epic Systems), but what about something for a different type of employee, they kind who hasn’t necessarily been at a company long enough to earn a sabbatical and who doesn’t travel for work? Discounts and deals could be an attractive perk for people in that group.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below, or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

Employers, Do Not Ignore Obvious Disability Accommodations

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
All the way back in 2014,

An employee must ask for ADA accommodation to receive it.

That is, an employee must ask for an accommodation unless the employee’s need for an accommodation is so obvious that the employer cannot reasonably turn a blind eye toward it.

Case in point? Kowitz v. Trinity Health (8th Cir. 10/17/16).

Roberta Kowtiz worked for Trinity Health as a respiratory therapist and lead technician in its blood gas laboratory. She also suffered from cervical spinal stenosis, a degenerative spinal disease, for which she took a 12-week FMLA leave. She returned to work with restrictions that included max eight-hour shifts and no lifting more than 10 pounds. In the interim, Trinity updated the training requirements for Kowitz’s department to include renewed CPR training. Kowitz’s work limitations, however, prevented her from completing the training, a failure which resulted in her termination.

In her ensuing ADA lawsuit, the appellate court concluded that Kowitz’s failure to request a reasonable accommodation relative to the CPR training was not fatal to her ADA claim.

Though Kowitz did not ask for a reasonable accommodation of her condition in so many words, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kowitz, her notification to her supervisor that she would not be able to obtain the required certification until she had completed physical therapy implied that an accommodation would be required until then.

What is the key takeaway for employers? You cannot ignore what you know about an employee’s disability and the potential need for an accommodation. Instead of ignoring the employee, you must engage in the interactive process with that employee to determine the need for, and feasibility of, the accommodation, whether or not the employee actually requests it.
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

Don’t Forget the Fluctuating Workweek for Your Salaried Nonexempt Employees

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Are you still struggling with how to handle your currently exempt employees who, 

Let me offer a suggestion you may not yet have considered — the fluctuating workweek.

As an employer, you have two options to pay salaried, non-exempt employees:

    1. Under the standard method, you calculate the employee‘s weekly rate based on the salary divided by the number of hours worked that week, and then pay the employee 1.5 times that rate for all overtime hours. Thus, if a non-exempt employee earns a salary of $1,000 a week, and works 50 hours in a week, the employee would earn an additional $30 per hours worked over 40 ($1000 / 50 = $20 per hour base weekly rate x 1.5 = overtime premium of $30). Thus, in this week, the employee would earn an additional $300 for the 10 hours of overtime, rendering his total pay for that week $1,300, not the customary $1,000 salary.
  1. Under the fluctuating workweek method, you include the base-rate part of the overtime premium in the employee’s weekly salary, and only pay the 0.5 premium kicker as overtime. Using the same example as in number 1 above, the employee would still have an hourly rate of $30, but would only earn an additional $100 for the week, as under this method, $20 of the $30 overtime rate has already been paid as part of the base salary.

As you can see, there is a clear economic advantage to employers using the fluctuating workweek calculation to pay overtime to salaried non-exempt employees. You’ll realize a 66 percent savings on your overtime pay.

Under the FLSA, however, an employer cannot unilaterally implement the fluctuating workweek calculation. Instead, to pay salaried, non-exempt employees via this advantageous method, you must meet these four elements:

  1. the employee clearly understands that the straight-salary covers whatever hours he or she is required to work;
  2. the straight-salary is paid irrespective of whether the workweek is one in which a full schedule of hours are worked;
  3. the straight-salary is sufficient to provide a pay-rate not less than the applicable minimum wage rate for every hour worked in those workweeks in which the number of hours worked is greatest; and
  4. in addition to straight-salary, the employee is paid for all hours in excess of the statutory maximum at a rate not less than one-half the regular rate of pay.

Recently, the 11th Circuit court of appeals, in

What are the takeaways?

  1. If you haven’t yet determined how you will handle your currently exempt employees earning less than $913 per week, time is running out. You have 30 days from today to figure out and implement your strategy.
  2. If you have non-exempt salaried employees who work hours fluctuate from week-to-week, give strong consideration to implementing a fluctuating work week, via a written agreement that explains, in plain English the arrangement.
Posted on

Employers’ Greatest Concerns This Election Cycle

With the presidential election quickly approaching, the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans surveyed 486 human resource and benefits professionals on the campaign issues impacting benefits — that is, issues that have been mentioned on either of the presidential platforms.

I spoke with Julie Stich, associate vice president of content at the organization, about the noteworthy findings in the survey, which spanned from large and small companies, both public and private, across industries.

[Workplace Issues in the Presidential Debate: Did I Miss It?]

Stich also noted that there’s so much uncertainty around this election, it’s difficult to make a good prediction about which benefits could go forward. Also, we don’t know what the majority of Congress will be, and employee benefits haven’t been at the forefront of any of the debates. That being said, certain benefits or benefit reforms are popular on the bipartisan level.

  • 96 percent of participants support increased health care provider price transparency.
  • 84 percent support increased access to mental health care.
  • 76 percent oppose the Cadillac tax.
  • 75 percent support tax-exclusions for child-care expenses.
  • 68 percent support legalized prescription drug importation from other countries.

“So many employers as well as workers are frustrated that they just don’t know what a particular procedure is going to cost, or how much they’ll get billed after the fact,” said Stich. “It’s not surprising that we saw such strong support.”

Issues like mandated paid family leave and increased minimum wage were less agreed on. The minimum wage argument wasn’t shocking, but that only 53.3 percent of these survey participants supported paid family leave surprised me. As much as I’ve noticed the big presence of paid family leave throughout research and interviews in the past few months, and even though both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have proposed (albeit, very different) paid leave plans, support was still pretty much split in this survey.

[Clinton Vs. Trump: The Workplace Winner Is…]

Something else I found interesting. Of course, health care issues are big, and employers continue to support things like continuing to have the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusion, or getting rid of the Cadillac tax, or even covering adult dependents up to the age of 26.

WF_1028_WorkingWell_ElectionBenefits_JulieStich
Julie Stich, associate VP of content, International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans.

“When that provision first came out in the law, there was a lot of grumbling in the employer community about it, but it’s turned out to be a provision that employers as well as workers have embraced,” said Stich.

So, I wonder: What current controversial health care related benefits will be embraced in the future? Is it something stirring up controversy in this election cycle? Just a thought.

Finally, I want to briefly mention the high support of increased mental health care.

“We’re hearing more and more about the struggles that individuals with mental health distress are facing, and being able to have access to care that is affordable is critical to their wellbeing,” said Stich. “And not just their own, but family members and those who support them. And even in the workplace, if you have a co-worker suffering from mental distress, that can be challenging in how people get along, how they work together, productivity.”

It’s encouraging that employers are seeing the importance of providing mental health benefits at the same level as they provide other types of health benefits, she added and I agree wholeheartedly.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email at aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on

OSHA Doubles Down Against Retaliation

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

OSHA has had a busy October.

First, it announced that it has delayed enforcement, until Dec. 1, of the anti-retaliation provisions of its injury and illness tracking rule.

According to OSHA, “The anti-retaliation provisions were originally scheduled to begin Aug. 10, 2016, but were previously delayed until Nov. 10 to allow time for outreach to the regulated community.” While I hate to be appear cynical, I can’t help but think that the pending lawsuit challenging the legality of these rules has something to do with this delay.

Second, even though OSHA keeps delaying these rules, it continues its efforts to educate employers and employees about them. On Oct. 19, OSHA published both a memorandum and example scenarios interpreting these new anti-retaliation provisions.

So, let’s take a look at the types of scenarios OSHA believes will violate, and will not violate, its neWF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11w anti-retaliation provisions.

Disciplinary Programs

The rule prohibits disciplining employees simply because they report work-related injuries or illnesses without regard to the circumstances of the injuries or illnesses, such as automatically suspending workers who report an injury or assigning them points that have future employment consequences. The rule also prohibits disciplining an employee who reports a work-related injury or illness under the pretext that the employee violated a work rule if the real reason for the discipline was the injury or illness report.

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee is injured when he is stung by a bee at work, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer disciplines Employee for violating a work rule requiring employees to “maintain situational awareness.” Employer only enforces the rule when employees get hurt.
  • Employee twists his ankle at work but does not immediately realize that he is injured because his ankle is not sore or swollen, and therefore he does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employee’s ankle is sore and swollen, and he realizes he has the kind of injury he is required to report to Employer. He reports the injury to the employer that day. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report his injury “immediately” as required by Employer’s injury reporting rules.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee reports a hand injury that she sustained while operating a saw after bypassing the guard on the saw, contrary to the employer’s work rule. Employee’s hand injury required her to miss work for two days. Employer disciplined Employee for bypassing the guard contrary to its instructions. Employer regularly monitors its workforce for safety rule violations and disciplines employees who bypass machine guards regardless of whether they report injuries.
  • Employee twists her ankle at work but does not immediately realize that she is injured because her ankle is not painful or swollen, and therefore she does not report the injury to Employer. The next morning, Employee’s ankle is painful and swollen and she realizes it is the kind of injury she is required to report to Employer as soon as practicable. However, Employee does not report the injury after this realization, although she easily could have, and instead reports it several weeks later. Employer disciplines Employee for failing to report her injury as soon as practicable after realizing she has the kind of injury she is required to report.

Incentive Programs

The rule prohibits using incentive programs to penalize workers for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses. If an employee reports an injury or illness, and the employer subsequently denied a benefit as part of an incentive program, this denial may constitute retaliatory action against the employee for exercising his or her right to report an injury or illness.

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which no employee in the work group sustains a lost-time injury. Employee reports an injury that she sustained while operating a mechanical power press. Employee did not violate any employer safety rules when she sustained her injury. Employee’s injury requires her to miss work for two days. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for that month for Employee’s work group because of Employee’s lost-time injury.
  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employee’s work group that month ostensibly because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. However, Employer’s employees routinely fail to wear required fall protection but the only time Employer cancels the cash prize drawing is when an employee reports an injury.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer informs its employees that it will hold a substantial cash prize drawing for each work group at the end of each month in which all members of the work group comply with applicable safety rules, such as wearing required fall protection. Employee sustains a lost-time injury when he falls from a platform while not wearing required fall protection, and he reports the injury to Employer. Employer cancels the cash prize drawing for Employee’s work group that month because Employee failed to wear required fall protection. Employer actively monitors its workforce for compliance with applicable work rules and cancels the cash prize drawings when it discovers work rule violations regardless of whether the employee who violated the work rule also reported an injury.
  • Employer holds a party for all employees who complete a safety training course. Employee failed to attend the training because she was absent from work due to a work-related injury that she reported. Employer excluded Employee from the training-completion party because she did not complete the training. Employer consistently excluded all employees who failed to complete a training course from the training-completion party regardless of why they failed to complete the training, including those who were on vacation or absent because of a non-work-related injury or illness.

Drug Testing

OSHA plainly states that the rule does not prohibit drug testing of employees, including drug testing pursuant to the Department of Transportation rules or any other federal or state law (such as state workers’ compensation law). It only prohibits using drug testing, or the threat of drug testing, to retaliate against an employee for reporting an injury or illness. Employers may conduct post-incident drug testing if there is a reasonable possibility that employee drug use could have contributed to the reported injury or illness. However, if employee drug-use could not have contributed to the injury or illness, post-incident drug testing could constitute prohibited retaliation, as it would discourage injury reporting without contributing to the employer’s understanding of why the injury occurred .

Illegal Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employer required Employee to take a drug test after Employee reported work-related carpal tunnel syndrome. Employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her condition, and it had no other reasonable basis for requiring her to take a drug test. Rather, Employer routinely subjects all employees who report work-related injuries to a drug test regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury. The state workers’ compensation program applicable to Employer did not address drug testing, and no other state or federal law requires Employer to drug test employees who sustain injuries at work.
  • Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test regardless of whether drug use could have contributed to the injury because the drug testing requirement is included in the collective bargaining agreement at the workplace. Employer drug tests Employee (who is covered by the collective bargaining agreement) when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome. The employer had no reasonable basis for suspecting that drug use could have contributed to her injury and had no other reasonable basis for requiring the test.

Non-Retaliation (according to OSHA):

  • Employee was injured when he inadvertently drove a forklift into a piece of stationary equipment, and he reported the injury to Employer. Employer required Employee to take a drug test.
  • Employer drug tests all employees who report work-related injuries to the employer to get a 5% reduction in its workers’ compensation premiums under the state’s voluntary Drug-Free Workplace program. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a work-related injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.
  • Employer requires all employees who report lost-time injuries to take a drug test because the employer’s private insurance carrier provides discounted rates to employers that implement such a drug-testing policy. The relevant rate discount provisions in the private policy are identical to those in the applicable state workers’ compensation law. Employer drug tests Employee when she reports a lost-time injury that could not reasonably have been caused by drug use, such as a bee sting or carpal tunnel syndrome.

If OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rules go live, employer will have to study these examples as if they are gospel, as they will help employers navigate the increasingly complex world of OSHA compliance so as to avoid costly and complex retaliation complaints.

Jon Hyman’s post originally appeared on Meyers Roman’s Ohio OSHA Law Blog.

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

Leading in the Age of Trump and #BlackLivesMatter

WF_1016_ONLINE_RinderleBlog_302
Leaders must help establish a balance between politics and the workplace.

With the election just a couple of weeks away, one thing seems certain regardless of the outcome: It’s tough being American right now. Anxieties and tensions are high, and most of us feel threatened by the political rhetoric and what’s at stake, not to mention regular news about police shootings and other violence.

As we grapple with redefining ourselves as a nation, forward-thinking leaders in organizations are wondering: Do I say something about this? Do I do something? If so, what should I do?

The stakes are high and impact tangible. Like it or not, employees and leaders bring their fears and frustrations to the workplace, affecting communication, team dynamics, accountability, productivity and employee engagement. On top of that, organizations are struggling with new laws and policies about bathroom access, same-sex marriage and workplace safety. Add constantly evolving technology and the mandate to serve an increasingly diverse population, it’s a wonder we don’t see more nervous breakdowns and violence at work.

WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-12In deciding how to lead in the age of Donald Trump and #BlackLivesMatter, consider the following:

  • Inclusion means everyone is included. This includes Trump supporters, #BLM supporters, Clinton supporters, Bernie Sanders supporters, former cops and young activists alike. Diversity and inclusiveness isn’t about including only the type of diversity you like.
  • Inclusion does not mean all behaviors are included. People don’t have to agree on politics or even values to do effective behaviors that are experienced as cordial, respectful, professional and productive by others. Our nation — and others — were founded on this principle, and still strive to put it into practice.
  • The story you’re telling about conflict and change determines how you lead. Does our societal turmoil signal the destruction of our nation’s fabric? Labor pains of our emerging demographics and shifting values? An opportunity? The story you choose to tell about what this means and what’s possible will guide your decision making, problem solving, employee engagement and financial decisions.
  • Taking a stand on important issues of the day isn’t necessarily a “partisan” act, but a moral one driven by mission and values. A growing number of organizations (Huffington Post, USA Today, The Atlantic, AT&T, Ben & Jerry’s) have made clear, public statements about race, Donald Trump or #BlackLivesMatter. Doing so may be exactly what your target market and employees — especially millenials — need to hear. Doing so may be an act of integrity in clear alignment with your vision, mission and organizational values. And while endorsing a political candidate might be strategically unwise or violate a core business agreement (as for many nonprofits), many issues that are labeled as “partisan” really aren’t. The #BlackLivesMatter platform is clear and could be supported by any political candidate or party, and one might make a statement about Trump’s behavior without endorsing Clinton.
  • This is about the legacy you create and the legacy you leave. As a leader and as an organization, how do you want to be remembered? What kind of future are you preparing to thrive in? What future are you creating? We celebrate Martin Luther King Jr. but he was widely unpopular and considered a dangerous radical in his day. What side of history do you want to be on?

If you decide to take a stand:

  • Articulate the clear business case for your stand in terms of impact on your employees and customers, fulfillment of your mission and values, and the legacy you’re creating.
  • Provide clear, reasonable expectations for workplace behavior, and hold everyone equitably This includes top leadership. Banning conversations, personal opinions or expressions of support for candidates or movements may suppress energy that could be put to better use. However, behaviors that can be fairly and clearly identified as bullying, sexual harassment, disrespect, workplace violence, creating a hostile work environment or interfering with business operations should not be tolerated. Weigh the pros and cons of your policies and expectations in alignment with your values and business goals, focusing on impact over the intent of a behavior.
  • Go to the facts whenever there is confusion or disagreement. Research shows which direction our country’s demographics, values and beliefs have long been headed. Just look at Millenials. There are abundant data on what Trump has said and done, and the impact he’s having on kids and our mental health. There’s clear information about whether #BlackLivesMatter is a hate group, and what their goals are. While humans tend not to change our opinions based on facts (regardless of political affiliation), insisting on them may eventually cause a shift, or at least provide clear support for your position.
  • Listen to fully understand. One of the reasons movements like the tea party and #BlackLivesMatter and candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are so popular is because they appeal to a growing number of Americans who rightfully feel ignored, shut out, abused and talked down to by traditional institutions and leaders. When an employee or team has a concern — whether it’s related to the social issues of the day or not — give sufficient time to listen deeply from a place of curiosity, with the goal of fully understanding the person’s feelings and motivations as well as thoughts.
  • Get curious. Curiosity and anxiety live in the same area of the brain. Getting curious is one of the best ways to reduce your anxiety and increase your creativity. Getting curious about another’s story can reduce their anxiety, build a positive relationship and co-create workable solutions.

As the late author and philosopher Eric Hoffer said, “in times of change, the learners will inherit the earth, while the knowers will find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world … that no longer exists.” It’s up to leaders to decide which world we, and our organizations, will inhabit, and learn what’s necessary.

Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting LLC. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

Just Because It Might Be Legal Doesn’t Make It Right

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The plaintiff in Tennial v. UPS [pdf], a former UPS manager, claimed that his manager placed him on a performance improvement plan, and ultimately demoted him, because of his race.WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11
In support of this claim, he relied in part on: 1) his manager’s alleged use of the word “n*****” in referencing another, nonparty UPS employee, and (2) a district president’s use of the word “boys” in reference to Tennial’s black co-workers.
The 6th Circuit concluded that these two stray comments could not stand as direct evidence in support of Tennial’s race-discrimination claim:

Direct evidence consists of facts that, “if believed, require[] the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s actions.” In other words, when direct evidence is provided, no inferences are needed in order to conclude that racial discrimination is afoot. …

A finding of racial discrimination based on these comments, moreover, would require us to make inferences. First, we would have to infer that Cochran’s alleged use of the n-word with respect to an urelated employee meant that his decision to demote Tennial was due to a similar racial animus. We would also be required to infer that Harm’s reference to Tennial’s coworkers as “boys” meant that his animus trickled down and influenced the individual decisions of Cochran and Slabaugh to initiate Tennial’s MPIP and demotion process.

So, this employer won, and avoided liability for a manager’s alleged use of the N-word. Just because something is legally defensible, however, doesn’t make it right. Merely because an employer can win a case for a stray racial epithet does not mean that any employer should tolerate this language. If I’m this employer (or the lawyer advising this employer), this manager would have been terminated upon an investigation reasonably confirming the misconduct.

I reach this conclusion for two reasons.

First, it’s the morally correct position. If someone uses the N-word to describe African Americans, even once, that person is a bigot, and bigots have no place in my workplace.

Secondly, if I, as the company’s lawyer, need to defend to a judge or jury my client’s actions, I need to able to argue that one stray comment doesn’t violate Title VII and, more importantly, that my client doesn’t tolerate such bigotry. Not firing the N-bomb utterer is nothing short of condoning the racism, and, if you’re condoning racism, you’re no better than the alleged racist.

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

Step Into My (Virtual Reality) Shoes

I’ve often thought it might help to curtail police brutality and murder if white and black, or white and some other minority, officers were routinely paired as partners.

Partners spend lots of time together each day. They eat together, travel together, and they act in concert, often in dangerous situations where their safety — and the safety of innocent civilians around them — depends on how well they have each other’s back. Essentially, I thought, if a white officer got to know, intimately, a black or a Hispanic one, it would help to humanize the suspected perps they encounter on the street. Then, when push came to shove, they might hesitate to pull the trigger or to use excessive force.

The point of my theory is, let’s help the white police officers understand how much they have in common with their minority peers, and how much their perceptions and bias impact their behavior. Thanks to technology, there may be a way to achieve the same goal without needing the actual ride along.

Virtual reality startup SPACES Inc. has created an implicit bias virtual reality program that enables participants to embody or to mirror a minority. I spoke to John Singh, a representative for SPACES, and he said basically, participants put on a headset. They see a mirror in front of them, have simple tasks they can perform, but they see themselves as a person of a different color or gender. He said research indicates even relatively short exposure to this kind of mirroring or embodiment can have a measurable impact on efforts to reduce implicit bias.

And before you say, that’s great, but I’m not biased. I blah, blah, blah, blah. No. Everyone has bias about something, and implicit bias is particularly virulent because people hold stereotypes and perceptions they are often completely unaware of. They’re ingrained.

When we spoke, Singh only mentioned being able to do certain tasks while in the VR program, but if it’s not already part of the package, I’m sure as technology advances the tasks one can engage in will become more complex. Eventually, a black male executive might be able to spend the day or even longer as a white, blonde assistant, dealing with all the things she encounters — the rudeness, the sexism, the insults to her intelligence, the disregard for her time and efforts when it comes time for rewards and recognition — things that shouldn’t be present in a conscious, inclusive workplace.

Or, a white man might be able to spend a few hours as a black man, so he’ll understand just how much privilege insulates him from a lot of unnecessary crap he never realized was so challenging, time consuming and emotionally and physically draining to deal with. It might even do someone like me some good to walk around as a white man. Nah, I might have too much fun.

Initially developed to facilitate academic research on implicit bias, the SPACES program is now available for scientific researchers, corporate trainers and law-enforcement organizations. Singh told me the tool is best used as part of a larger training program to develop greater sensitivity.

But I think sensitivity is just the tip of the iceberg here. Think what a difference this virtual reality body mirroring could make in the workplace. To quote Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” “I must say, the mind reels.” If participants were open and willing to act on lessons learned and new information gathered after they step back into their own “skin,” behavioral, even policy changes are right around the corner. Well, one hopes.

But VR can shine a light on how implicit bias affects our world view, our communication styles and the way we work and interact with others. Singh said, “This is a way for someone to truly experience, to suddenly realize that you are different than you imagined.”

Sometimes we need to be shocked or surprised. We need to have those light-bulb moments so that knowledge can stick, and we adapt our behavior accordingly. If we have to virtually step into someone else’s shoes to get there, so be it.

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. To comment, email editor@workforce.com.

Posted on

Ernst & Young Pilots Program to Tap Into Autistic Talents

WF_1016_ONLINE_EYDiversity_302
Consultancy EY’s program is identifying autistic individuals skilled in data crunching, pattern recognition and paying close attention to detail.

Autism spectrum disorders affect 1 out of every 68 people nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, limiting their ability to socialize and communicate.

However, individuals on the autism spectrum are also known to be particularly detail-oriented, task-driven and analytical, qualities that global business consultancy Ernst & Young needed in its workforce.

The company piloted the EY Neurodiversity program in its Philadelphia office over the past year to recruit and train individuals with high functioning autism in order to streamline its process of compiling and analyzing client data and reduce the workload of client-facing employees.

“We needed to divert this work to individuals who were particularly good at data crunching, pattern recognition and paying close attention to detail,” said Lori Golden, abilities strategy leader for the Americas talent team at EY, as the company is now known. “We know that individuals who are neuro-diverse tend to have a lot of the characteristics we’re looking for.”

Working alongside their “neuro-typical” colleagues over the past six months, Golden said the account support associates hired through the program have achieved higher-than-average levels of work productivity, quality and innovation.

To source this neuro-diverse talent, EY worked with Specialisterne, a global nonprofit organization that assists autistic individuals in gaining employment. In November 2015, Golden and her team sought out college graduates with high grades and experience with numbers.

Selected candidates participated in a group problem-solving activity and a set of interviews. Applicants were then invited to a four-week paid training program co-run by EY, Specialisterne and the Arc, a national organization serving individuals with disabilities. The first three weeks trained participants in the basics of working in a corporate setting.

“These individuals mostly hadn’t had professional work experience. We wanted to make sure they got the benefit of as much information as possible in a way that was easy to digest,” said Golden.

The last week was run by the team supervisor and introduced participants to the EY culture and business model.

Specialisterne also provided training for EY staff and supervisors on what autism is and how they could communicate effectively and create comfort during the interview and training process. According to Golden, this provided overarching benefits to managers at the office.

“If you can be clear, simple, straightforward and logical to people with autism, you’re generally going to be better at communicating with anyone,” she said.

Out of the approximately 20 applicants who participated, EY choose four to join the account support services team in March. The success of the program has even led other EY offices to request it in their regions. However, Golden and her team are still identifying where they can successfully implement the program.

“The first thing we’re looking for is where there’s the greatest business need,” Golden said. “We also need to find agencies with good track records that will provide us with the right talent.”

Nidhi Madhavan is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.