Author: Site Staff

P

reserve Charitable Giving Act (S. 929/H.R.2019)

Summary
This legislation (S. 929/H.R. 2019) would amend the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to allow employers to permit solicitations and distributions by charitable groups — but not unions — without committing an unfair labor practice.

The NLRA currently provides that an employer engages in discrimination under Section 8(a)(1) if it denies union access to its premises while allowing similar distribution or solicitation by non-employee entities other than the union. The proposed legislation states, “that in the case of a published, written or posted no solicitation or no access rule, an exception for charitable, eleemosynary, other beneficent purposes shall not be grounds for finding an unfair labor practice.”

Status
This bill was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-AR) and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. A companion bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-AR) and referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Impact
Currently, an employer only may permit non-employee solicitations if it also allows equal access to unions for the purpose of engaging in solicitation or distribution for union purposes. Further, the Circuit Courts and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are not in agreement on the application of the current law to charitable organizations, leaving employers uncertain about what kind of policy is appropriate, and more apt to follow the conservative approach — to disallow any solicitations or distributions.

The proposed legislation would give employers the opportunity to permit charitable solicitations while continuing to prohibit union solicitation or distribution. The wording of the proposed legislation is not clear, however, on the breadth of interpretation to be given to “other beneficent purposes,” leaving it, instead, up to the NLRB and the courts to decide.

To learn more

• View these bills, enter the bill number — for example, “H.R. 602” under “Search by bill number.”

SOURCE: Hewitt Associates LLC

Along with Hewitt Associates LLC, Workforce is monitoring action in the nation’s capitol.

Come here regulary to find out the latest on major legislation and regulations affecting the business world.

Members of Congress are introducing a flurry of new workforce-related bills this year. You’ll read about them here and also in your weekly e-mail newsletter.

Q

Dear Workforce:

Here’s a challenge — what should be done when HR is the corporation’s biggest problem!? Our morale is low, the employee turnover is beginning to creep up, and HR has no credibility.

 

A

Dear Big Problem:

Yike. Doesn’t sound like a great scenario for HR.

The good news is that lots of HR departments have reinvented themselves, sometimes under totally different names and missions, e.g. Workforce Management department.

Ask yourself these questions:

• Is HR supporting the business objectives through HR programs?
• Do HR processes get bogged down and create frustration in the organization?
• What role does HR have in creating an “Employer of Choice” environment?
• What role does HR play in the organization? Policy keeper? Police? Transactional paper pusher? Change agent?

Then, a suggested first step: Decide what you want HR to be within the organization, then create an action plan to deliver the results. Also, determine the origin of the morale problem by doing such things as surveying the employee commitment level, reviewing industry trends, and talking one-on-one with employees.

 

SOURCE: David Sholkoff, Deloitte and Touche, January 24, 2000.

E-mail your Dear Workforce questions to Online Editor Todd Raphael at raphaelt@workforceonline.com, along with your name, title, organization and location. Unless you state otherwise, your identifying info may be used on Workforce.com and in Workforce magazine. We can’t guarantee we’ll be able to answer every question.

Introduced by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), this legislation has provisions related toemployment and to health insurance.

    On the employment side, the bill would prohibit employersfrom making employment decisions based on information from genetic tests ofthe employee, or the employee’s family members, or on occurrences of diseasesor disorders in an employee or an employee’s family members.

    On the health insurance side, the bill would prohibitdiscrimination based on genetics in individual enrollment and group eligibilityor contribution rates. Also, employers would be prohibited from collecting orpurchasing genetic information about an employee or employee’s family members.The legislation provides for two exceptions — under limited circumstances,employers may monitor the genetic effects of certain toxic substances in theworkplace, and employers may provide genetic services to employees so long asthe results remain confidential.

Status
The Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance andEmployment Act was introduced in the Senate and House on February 13, 2001 andreferred to the appropriate committees. The legislation has received 24 co-sponsorsin the Senate and a majority of cosponsors, 254, in the House. Also, on July25 the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a hearingon the bill.

Impact
While employers generally agree with the premise thatgenetic information should not be used to render employment or health insurancecoverage decisions, most are concerned that the legislation as proposed is overlybroad in its coverage, damages, procedural requirements, and effect on certainprograms, such as employer-sponsored wellness programs. Additionally, employersargue that both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Americans with DisabilitiesAct, as interpreted by the courts and enforced by the Equal Employment OpportunityCommission, could be read or amended to prohibit genetic discrimination withoutthe necessity of a new, separate law.

    The proposed legislation’s prohibition against thecollecting of genetic information about employees or their family members failsto address what employers should do with information provided on routine healthinsurance claims, or discovered through unsolicited means. Moreover, the legislationwould require employers to bear the burden of proof with respect to whetherthe employer’s knowledge of genetic information was a factor in any adverseemployment action.

    Moreover, an individual pursuing a claim under thisbill could go directly to court without first seeking administrative reliefthrough the EEOC or other state or federal agency as is required under othercivil rights statues. State and federal administrative agencies actively investigatecharges brought before them and through this process help screen out frivolousclaims. Administrative agencies also promote timely resolution of claims, asthey impose more rigid filing deadlines. The proposed legislation, however,does not specify any statute of limitations, which suggests that claims couldbe brought at any time in the future without regard to how much time has passedsince the claim accrued.

    The most significant perceived impact of the proposedlegislation on employers is the potential for unlimited compensatory and punitivedamages for violations of the act. By way of contrast, both Title VII of theCivil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act cap combined compensatoryand punitive damages for the largest employers (500+ employees) at $300,000.Employers fear that the potential for such high damage awards would cause employer-defendantsto settle more cases without regard to their actual merit, setting a dangerousprecedent.

    Finally, many employer groups suggest that the proposedlegislation is not even necessary. They contend that genetic discriminationalready is protected under the ADA and, in some cases, Title VII. Specifically,in its 1995 Guidance on Disability, the EEOC states that genetic discriminationis prohibited under the “regarded as” prong of the ADA as well asother provisions prohibiting employers from requesting or obtaining certainmedical information. While these positions have not been fully addressed bythe courts, the groups contend that the potential for judicial interpretationis there, and further legislation is unnecessary.

To Learn More

• Viewthese bills, enter the bill number — for example “H.R. 602″under “Search by bill number”.
• Senatehearing

SOURCE: HewittAssociates LLC

As you know, all companies regardless of their business rely on a body of employees that are diverse in mind and thought. As we progress into the next century, it is of the utmost importance that companies seek out and employ certain types of individuals perhaps neglected in the hiring processes of the past.

We also know that there are already thousands of dyslexics (learning disabled, or LD) working who have never been identified and could use some help to reach their full potential.

Here are some basic abilities that all dyslexics share, as quoted from the book “The Gift of Dyslexia” by Ronald D. Davis:

1. They can utilize the brain’s ability to alter and create perceptions.

2. They are highly aware of the environment.

3. They are more curious than average.

4. They think mainly in pictures instead of words.

5. They are highly intuitive and insightful.

6. They think and perceive multi-dimensionally (using all senses).

7. They can experience thoughts as reality.

8. They have vivid imaginations.

These eight basic abilities, if not suppressed, invalidated or destroyed, will result in two characteristics: higher-than-normal intelligence, and extraordinary creative abilities.

SOURCE: Special Needs. E-mail: lisa@special-needs.org, Fax: 603/737-3904.

Are you looking to add a benefit…free massages, pet care or the like? Before you do it, consider a recent study indicating the benefit employees most want.

A comfortable, flexible environment topped the list of desired perks in a national Job Satisfaction Survey conducted by SurveySite for CareerPath.com. The survey points to a trend toward a new ideal American workplace that is personalized to the individual.

Survey respondents indicated a desire for employment in a workplace where they can custom-tailor their hours to suit personal needs. Other preferences include the option to telecommute and work where they want, as well as casual attire policies that allow them to dress as they like.

However, 89% of respondents still say the most important factor in considering a job opportunity is salary, and more than 50% believe they are underpaid

It’s a reminder that in many workplaces, salary and scheduling are your bread-and-butter benefit.

SOURCE: SurveySite and CareerPath.com, February 2000.

I commend you for writing on an issue that is controversial and bound to provoke criticism.

I personally find that your viewpoint on the issue is reasonable and balanced on a global scale, however I disagree to some extent in the specific case.

It is certainly true that one should (try to) separate his opinion on Rocker’s comments from his opinion on how Rocker should be dealt with. By this I mean that if I am appalled by Rocker’s behavior (I am) it doesn’t mean that it is correct to exact a heavy penalty just so that I can distance myself from his behavior.

Another result of the very public “spanking” of Rocker is to give his comments far more exposure than was initially the case. If 200,000 people read the original article, we can now be sure that perhaps 10 times as many people are now intimately aware of his comments and opinions.

Having said all that, I now must confide that I agree with professional baseball’s decision to impose a significant penalty on Rocker. The bottom line is they had no choice. If your eight-year-old son says mean things about the neighbors, it pretty much resides in an orbit around you, your son and your neighbors.

John Rocker, on the other hand, by virtue of his position in major league baseball (and only because of that affiliation) is and was able impose is vindictiveness on a national, even inter-national, scale. It is because of baseball that his opinion is national news. (I don’t think Sports Illustrated would give our kids much space in which to present their opinions of our neighbors).

It may be the case that major league baseball chose to impose these penalties out of self-interest or self-image. That is something I can not know but I believe that baseball had a responsibility to respond as it has.

I agree with your thoughts on most levels, but as an employer I think (and the courts agree) that I have a responsibility to other employees and customers to ensure that they are treated fairly and without discrimination or harassment. The only thing that I might have done that was different from what was done to Mr. Rocker is that he would be looking for a new employer.

With an eight year old child you can teach diversity and it’s values, but to a man that is obviously ignorant there is little hope for that lesson to ever be learned except through life’s experiences.

Mr. Rocker needs, as do many of our professional athletes, to grow up and to realize that like it or not as professional athletes they (like politicians and others in the lime light) have a higher set of rules to follow and if they are not willing to do that then they should not play or run for office.

Unfortunately, in most cases these people are human and they cannot be expected to be responsible for their own actions and it is left up to us as their electorates or employers to police them and terminate relationships when necessary.

Growing up in the deep south in a predominantly black community I take a very rigid stance against this form of ignorance (I am Caucasian) and telling people to open their mouths and to express their feelings does nothing but create further division among the racial lines. The truly unfortunate thing about incidents like the one involving Mr. Rocker is that it has a tendency to stereotype all Caucasians as fitting into his category, which to me is alarming.

Sorry for the rambling, but I do take this very seriously and I will do all that I can as an HR professional to ensure that all people have a right to hold their personal beliefs, but as an employer ignorance cannot be tolerated in the work place lest we become enablers of racism.

Many of the points you made do make sense, but I believe the basic issue is; you may say what you wish, (free speech) but you also may incur consequences for what you say. Simple as that sounds, that would be the lesson I would give my children. There is a level of responsibility required to our actions. Speech is an action.

Our society has many freedoms such as free speech but it should be attached to being responsible for the views expressed. We have a bad habit of placing levels of acceptance on speech that could actually be repugnant to those whose freedom is so fleeting. Minorities have had a terrible road to freedom in this country therefore it is truly a more sensitive issue and may actually cause more anxiety. Paying the price for saying bad things, particularly if they are expressed by an adult, should be as important as keeping speech free.

History is full of examples of speech followed by actions of oppression, warfare and crime by the “innocent” speechmaker.

We all know why the man said what he did, I realize that he can say what he wants, I just do not want to hear him whine when we do not accept his apology.

First, realize the 1st amendment is not an issue here. I’m sure that you realize that since you didn’t bring it up. But please also realize that like it or not, actions have consequences. Thoughts do not. I would not penalize someone for what they thought. I would penalize them for putting those thoughts into action. There is precedent for such a principle.

Let’s consider a different but similar scenario. Since we’re dealing in stereotypes here, how about a shapely female office worker. Perhaps many co-workers think sexually provocative thoughts about her. No problem. Verbalizing those thoughts? Big problem.

Let’s also not bank too heavily on comparing Rocker to an 8 year old– whether or not he acts like a spoiled kid is irrelevant. He is an adult, and OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER. The 8 year old is still under my guidance, my tutelage, is still learning from me. I remember a lesson from when I was about 5 or 6 and saw a crippled man who, to me at that young age, “walked funny.” When I said so, I was reprimanded, and explained to, and educated, and probably even punished. But I learned a valuable lesson about expressing myself appropriately.

Rather than being grounded or sent to his room without dinner, Mr. Rocker needs to be consequenced in a way that he understands and that matters to him. If we let vigilanteism do the job, as you suggest, we have to remember that pitchers bat in the National league. I would hate to be Rocker facing a pitcher of color, or who was gay, or foreign, or even just a liberal thinker.

The lesson I want an 8 year old to see is that each choice and action comes with a free consequence. I want the 8 year old to see that doing something wrong is more serious than thinking something wrong. And I want him or her to see that it’s possible to take your consequence, learn, and become a better person. Let’s hope that John Rocker has that in him.