Author: Site Staff

Posted on

New York Governor Defends Use of Temporary Employees

New York Gov. David Paterson defended the state’s use of temporary workers from staffing firms after one union said January 14 that the state spent $62 million on temporary workers from employment agencies who have no benefits.


Use of temporary personnel services are on average 10 percent less expensive than an equivalent state worker, the governor’s office said Tuesday, January 26.


In some cases temporary workers are paid a higher rate than state workers—such as in the medical field and in certain trades such as steamfitters—but that is justified based on the temporary nature of the work or inability to recruit permanent workers, according to the governor’s office. Excluding the medical field and certain trades, the estimated savings by using personnel services is 42 percent.


In addition, the governor said monthly spending on temps is decreasing—falling to $1.4 million in December 2009 from $4.3 million in July 2008.


The governor’s office also said the $62 million represents a 19-month period, while most budget figures are presented for 12-month periods, and only $4 million of that spend was for agencies under the governor’s direct control. It also said executive agencies are projected to spend $19 million on temporary workers during the 2009-10 fiscal year, compared with almost $8 billion on salaries and fringe benefits for permanent workers in executive agencies under the governor’s control.


The Civil Service Employees Association had blasted the use of temporary worker on January 14.


“These workers, who receive no benefits and have no rights, have been used for years to hide the fact that the state workforce has been depleted to such an extent that the agencies are no longer able to deliver promised services to the citizens of this state,” the union said. “What’s more, the Paterson administration is paying a premium for these workers with the bulk of the money going to the temp agencies.”


CSEA said it’s preparing legal action over temporary workers, and it released a telephone number that temporary workers employed by staffing firms could use to contact the union.


Tuesday’s defense of staffing firms was also criticized by the union.


“The excessive use of temporary workers at premium prices through temp agencies is at its heart dishonest,” CSEA president Danny Donohue said in a press release.


The governor’s office is looking at making $250 million in workforce savings in its 2010-2011 executive budget.


In addition to the CSEA criticism, a separate report by the New York State Public Employees Federation said that the state could save more than $656 million in three years by cutting down on the use of private consultants.



Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on

Almost Half of Wall Streeters to Get Bigger Bonuses This Year

Nearly every Wall Street worker is getting a bonus this year despite public outrage over banker compensation.


A new study conducted eFinancialCareers Ltd. showed that 92 percent of Wall Street workers have been told by their firms that they will get a bonus in the coming weeks for their performance in 2009. This compares with 79 percent who got bonuses last year for their work in 2008.


Of the 92 percent who are getting bonuses this year, 69 percent are getting at least the same amount they got last year.


In fact, nearly half—46 percent to be exact—are pulling in a fatter bonus than they received in 2008. Less than a third of the Wall Street workers will be getting smaller bonuses this year than last.


Employers seem to be supersizing bonuses this year as well. Workers in line for larger bonuses will be receiving, on average, double what they got in 2008.


The highest bonuses are going to employees at investment banks, private-equity firms, hedge funds and those working in trading and fixed-income markets. Wall Streeters working in wealth management, retail banking, real estate and investment marketing will get smaller bonuses.


“This is a very flexible performance-related pay structure,” said John Benson, chief executive of eFinancalCareers. “I think you’re seeing people who are clearly being rewarded for work well done. And firms can trim compensation levels if an individual has done less well.”


Benson said the public often thinks of bonuses as a “four-letter word,” but he pointed out that the bonuses are based on performance.


“I think the word ‘bonus’ is often taken by many people on Main Street to mean something that’s unexpected,” he said. “What we’re talking about here is performance-related pay.”


Survey participants did not disclose the exact breakdown of their bonuses. But 39 percent of financial services professionals indicated that bonuses that are more heavily weighted in stock would not influence their decision to leave their current position.



Filed by Lisa Shidler of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 



 



 

Posted on

10 Keys to a Sensible Overtime Policy

wage-and-hour
overtime
Developing a sensible overtime policy for your operation is essential and will result in a safer and more productive workforce.

Overtime is a common product of shift work and extended-hours operations, in part because small amounts of overtime are often built into shift schedules. However, if your operation uses additional overtime — that is, over and above regularly scheduled hours — you run the risk of increased costs, fatigue-related accidents and production errors. Developing a sensible overtime policy for your operation is essential and will result in a safer and more productive workforce.

Here are 10 tips for developing an overtime policy that will reduce the likelihood of safety, health and production problems.

1) Beware of the “excessive overtime cycle.” When overtime levels are too high, a counterproductive cycle quickly sets in. Shift workers always feel tired, making them prone to sickness or the need to take a mental health day. Consequently, absenteeism rises, which leads to more overtime and starts a vicious cycle that leads to productivity losses and increased accident risk.

2) Set an annual cap. To prevent an “excessive overtime cycle,” many operations set an annual or monthly cap on overtime hours. A cap benefits employee health and safety and also helps distribute overtime more evenly among the employee population.

3) Account for the “time of day” effect. An annual overtime cap is a good starting point, but it overlooks the effect circadian rhythms have on human performance. Because the human body experiences a low ebb in energy between 3 a.m. and 6 a.m., working during the overnight hours is much harder than working during the day time. Owing to this “time of day” effect, it’s advisable to track overtime hours by night-shift hours and day-shift hours. If you use fixed shifts, you might want to have a lower annual cap for night crews than day crews. If you use rotating shifts, you should make sure that no more than half of an individual’s overtime hours accrue during night shifts.

4) Restrict overtime to days off on 12-hour schedules. With 12-hour schedules, it’s prudent to have a policy restricting overtime on workdays except in emergencies, and even then to have a strictly enforced limit. It may be necessary at times to hold over a person for an hour or two while waiting for a relief worker to arrive, but prohibit shifts that last 14 hours or more. Overtime on 12-hour shifts, then, means the worker comes in to work on a day off. This is the trade-off for the 91 extra days off available with 12-hour shifts. In general, individuals should not work more than one additional shift per week and two additional shifts per month. The simple truth is that when you regularly bring in workers on their days (or nights) off, you forfeit the prime benefit of a 12-hour schedule—giving people more days off to rest and recover.

5) Avoid double shifts on eight-hour schedules. Double shifts, making for 16-hour days, are a bad practice, regardless of the hours they encompass. Except in emergencies, overtime on eight-hour schedules should be limited to an additional four hours.

6) Use caution when holding workers beyond eight hours. Even when you set the maximum work shift at 12 hours, you need to be wary of safety concerns, both during the final hours of the shift and on the drive home. Employees on eight-hour shifts are at risk because:

• They may be unaccustomed to working 12 straight hours.

• They don’t get the days off for recuperation that a full-fledged 12-hour schedule provides.

• Four hours tacked onto an evening shift leaves a person driving home at 3 or 4 in the morning, a high-risk time to be on the road.

7) Watch out for “overtime hogs.” Even if all the overtime at your plant is voluntary, you need to keep an eye out for individuals who work excessive amounts. It’s not uncommon for companies to have 20 percent of their employees working 80 percent of the overtime. Such a disparity should raise a red flag because people who routinely log 60- or 70-hour weeks are candidates for fatigue-related errors. Don’t try to solve the overtime-hog problem overnight. People who work a lot of overtime quickly become accustomed to the larger paychecks they receive and often adjust their lifestyles accordingly. Make sure workers understand the basis for policy changes, and build in steps that reduce overtime gradually.

8) Establish a formal rotation to distribute the overtime. If overtime is a regular feature of your operation, you should have some type of formal distribution system. This reduces the likelihood that you’ll be left shorthanded on any given day and prevents workers from feeling that a supervisor is playing favorites. With most overtime systems, workers’ names are placed on a relief list in order of seniority (or service time). When a worker’s name reaches the top, she has the first opportunity to work overtime. To distribute the number of overtime opportunities across the workforce, move workers to the bottom of the list whether they accept or decline the chance for overtime.

9) Emphasize cross-training. Some companies get into a bind because only a small percentage of the workforce is capable of handling certain types of jobs and tasks. Thus a few workers end up getting phenomenal amounts of overtime—whether they want it or not. When you train employees to handle jobs other than their own, it becomes easier to distribute overtime evenly. It may also reduce the need to call people in for overtime, maximize plant flexibility and reduce the number of people you need to provide relief coverage

10) Match staffing levels to work demand. For many companies, inefficient shift schedules lead to excessive overtime levels. For example, many operations with fluctuating work demands have antiquated work schedules that leave some employees idle and others with too much work. By re-examining how other companies deploy and schedule their workforces, it’s possible to dramatically reduce overtime and improve the efficiency, productivity and safety of your employees.

Source: Circadian

Posted on

Tips and Best Practices Using Social Media to Support Change

Employers ignore social media at their own peril, especially during times of change. Social media comes with risks but also with great reward. Here are six best practices for using social media in change management.




Tips and Best Practices: Using Social Media to Support Change


1. Accept that social media happens—whether you like it or not. Get ahead of the wave and plan for it.Companies with highly effective communication programs are far more likely to have a documented social media policy and build executive and legal support in advance of change.
2. Have a clear purpose for your social media tools—use the right media in the right situation. Are you looking for feedback and ideas, and hoping to build collaboration around a change?

Without clear scope or intent, the audience can commandeer media for different purposes. Test or do a pilot of social media methods on small groups first to shape a successful program.
3. Segment your audiences. But don’t make the mistake of thinking social media is “just for kids.”
 		In the U.S., the average worker age is 41, and almost one-third of “Facebookers” are 35 to 49; almost a quarter are over 50. Statistics are similar worldwide.

While younger generations have high expectations for work technology, many veteran employees are surprisingly open to new approaches.

Be aware of pockets of employees who could use a little extra coaching to be as comfortable as possible with social media.
4. Assess audience impact to focus your resources on the stakeholders you need to actively support change.
 		In any change, there are critical stakeholder groups in the organization that can be your change leaders. Determine whether building a “social” community within those groups would help them embrace change and lead the way.
 
5. Plan, prioritize, pilot. Then monitor and facilitate. As with any effective change program, you need to have a strategy before you launch. Using social media will give you more immediate feedback, so plan to be flexible. Monitor the conversation and be part of it where appropriate.
 
6. Measure.

 		Not everyone will “talk,” but many will participate, even if they are just observers. Be sure to measure your efforts to capture both active and passive social media voices.

Organizations with highly effective communication programs use measurement to assess not only activity but also awareness, understanding and ultimately behavior change.

Sources: Watson Wyatt 2009/2010 Communication ROI Study Report; 2009 Forrester Research Study


Workforce Management Online, January 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

Obama Looks to Ramp Up Retirement Savings Programs

The Obama administration announced plans to require employers to give their employees the option of enrolling in direct-deposit individual retirement accounts.
 
At a meeting of the Middle Class Task Force on Monday, January 25, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, who is chairman of the task force, laid out that and other initiatives aimed at helping middle-class families. Providing economic security for such families “will be a big part of what we do in 2010 and all the way through the rest of the presidency,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said in a telephone press briefing this afternoon.


At 11 meetings of the task force in the past year, the vice president has heard from parents, workers and students coming out of college, said Jared Bernstein, chief economic advisor to the vice president. The initiatives announced Monday “are aimed at helping middle-class families make ends meet, to ease some of that squeeze on middle-class family budgets,” he said.


Currently, 78 million working Americans, about half the workforce, lack employer-based retirement plans, the administration said in a fact sheet on the initiatives.


Employers that do not offer retirement plans will be required to enroll their employees in direct-deposit IRAs automatically unless the employees elect not to be enrolled in the plan. The contributions are to be matched by the saver’s tax credit for eligible families.


In the fact sheet, the administration said it is streamlining the process for employers to enroll workers in 401(k) plans automatically. New tax credits will help pay employer administrative costs, and the smallest firms will be exempt.


The administration will issue rules to improve the transparency of 401(k) fees to help workers and plan sponsors make sure fees are reasonable, and rules to encourage plan sponsors to make unbiased investment advice available to workers.


The administration also will promote the availability of annuities and other forms of guaranteed lifetime income.


In addition, clear disclosures about target-date funds will be required. “Due to their rapidly growing popularity, these funds should be closely reviewed to help ensure that employers that offer them as part of 401(k) plans can better evaluate their suitability for their work force,” the fact sheet said.


The president also called for expanding tax credits to match retirement savings and enacting new safeguards to protect retirement savings.


The child and dependent care tax credit for families making less than $85,000 a year will be raised to 35 percent of expenses, from 20 percent. All families making under $115,000 will be eligible for higher tax credits. Currently there is a 35 percent credit of the expenses for families above $15,000 in adjusted gross income, which phases down to 20 percent up to $43,000 in adjusted gross income and a 20 percent credit for all families earning above $43,000.


Student loan payments will be limited to 10 percent of discretionary income, and debt will be forgiven after 20 years of payments or 10 years of payments for people who undertake public service. Currently, yearly payments are capped at 15 percent of discretionary income, and debt is forgiven after 25 years of payments, or 10 years of payments if in public service.


More support is also being offered to help families care for elderly relatives.


Bernstein would not give any details on the cost of the initiatives or how they will be paid for. He said cost details will be revealed in the budget, which is to be released next week. Obama will talk about the initiatives in his State of the Union address Wednesday, January 27.


Most of the initiatives announced Monday are new versions of programs under discussion or are already in place, Bernstein said. But many of them “reach much higher into the middle class” or go further in helping to alleviate squeezes on middle-class budgets, he said.


Bernstein said that the “No. 1 imperative” of the administration remains to create more jobs, and he touted the administration’s $787 billion stimulus package, which he said has created or saved 2 million jobs. “But at the same time, middle-class families have been squeezed even before this recession took hold” in the areas of child care, education and saving for retirement—areas that are addressed by the initiatives. 



Filed by Sara Hansard of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on

EEOC Settles Recruiter Dispute With Staffing Company

Staffing firm Aerotek agreed to allow recruiters who are in nonmanagement positions to speak with representatives of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission privately and without an attorney from the company present as part of an EEOC investigation, the agency announced Monday, January 25.


Aerotek had allegedly required its recruiters in some of its Chicago offices to speak with an EEOC representative only with a company attorney present, according to the EEOC. The agency was investigating a separate complaint of alleged discrimination.


The EEOC said it sought a preliminary injunction against Aerotek to overturn the requirement.


Both sides went to court but reached a negotiated agreement whereby Aerotek agreed to advise recruiters in its Schaumburg, Rockford and Crystal Lake, Illinois, sites that they can speak with an EEOC representative in private and without an Aerotek attorney. The statement included the words: “At no time will any adverse action be taken against you by Aerotek based on whether or not you choose to speak to the EEOC,” according to the EEOC.


“Responsible employers understand that they have nothing to gain by attempting to interfere with EEOC investigations,” said EEOC regional attorney John Hendrickson.

“Interfering employers frequently end up only shooting themselves in the foot, and the EEOC investigation goes forward in any event. The controlling principles are clear: The law permits the EEOC to speak directly with nonmanagement employees outside of the presence of employers and their counsel, and the law protects the employees who speak with the EEOC from retaliation.”


Aerotek is part of the Allegis Group, the largest U.S. staffing firm.



Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Tomboyish Hotel Clerk Can Challenge Firing Under Title VII

A front desk hotel clerk fired allegedly because of her “tomboyish” appearance can pursue employment discrimination and retaliation claims against her former employer, a federal appeals court has ruled.


According to the January 21 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Brenna Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, Lewis was promoted from nights to days at a hotel operated by Waterloo, Iowa-based Heartland Inns in December 2006.


The hotel’s director of operations first saw her after her promotion and said Lewis lacked the “Midwestern girl look,” according to court records.


“Lewis prefers to wear loose-fitting clothing, including men’s button-down shirts and slacks,” the appeals court said in its ruling. “She avoids makeup and wore her hair short at the time. Lewis has been mistaken for a male and referred to as ‘tomboyish.’ ”


At a January 2007 meeting, Heartland Inn director of operations Barbara Cullinan told Lewis she would need a second interview to confirm her new post. Lewis protested that other staff members were not required to have a second interview for the job and was fired three days later. She then filed suit, charging sex discrimination and retaliation.


A district court granted summary judgment in Heartland Inn’s favor, but a panel of the appeals court overturned the lower court in a 2-1 ruling.


The appeals court cited the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Ann Hopkins, in which it ruled a gender stereotyping claim could be filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the woman allegedly denied a partnership because she did not act feminine.


Subsequently, other federal appeals courts have upheld Title VII claims based on sex stereotyping, according to the 8th Circuit ruling.


“Cullinan’s criticism of Lewis for lack of ‘prettiness’ and the ‘Midwestern girl look’ before terminating her may also be found by a reasonable fact finder to be evidence of wrongful sex stereotyping,” the appeals court said.



Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on

TV Companies Settle Writers Age Bias Suits for $70 Million

Seventeen television networks and production studios and seven talent agencies have reached a $70 million settlement in 19 age discrimination cases brought by 165 television writers.


About two-thirds of the settlement will be paid by insurers, according to a joint announcement by both sides in the dispute. An attorney did not respond to a call seeking further information.


The settlement affecting TV writers 40 and older, announced January 20, is subject to approval by the California Superior Court in Los Angeles.


The parties have been litigating the claims for almost 10 years, according to the statement. Defendants, who deny the plaintiffs’ allegations, include ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox.


“We were fully prepared to oppose class certification and would have prevailed at trial if necessary,” liaison counsel Seth E. Pierce, a partner with Mitchell Silberberg & Krupp in Los Angeles, said in the statement. “But with years of disruptive litigation remaining, and all networks and major television studios and talent agencies participating in the settlement, it made sense to bring these protracted cases to a close.”



Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.



 

Posted on

Ford, AOL Turn the Tables on Layoff News

In a turn of events following 18 months of constant reports of layoffs, two major U.S. companies are planning to beef up staffing in a big way.


Ford Motor Co. plans to add 1,200 jobs when it begins making the Explorer sport utility vehicle at its Chicago factory, while AOL announced plans to hire an undetermined number of engineers and other techies to staff a “New York Technology Center” two months after laying off a third of its global staff.


Adding the Explorer probably will mean bringing a second shift back to the Far South Side plant, which has been down to one shift for the past year. The factory now employs about 1,400 workers.


Ford’s parts-stamping plant in Chicago Heights, which employs about 750 workers, also would be helped by the arrival of another vehicle at the Far South Side facility.
 
Ford is spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Illinois on launching the new Explorer model that will be built here. It has been retrofitting the plant for months.


The recently spun-off AOL—which announced in November that it would cut 2,500 jobs, or a third of its global staff—hired digital entrepreneur and former Google executive Jeff Reynar for the new position of head of technology for engineering and products in New York.


The one-time Google engineering manager will build out and manage the soon-to-be-created New York Technology Center, AOL Inc. announced Monday, January 25. Reynar will be recruiting engineers from around the Northeast to work on the technological underpinnings of AOL’s growing content business.


The center will be based in AOL’s lower Manhattan headquarters.


The company declined to say how many recruits will be needed, how big the New York center will be or when it will get off the ground. It will be one of a half-dozen technology hubs at AOL, including those in Dulles, Virginia; San Francisco; Bangalore; and Tel Aviv, Israel. All of the hubs will be expanding, the company said.


“We want to be known as a place where world-class engineering drives world-class results for our company and the consumers and partners we serve,” AOL chief executive Tim Armstrong said in a statement.


The company is also looking for a new global chief technology officer, according to the announcement. Current technology chief Ted Cahall is moving on. 



Filed by Matthew Flamm of Crain’s New York Business and John Pletz of Crain’s Chicago Business. Both are sister publications of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.





 

Posted on

Vulgarity Justifies Hostile Work Environment Suit

A female employee subjected to considerable gender-specific vulgarity can pursue her hostile work environment claim, even though the profanity was not directed specifically at her and was common at the workplace, a federal appeals court has ruled.


Wednesday’s en banc decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in Ingrid Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc. overturned a lower court’s dismissal of the case. A panel of the appeals court also ruled in Reeves’ favor in 2008. The court subsequently vacated the panel’s decision and granted a rehearing.


According to the full court’s decision, Reeves was the only woman who worked on the sales floor as a transportation sales representative in the Birmingham, Alabama, branch of the Eden Prairie, Minnesota-based shipping company from July 2001 to March 2004.


In addition to profanity that was not gender-specific, Reeves said she heard a “substantial corpus of gender-derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group,” although the language was not directed at her specifically, according to the decision.


She was also forced to listen to a morning radio show that regularly talked about topics such as the size of women’s breasts and “elderly people having sex,” according to the decision.


After her complaints to management went unheeded, Reeves resigned and filed suit, alleging she had been subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


“Sexual language and discussions that truly are indiscriminate do not themselves establish sexual harassment under Title VII,” the appeals court said in its unanimous decision. “Nevertheless, a member of a protected group cannot be forced to endure pervasive, derogatory conduct and references that are gender-specific in the workplace, just because the workplace may be otherwise rife with generally indiscriminate vulgar conduct.


“Title VII does not offer boorish employers a free pass to discriminate against their employees specifically on account of gender just because they have tolerated pervasive but indiscriminate profanity as well,” the court ruled in remanding the case for further proceedings.


Filed by Judy Greenwald of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.