I tuned in April 28 to Ohio Gov. DeWineâs briefing to learn why Ohio had changed its stance on face masks and coverings from âmandatoryâ to ârecommended best practice.â His explanation falls way short.
The governor offered two explanations, both based on feedback he received from constituents in the hours after his original pronouncement.
Masks are offensive to some, who donât like the government telling them what to do.
Masks can be problematic for people with disabilities.
The answer to point No. 2 is as easy as three letters: A-D-A. The ADA allows employers to modify work rules as a reasonable accommodation for an employeeâs disability. If a mask or face covering causes an issue for someone with a disability, the solution is to offer that individual an accommodation.
Maybe you segregate the employee so he or she does not come into contact with anyone else. Maybe you permit that employee to work from home. Maybe you grant a leave of absence until the risk abates. The point is that the employer and the employee have options other than the state modifying a rule that puts everyone at a greater risk of infection.
Which brings me to point No. 1. The governor said, âI understand some people may find that offensive, the government telling you what to.â Yet, if Iâm choosing between offending some people and safety, Iâm choosing safety 10 times out of 10. As I pointed out yesterday, everyone wearing masks or facial coverings reduces the risk of transmissions and infection down to a virtual zero.
Models show that if 80 percent of people wear masks that are 60 percent effective, easily achievable with cloth, we can get to an effective R0 of less than one. Thatâs enough to halt the spread of the disease.
One of the things we absolutely must do to combat the spread of COVID-19 is to wear masks or other facial coverings when at work or in public. While there are studies that question the ability of masks to protect people from the virus, we are not wearing masks to protect ourselves from catching COVID-19.
We are wearing them to protect others from us spreading COVID-19 to them. Thus, if everyone covers their face in public, we will protect everyone by limiting the spread of this virus. Itâs just that simple, not difficult to comprehend, and not an affront to personal liberty.
So hereâs my bottom line. Anyone who refuses to wear a mask in public because itâs offensive is selfish, thoughtless and doesnât give a damn about the well being of their fellow humans, period.
Iâll be continuing to wear my mask when around others in public. I sincerely hope that for the well being of all others, you will too.
As the debate over relaxing pandemic stay-at-home policies continues, researchers at Harvard caution that it is not safe to restart the economy until officials can perform 500,000 tests per day nationwide â a 350,000 per day increase over the current capacity.
With such guidance being considered to reopen schools, businesses and recreational facilities, organizations must be prepared regardless of the timing. Reopening the economy after a deadly, global pandemic isnât as simple and flipping a switch and returning to normal. There are many considerations employers must address as employees return to the physical workplace.Â
What employees and employers fear when people return to the work
While many employers want to ârev up the economic engines of their businesses,â they know that if this is not done safely, they risk a second wave of COVID-19 cases and another shutdown, said Michael R. Jaff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, former CEO of Newton-Wellesley Hospital, and member of The Castle Groupâs COVID-19 Response Task Force.
Employers may also have concerns for employees who say they are âreadyâ to return to work and what ready even means in the context of a global pandemic, according to Dr. George Vergolias, medical director for behavioral health consultancy R3 Continuum. People are ready in the sense that they want their personal lives, jobs, and financial security back to normal, but theyâre also worried about personal safety and exposure to COVID-19 if the pandemic is not yet over.Â
âIt is at such times when we must use our amazing capacity to tap into our resiliency and ability to adapt,â Vergolias said. âItâs important for leadership to both acknowledge the possible struggle in transitioning back to work, and yet donât expect difficulties in a way that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.â
Workplace policies and protocols should address employees wanting their employers to keep them physically and emotionally safe as a return to work begins, Vergolias said â physical safety in the sense of being protected from COVID-19 exposure and emotional safety addressing their anxieties and fears.   Â
Employers must have a clear reentry plan with informed safety protocols and resources to help employees with the emotional adjustment of transitioning back to work, he said.Â
Jaff also suggested that a thoughtful return-to-work plan will include clear information about the importance of maintaining safe distances, wearing masks, frequent hand washing, and cleaning all surfaces. Employers also should establish policies for sick employees before they can return to work as well as a clear plan for employees who become ill on the job.Â
Hart Brown, senior vice president of crisis preparedness at R3 Continuum, noted that organizational protocols will need to be based on federal, state and local guidelines and, in some cases, based on the industry the company operates in.Â
A companyâs protocol will need to be flexible, he said. Crisis management during a pandemic requires forecasting and the plan may need to change.Â
âConstantly adjusting the two to three-week forecast will allow for better decisions today and the ability to avoid being overwhelmed and learning by surprise,â he said.Â
Dana Udall, chief clinical officer at behavioral health provider Ginger, stressed the impact of COVID-19 on employeesâ mental health even after the restrictions loosen. She cited an Employer Health Innovation Roundtable survey, which found that 60 percent of employers are not satisfied with their companyâs response to employee emotional and mental health during this crisis and that employers are expecting a growing need for mental health resources.
âItâs clear that while the peak in the bell curve of COVID-19 cases may be in sight, the mental health peak has yet to come â and when it does, it will likely have a long tail,â she said.Â
Employers can acknowledge the return-to-work anxieties employees may have by clearly communicating that they can take time off to manage their mental health, making up for vacations or family visits they may have missed during the quarantine. Employers can also communicate the behavioral health resources available in benefits plans, like coaching, therapy or psychiatry.Â
Allison Velez is the chief people officer at Paladina Health, which employs both non-essential corporate workers who can work remotely and essential medical professionals who must be on-site.
Velez agrees that continuing to allow employees to work remotely is an important policy. Employers need to have a flexible, sympathetic approach for people in different home situations.
One strategy Paladina Health uses is a regularly scheduled, bi-weekly video call in which clinical staff can ask the organizationâs chief medical officer anything and get real-time answers. Employees can voice concerns, get answers and feel like theyâre being heard.
âOrganizations need to, as they think about bringing employees back to work, continuing to emphasize listening channels like surveys, focus groups, town halls or open calls,â she said. âContinuing that two-way dialogue between the employer and the employee is critical right now, and finding every avenue to do that allows companies to stay on top of the new arising concerns that employees may have as they return to work â or, if theyâve already been at work, continuing to stay healthy at work.â
An employerâs response is critical, Velez said, and not only for the health and safety of the workforce. How well or poorly they respond will impact the employer brand.Â
âNo organization wants to be in the headlines about a major outbreak right now,â she said. âThatâs both because we want to keep our employees safe and healthy, and itâs also because it’s a reflection of the employment brand and how seriously companies are taking this.â While reputation isnât the primary concern for employers, âitâs a potential unintended consequence if employers arenât taking the right steps.â  Â
Companies must make sure to seek scientific, accurate, clinical information, Velez said. This can help leaders and managers disseminate factual information about COVID-19 rather than the myths and misinformation people often hear. Also, they need to make sure theyâre on top of HIPAA regulations, especially as companies and their health plans are now increasingly relying on different technology or virtual tools such as telehealth to help employees rather than in-person care.Â
How quickly will restrictions be phased out?Â
Despite protests for quarantines to end and normal life to begin again, itâs not that simple. Many factors of COVID-19 make the return to normalcy complicated, Jaff said. It is highly infectious and causes serious illness and death, and it is difficult to predict who will suffer from it. Itâs still unknown whether those who have recovered are immune to getting it again. And thereâs no definitive treatment or vaccine yet.Â
âIt is important that the loosening of the stay-at-home orders be done very slowly and quickly reversed if there is a recurrence of hospitalizations and emergency department visits,â Jaff said. âA resurgence in the fall, if timed with the annual seasonal flu season, could be more devastating than what we have just experienced.âÂ
One area of confusion among employers is that because COVID-19 is a new virus, experts may have different opinions simply because people have not been studying the virus very long, Vergolias said. Some medical experts are calling for further social distancing, while others are suggesting that leaders should begin easing those measures.Â
âMy recommendation for employers and leaders is to frequently update your understanding and knowledge of medical recommendations from known, credible resources and then disseminate that information to your employees in an accessible and pragmatic manner,â he said. âIn general, providing timely and practical medical information coupled with emotional support resources is a solid two-pronged approach.â
At 2 p.m. on Monday, April 27, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine will announce his plan for restarting Ohioâs economy (currently expected to begin May 2).
One huge issue is how businesses can motivate their employees to return to work if unemployment is paying them more than you will.
Including the CARES Actâs $600 unemployment bonus that expires July 31, an employee earning maximum unemployment benefits from the state of Ohio earns $1,247 per week, the equivalent of an hourly rate of $31.17 or a yearly salary of nearly $65,000. My guess is that most of your employees do not earn this much. Itâs one of the worst unintended consequences of the CARES Act â employees are making more money unemployed than they did employed.
Thus, how do you incent your employees to come off unemployment and return to work, either because you are reopening or you need to end their furlough? You can either use the stick or the carrot.
The stick? Employees who refuse return-to-work offers might be disqualified from collecting further unemployment benefits (unless their refusal is because of coronavirus), and you can advise employees that if they refuse a recall that you will be asking the state to terminate their benefits. You can also advise that with unemployment at record-high numbers, there are plenty of people waiting to fill their jobs, and there is no guarantee a job will be waiting for them when the CARES Actâs $600 expires at the end of July.
The carrot? Employees might need a financial incentive to come off unemployment and return to work. Temporary hazard pay? A return-to-work incentive bonus? A longer-term retention and/or attendance bonus for employees who report by a certain date and remain employed through Dec. 31 (or some other target date)? The possibilities are endless, but the reality is that certain employees will need some amount of financial incentive to come back to work.
Which tool you use will depend on which you think will best motivate your employees and your financial ability to pay for the carrot. You may have to do something, however, as this reality is that some (many?) of your employees might be too short-sighted to realize that a job in the long-term is better than few extra dollars in the short-term.
It did not take long for the Department of Labor to announce its first-ever settlement of a claimed violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
The DOLâs press release provides the details:
Bear Creek Electrical â an electrical company based in Tucson, Arizona â will pay one employee $1,600 for refusing to provide him sick leave under the newly passed Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act after health care providers ordered him to self-quarantine with potential coronavirus symptoms.
WHD investigators found that Bear Creek Electrical failed to pay the employee for what qualified as paid sick leave covering the hours he spent at home after the company received documentation of his doctorâs instructions to self-quarantine. The employer will pay the employeeâs full wages of $20 an hour for 80 hours of leave.⌠Bear Creek Electrical also agreed to future compliance with the FFCRA, which went into effect on April 1, 2020.
âThis case should serve as a signal to others that the U.S. Department of Labor is working to protect employee rights during the coronavirus pandemic,â said Wage and Hour District Director Eric Murray in Phoenix, Arizona.
Youâve been warned. If you are not providing your employees the paid coronavirus leave to which they are entitled, the DOL is watching.
This week, Amazon workers are protesting what they view as unsafe working conditions. 300 workers from 50 facilities will skip their scheduled shift to protest Amazonâs treatment of warehouse workers.
According to United for Respect, the worker rights group organizing the protest, says that the Amazon employees are hoping to accomplish the following.
When an employee tests positive for coronavirus, the immediate notification of all employees at the facility, and the closure of the facility for two weeks with full pay.
Regular and deep cleaning of all facilities, including after a positive test.
The provision of proper safety equipment to all employees, with training on effective use.
14 days of paid sick leave for anyone with symptoms and 12 weeks of emergency paid family leave for employees to care for loved ones who get sick.
Healthcare for all Amazon employees.
Hazard pay, including time-and-a-half during the crisis and childcare pay and subsidies.
Amazon employees are not unionized, and this isnât a strike. Itâs a short-term walkout of non-unionized employees. Just because these employees arenât unionized, however, doesnât mean that their walkout isnât protected. In fact, itâs very protected. The National Labor Relations Act covers employees who engage in protected concerted activityâmeaning that employees have the right to talk between and among themselves about terms and conditions of employment, including walking off the job in protest.
An employerâs first instinct might be to fire the instigators (as Amazon is accused of doing). That would be a big mistake. The NLRA protects employees from retaliation after engaging in protected concerted activity. Itâs also just a really bad look, especially now.
Instead, Iâd view these protests as a wake-up call.
For starters, we know that one or more labor unions are in employeesâ ears helping them organize their walk-outs. A mass walk-out could easily lead to a mass walk-in to the nearest NLRB field office to file an election petition. Donât offer the union more ammo by firing the organizers.
Secondly, this type of protest offers employers an amazing opportunity to heal some wounds. Amazon likely wonât offer these employees each item on their laundry list of demands, but it should consider all of them and offer those that can be accommodated.
These employees just want to feel safe and know that their employer takes their concerns seriously. At the end of the day this is not that big of an ask, and treating it as such only makes the situation worse.
Last week I took a stab at making sense of the messy and unclear rules surrounding the substitution of employer-provided leave (which, for the sake of simplicity, Iâll refer to as (âPTOâ) for paid sick leave (âEPSLâ) and expanded Family and Medical Leave (âEFMLAâ) under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
On April 21, the Department of Labor published its 5th set of FAQs discussing the FFCRA. Question 86 squarely addresses and clarifies the intersection between employer-provided paid leave and leave under the FFCRA.
1. An employer may not require that PTO run concurrently withâthat is, cover the same hours asâEPSL. 2a. An employer may require that PTO run concurrently with the paid weeks of EFMLA. PTO that runs concurrently with EFMLA will enable the employee to receive 100 percent of his or her daily pay plus the EMFLA benefit (two-thirds of her or her regular rate of pay, capped at $200 per day and $10,000 in total). Note, however, that the FFCRAâs payroll tax credit only reimburses the employer for the paid leave provided under the Act, not for any concurrent PTO applied. Once an employee exhausts all available PTO, EFMLA is continued to be paid out of the statutory two-thirds rate. 2b. Alternatively, an employer and employee may agree to top off the two-thirds EFMLA pay to an amount equal to 100 percent of the employeeâs regular pay. Again, the FFCRAâs payroll tax credit only reimburses the employer for the paid leave provided under the Act. 3. An employee may electâbut an employer may not require the employeeâto take EPSL or PTO (but not both) during the first two weeks of unpaid EFMLA.
We all want to get back to work as safely and as quickly as possible.
One thing that would allow us to do this with confidence is widespread antibody testing, a quick blood test to reveal if one carries the COVID-19 antibodies from which an employer can presume exposure, immunity and a reasonable degree of safety for an employee to return to work.
This testing, however, raises two critical questions.
1. Can employers legally require it?
2. Should employers rely on it as an indicia of safety?
Can an employer legally require antibody testing?
The âcanâ question is easy to answer. According to the EEOC, because coronavirus is a âdirect threat,â employers have carte blanche to test employees, including antibody testing as a return-to-work condition.
The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits an employer from making disability-related inquiries or engaging in medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity, which includes when an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.
A âdirect threatâ is âa significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.â If an individual with a disability poses a direct threat despite reasonable accommodation, the nondiscrimination provisions of the ADA do not protect him or her, and disability-related inquiries and medical examinations are legal and permissible.
Per the EEOC, âAs of March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic meets the direct threat standard,â because âa significant risk of substantial harm would be posed by having someone with COVID-19, or symptoms of it, present in the workplace at the current time.â
Thus, because COVID-19 is a direct threat, employers absolutely can require antibody testing as a condition for an employee to return to work.
Should an employer rely on antibody testing as an indicia of safety?
The more difficult question is whether an employer âshouldâ require it and rely on it.
More than 90 companies have jumped into the market since the F.D.A. eased its rules and allowed antibody tests to be sold without formal federal review or approval.
Some of those companies are start-ups; others have established records. In a federal guidance document on March 16, the F.D.A. required them to validate their results on their own and notify the agency that they had done so.âŚ
Most of the tests offered are rapid tests that can be assessed in a doctorâs office â or, eventually, even at home â and provide simple yes-or-no results. Makers of the tests have aggressively marketed them to businesses and doctors, and thousands of Americans have already taken them, costing a patient roughly $60 to $115.
Rapid tests are by far the easiest to administer. But they are also the most unreliable â so much so that the World Health Organization recommends against their use.
These tests have a false-positive rate of 5 percent (or higher), a significant margin of error when you consider that in a community with a five percent infection rate youâd have as many false positive as actual positives.
Even labs that are marketing these antibody tests to employers are cautioning against their reliability.
This test hasnât been reviewed by the FDA. Negative results donât rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in those who have been in contact with the virus. Follow-up testing with a molecular diagnostic lab should be considered to rule out infection in these individuals. Results from antibody testing shouldnât be used as the sole basis to diagnose or exclude SARS-CoV-2 infection. Positive results may be due to past or present infection with non-SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus strains, such as coronavirus HKU1, NL63, OC43, or 229E.
In other words, these tests arenât reliable because the FDA hasnât reviewed them, and because of risk of a strand of coronavirus other than COVID-19 flagging a false-positive result.
What does all of this mean?
First, employers should not and cannot rely on currently available antibody tests as the magic bullet to get employees safely back to work. They are simply not sufficiently reliable.
Third and finally, the government needs to ramp up the approval of reliable testing. Without readily available quick and reliable tests we are shooting in the dark by bringing employees back to work, and we will continue to spread infections no matter how many other steps businesses take to attempt safely to return employees to work.
One of the more confounding sets of rules under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is when employers can require employees to substitute an employerâs own provided leave (which, for the sake of convenience Iâll refer to throughout as âPTOâ) for paid leave â the 80 hours of paid sick leave (âEPSLâ) or the 12 weeks of expanded family and medical leave (âEFMLAâ) â mandated by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
I am going to make an attempt to explain these rules, but Iâll fully admit that itâs still not 100 percent clear to me. The text of the FFCRAÂ seems to suggest that an employer can never require the substitution of PTO.
The DOLâs proposed regulations, however, muddy the waters, which were muddied even further by an amendment to those proposed regulations published last Friday, which deleted language from the regulationsâ explanatory discussion relating to the substitution of PTO for EFMLA.
So letâs try to sort it all out.
1. An employer can never require an employee to substitute PTO for EPSL. The employee can elect that substitution, but it can never be forced by the employer.
2. If an employee is taking leave to care for a son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons, the employee qualifies for both EPSL and EFMLA. It is the employeeâs sole choice whether to use EPSL during the initial two unpaid weeks of EFMLA (for which both types of leave will run concurrently), or save the EPSL for later use for another qualifying reason (or, I suppose, tack it on after the expiration of the FMLA leave). An employer cannot force an employee to use EPSL during those initial two unpaid weeks of EFMLA.
3. Hereâs where it gets tricky. When can an employer require an employee to use PTO during EFMLA? Section 826.23(c) of the regulations is the key provision.
Section 2612(d)(2)(A) of the FMLA shall be applied, provided however, that the Eligible Employee may elect, and the Employer may require the Eligible Employee, to use only leave that would be available to the Eligible Employee for the purpose set forth in § 826.20(b) under the Employerâs existing policies, such as personal leave or paid time off. Any leave that an Eligible Employee elects to use or that an Employer requires the Eligible Employee to use would run concurrently with Expanded Family and Medical Leave taken under this section.
(Section 2612(d)(2)(A) of the FMLA permits an employer to require the substitution of PTO for FMLA leave.)
What does this all mean? It means that an employer can require an employee to use available PTO during the unpaid portion of an EFMLA school closure of loss-of-child care coronavirus-related leave. If an employer so requires, the PTO runs concurrently with the EFMLA allotment.
4. An employer and employee can agree to âtop-offâ EPSL or EFMLA (that is, true up the employee’s pay through the substitution of PTO so that the employee earns his or her full pay). But the employer cannot require it.
All clear, correct? Or clear as mud?
Disagree with my interpretation? Drop a comment below and letâs try to figure it out together.
We used to fill our time running our kids all over the place for various lessons, rehearsals, and gigs. Now, however, we have a lot of down-time, with nothing to do. So how am I filling my time when Iâm not working? (Which, btw, Iâve been doing a lot of over the past month.)
1. Walking ⌠a lot. We are walking a ton of miles. As in 4 to 6 miles per day. The rings on my Apple Watch are very happy. Partly because we have two high-energy dogs (one being an 11-month-old puppy) that canât go to daycare to tire themselves out. And partly because what else are we going to do? Let me make a few observations from my miles of walking. First, thank you to most for maintaining social distance. People (more or less) have been really good about keeping six feet of separation. Secondly, people have been really nice to each other. Lots of, âHow are yousâ from total strangers (from a socially acceptable distance). Third, it appears that many people do not think kids can carry or catch COVID-19. Because Iâve seen lots of kids playing together in close groups (basketball, football, walking, etc.). Parents, I know this sucks for your kids. Itâs going to suck more if they transmit this virus to each other. Please, letâs try to maintain social distance for a few more weeks, and we can all start to get back to normal socializing again (although itâs going to take me a while to feel comfortable shaking someoneâs hand or getting in an elevator).
2. Cooking and baking. Because we always seem to be running around a lot, we are always grabbing food out. We must eat out four times a week. Without nowhere to go, Iâve been cooking every night. Iâve also been baking (a combination of comfort and nesting, I think). The cooking is starting to get old. I really do love to cook, but I also love the option of not cooking. When this is all over, I think Iâll be exercising that option a bunch. Also, if anyone wants the worldâs greatest gluten-free chocolate chip cookie recipe, hit me up.
3. Grazing all day. One of the downsides of working from home (aside from the a-hole puppy who barks, and goes crazy, and generally likes to annoy us and his big sister) is the easy availability of food and constant snacking. Thankfully, no. 1 above makes up for these added comfort calories.
4. Virtual cocktail hours. Since we canât connect with people in person, weâve been connecting remotely via Zoom. We have weekly check-ins with family (real and our Fake ID band family). Weâve also connected with friends as far as the West Coast and as near as across the street. Itâs been a great (albeit different) way to keep in touch and re-connect. And, cocktail hour.
5. Slowing way down. One of the unintended benefits of sheltering at home is that we have been forced to sloooooow down. No longer running to and from place to place, we have the time to sit and play a family game or watch a family movie (***** for “Almost Famous,” even though I forgot that Kate Hudson shows her boob; ***1/2 for “Onward,” not one of Pixarâs best, but still enjoyable and sweet.) Itâs not like we werenât connected as a family pre-coronavirus, but this has forced us to reconnect in a good way. And no one is sick of anyone else ⌠yet.
If remote employees arenât living up to productivity expectations right now, employers shouldnât immediately jump to âslacking offâ as the reason.Â
Not only is this skewed worldview insulting to employees, but this degree of virtual micromanagement is insensitive to remote workers during the coronavirus pandemic.Â
In fact, studies show that employees are usually more productive at home than in the office. One survey of 1,004 full-time employees across the United States found that on average, remote employees worked 1.4 more days every month, or 16.8 more days every year, than those who worked in an office setting. Nicholas Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University, found similar results in his two-year study about working from home. Remote working made employees more productive and less likely to quit, according to his study.
Yet there are some paranoid managers who envision their remote workers lying on the couch, shirking work and watching trashy daytime TV. This isnât the reality for most workers in normal times, let alone during a pandemic.Â
Remote workers arenât on vacation right now. Theyâre dealing with the very real consequences of a deadly global outbreak. Most people are quarantining at home (if their job allows), avoiding people as much as they can, staying as safe as possible at the grocery store and home-schooling their children on top of their work and home responsibilities.Â
Meanwhile, as more companies turn to layoffs and furloughs, even employed people have financial worries. What happens if they lose their job and employer-provided health insurance? What about workers who live paycheck to paycheck and worry about affording rent and food if they get laid off? The vast majority of employees wonât use working from home as an excuse to do less. Instead theyâll do what they can to stay relevant to their employer and not lose their job and their health care.Â
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought further responsibilities to many employee populations, like caregivers of children or sick family members. These people donât have more freedom and free time due to their work-from-home status. According to a survey of 4,293 working parents that was conducted from March 28 through March 30, only 46.23 percent of men and 25.14 percent of women responded that they are able to juggle work and watching children. Even considering this âunequal divide of household laborâ and how mothers are impacted most, most fathers are struggling, as well.Â
Meanwhile, even if someone doesnât take care of a child or sick family member, they still need to care for themselves. Maintaining oneâs mental health is important during a pandemic, whether you simply feel more stressed than usual or have a mental illness that requires treatment and attention.Â
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, people who may respond more strongly to the stress of the COVID-19 crisis include those who are especially vulnerable to the virus (older people and those with chronic diseases), children and teens, people with mental health or substance abuse issues and caregivers and health care providers who are helping others deal with health issues.
â[It] seems the world has gone bonkers about sick leave and time off from work. I’m hoping despite what we are facing that many people STILL have paid vacation leave due to them. This work at home thing â and this even more ever-present ‘digital presenteeism at work’ â may make us forget that we can take time off even if we or those around us are not ill. Remember? We are supposed to take holidays [and] vacations to refresh,â she wrote.
This is a great comment, and not something Iâve seen a lot from employers. I understand that businesses as well as individuals are suffering right now. Iâm not suggesting that companies should shift all focus from operations to comforting employees. But there needs to be a balance.Â
Rather than expecting employees to be 100 percent productive all the time and expecting them to not take any time off unless itâs for the âright reasons,â employers also need to show sympathy to their workforces right now. People arenât robots. They respond to the world around them. What weâre going through now with COVID-19 is anxiety-provoking at best and life-destroying at worst.Â
Several months ago I interviewed Morgan Young, vice president of client services, employee benefits at Holmes Murphy, and what she said about productivity expectations is especially relevant now.
âYou can acknowledge that fact that people are going to have struggles in their life and nobody is going to be at peak performance 100 percent of the time, and thatâs OK. Employers can have a healthy conversation about that and know that, âIf I can get [employees] through the valleys they have and back to their peak, weâre doing great,â â she said.Â
Yet there are some