Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Compliance

Posted on November 1, 2016June 29, 2023

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 October 13, 2016June 29, 2023

Lawsuit Highlights the Risk of Unpaid Training Time

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Employment Law 360 reports that Hawaiian Airlines has been sued by a group of employees claiming that their mandatory unpaid 10-day customer service training course violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11

According to court papers, trainees learned things like federal regulatory requirements and how to use a standard airline software system. … The suit claimed the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law required trainees be paid at least minimum wage “because, among other things, attendance was mandatory, the course material was related to the trainee’s job, and attendance was during regular working hours.”

For its part, the airline argues that the lead plaintiff “was well aware the course was unpaid before she started.” That’s not much of an argument. Under no circumstance may an employee voluntarily agree to forfeit pay to which the employee is entitled under the FLSA. It’s no different than asking an employee to volunteer his or her time and work for free (which, by the way, is very illegal).

Lots of opportunities exist for employees to train, take educational classes, or otherwise better themselves — inside classes, outside classes, seminars, lectures, and continuing education requirements, to name a few. Whether attendance at these activities counts as paid “working time” under the FLSA, however, depends on four factors:

  1. Is attendance outside of the employee’s regular working hours?
  2. Is attendance truly voluntary?
  3. Is the course, lecture, or meeting indirectly related or unrelated to the employee’s job?
  4. Does the employee not perform any productive work during such attendance?

An employer must be able to answer “yes” to all four of these questions to consider an employee’s attendance non-working time.

For non-exempt employees, this determination is important for two reasons. First, working time must be paid at the employee’s regular rate. Secondly, it counts towards the number of hours worked in a work week for determining overtime eligibility.
This issue is even more important in today’s tight economy. Failing to consider these factors before requiring or suggesting training or education for employees could result in the added expense of non-budgeted wages and overtime, as Hawaiian Airlines may soon discover.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on October 12, 2016June 29, 2023

Court Rules Employers Cannot Take Overtime Credit for Paid Lunches

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require paid lunches for employees. Indeed, quite to the contrary, the FLSA provides that meal breaks (presumptively defined as breaks of more than 20 minutes during which the employee is totally relieved of his or her work duties) can be unpaid.WF_WebSite_BlogHeaders-11

What happens, however, to an employee’s overtime compensation if the employer pays an employee for non-working lunches? Is the employer entitled to use the extra compensation for the paid lunches to offset other overtime compensation?

According to the 3rd Circuit in a case of first impression — Smiley v. EI DuPont de Nemours & Co. — the answer is “no.”

Nothing in the FLSA authorizes the type of offsetting DuPont advances here, where an employer seeks to credit compensation that it included in calculating an employee’s regular rate of pay against its overtime liability.

Instead, as the court points out, the FLSA only permits employers to take an offset against overtime payments in three limited circumstances, each of which involves some component of premium pay in excess of an employee’s regular hourly rate:

  • Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for certain hours worked by the employee in any day or workweek because for hours worked in excess of eight in a day or in excess of the employer’s defined maximum workweek.
  • Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid for work by the employee on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek, where such premium rate is not less than one and one-half times the rate established in good faith for like work performed in non-overtime hours on other days.
  • Extra compensation provided by a premium rate paid to the employee, in pursuance of an applicable employment contract or collective-bargaining agreement, for work outside of the hours established in good faith by the contract or agreement as the basic, normal, or regular workday (not exceeding eight hours) or workweek (not exceeding the employer’s defined maximum workweek), where such premium rate is not less than one and one-half times the rate established in good faith by the contract or agreement for like work performed during such workday or workweek.
Come Dec. 1, the DOL is adding more than four million employees to the doles of overtime eligibility. Employer are doing to look for ways to limit their overtime exposure to keep payrolls under control. Be aware, however, that taking a credit against overtime for paid lunches is one option not available to you.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on September 14, 2016June 29, 2023

Tie Comp and Performance Management to Attract and Keep Employees

WF_0916_ONLINE_Salary_Image_307
A pay for performance program can be instrumental to a company’s talent strategy.

An effective compensation strategy is integral in attracting new talent and retaining and motivating the best performers. Yet, if not done appropriately, the way in which a company compensates its employees can lead to a number of negative effects.

Compensation should never be a guessing game or one based on gut feel, but rather should be based on a solid foundation of actual data. Data that needs to be assessed include items such as the company’s position against the market as it relates to wage rates, the company’s desired market position on wages, the company’s overall compensation philosophy, and available resources that the organization has to reward employees. It is with this data-informed foundation that more companies today are using a pay for performance program to guide their compensation decisions.

A pay for performance program can be instrumental to a company’s talent strategy; when employees are recognized for their work through increased compensation, they will be more likely to be engaged and continue working at their best.

Read: Salary Compression and Pay for Performance

The challenge for many employers, however, lies in determining which positions should be eligible for performance-based salary increases and how much they should receive.

Many would contend that pay for performance is where two employees holding the same job and performing at the same performance level should get the same increase regardless of where they are paid in their respective salary range, such as all employees rated a “3” would receive a 2 percent increase and all employees rated a “1” would receive a 4 percent increase. However, this is not pay for performance, but rather increase for performance. By basing pay for performance on additional data — not just performance data but also company budgets and competitive market position — companies can make compensation a critical competitive differentiator.

Now let’s define what a true pay for performance system is. A pay for performance system looks not only at your performance level but also at your compensation level as well. For companies seeking to utilize data to create an effective pay for performance program, there are three main steps to get it right.

Three Steps to Implementing a Pay for Performance System

  1. Measure employee performance. Most companies rely on a performance management system offering quantifiable metrics to determine how employees are performing. Key to doing this successfully is to calibrate performance criteria with managers, allowing them the ability to subjectively identify those who are exceeding expectations, those who are meeting expectations and those under-performing. Calibration can be a time-consuming exercise but is critical in ensuring that performance is managed consistently across the company.
  1. Appropriately allocate the compensation budget. Once the company has calibrated performance criteria and assessed their employees against the same criteria, the next step is to determine which employees will receive an increase and by how much, based on market position and desired market position. For instance, you may decide to increase the salary for some job families that are further behind the market, or job families you deem more critical to the success of the organization.

In addition to looking at current market position for specific jobs or job families, you should also be assessing trends in the markets as some job families may be moving faster than others. We have found that technical positions tend to move at a faster rate than non-technical positions. As an example, we looked at our CompAnalyst Market Data rates for software engineers and accountants and compared the movement of the rates for those jobs between July 2015 and July 2016.

While software engineers levels 1-3 went up by approximately 2.3 percent, we found the market rates for accountants levels 1-3 dropped by 1.7 percent. Since the market rate for software engineers is moving faster, a company should seek to increase compensation for these job families. Certainly, we can see that we should be allocating more to software engineers than accountants in order to keep pace with the market movement.

Understanding where you stand and what the market is doing allows you to allocate precious compensation dollars appropriately, such that you are not overpaying the slower moving positions and underpaying the faster moving ones.

  1. Connect compensation to performance. Use technology to measure and analyze internal compensation practices against market rates by creating a salary increase matrix — a function of how much an individual is paid and their performance level. Doing so will ensure that an employee’s pay is moved toward the appropriate position in their salary range based on their individual performance and the movement of their position in the market as a whole.

Utilizing a pay for performance system, you may find instances where an individual might receive what I would refer to as a “0 percent merit” increase, even if they are meeting performance expectations. This would be appropriate when an individual’s performance level is eclipsed by their pay.

As an example, an employee who is meeting the expectations of their job but is paid in the upper part of a salary range would be a situation where a “0 percent merit” may be appropriate. While it may be difficult to tell an employee they’re not getting a salary increase, I would submit the more difficult discussion would be explaining to company leadership why top performers in the most business-critical positions are leaving the company.

What to Keep in Mind When Implementing Pay for Performance

The ability to use relevant data to tie compensation to performance management is crucial to developing and retaining a high-performing workforce, while ensuring compensation is aligned with company budgets.

Key to success is underscoring the focus on pay for performance rather than increase for performance. Giving all employees extra compensation for doing their job isn’t as effective as basing their increase on both their current pay and performance levels. By leveraging real-time performance data, the company has a defensible way to determine how much each employee should receive. This will help to differentially reward top performers, while ensuring appropriate allocation of increased dollars to all other employees. It will also help to spur performance improvements; when employees understand that any increase will be based on their performance, they are likely to strive to work at their best to receive the maximum increase.

Just as important is understanding the market. To utilize pay for performance most effectively, the company must remain aware of how the market is moving for its job families, and ensuring the compensation strategy reflects such movements. Being able to track which roles are increasing in value and adjusting compensation accordingly will ensure crucial decisions around compensation are based on actual data.

Getting Pay for Performance Right

As compensation is often a company’s biggest expense, it is critical that companies get it right. Leveraging data on compensation rates and performance alike and ensuring alignment with the company budget is key to striking that balance. With the insight into what employees are currently making, the market rates of their positions and their individual performance, the company can make informed decisions on how best to allocate its compensation dollars. As a result, the company can ensure it pays its employees based on the value they bring to their organization.

 

Posted on September 7, 2016June 29, 2023

Hilton Pledges to Pay Equality for Its Female Workers

WF_0907_ONLINE_Hilton_HiltonHotelBangkok_300x200
The Hilton Hotel, Bangkok. Photo credit: Ian Gratton

Women on average make 79 cents to a man’s dollar in the United States, according to the National Partnership for Women and Families — and that’s before taking factors like age and race into account.

With a workforce that is half female,  Hilton  Worldwide became one of 55 companies to sign the White House’s Equal Pay Pledge, which encourages businesses to provide equal pay for women. Half of Hilton’s global workforce is female. The pledge extends to employees of hotels owned and managed across the Hilton portfolio and corporate offices in the United States, according to Laura Fuentes, senior vice president, talent, rewards and people analytics.

President Barack Obama initially announced the pledge at the United State of Women Summit in June. The White House released a press release on Women’s Equality Day on Aug. 26, announcing 29 new companies to sign the pledge, bringing the total to 55, including Microsoft, Apple, Chobani, IBM and Target Corporation.

“We have long been committed to diversity and inclusion across our company, and signing the Equal Pay Pledge is just one way we have demonstrated this commitment,” said Fuentes via email. “Our goal is to be the most hospitable company in the world — for our guests and team members around the world.”

The international hotel chain uses groups — such as its Women’s Team Member Resource Group, Women’s Executive Networking Program and Women in Leadership Excellence Program (in partnership with the University of Virginia) — to further this commitment, Fuentes added. Also, it uses certain family-focused benefits such as an “industry leading” maternity leave policy and flexible working options.

More specifically, by signing the pledge Hilton and the other companies have promised to conduct an annual companywide gender pay analysis, review hiring and promotion processes to weed out unconscious bias and other barriers, and promote best practices that can close the national wage gap.

“When women are fully engaged in our workforce and communities, society at large benefits from the great ideas and innovation that flourishes” said Microsoft in its statement. “Our commitment to equal pay gives us the opportunity to attract and hire from a broader talent pool of the best employees, managers and leaders.”

Target, in a statement, said it has implemented “meaningful business practices” such as leadership training designed to reduce that likelihood of making decisions based on stereotyping or bias.

Hilton, meanwhile, aims to represent the different cultures, backgrounds and viewpoints of its guests in order to become to the “most hospitable company.” Part of that diversity is gender diversity.

“We’re honored to help advance action around this important issue,” Fuentes said.

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

Posted on May 18, 2016June 29, 2023

I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream … for the FLSA’s New Salary Test

Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Sherrod Brown and Secretary of Labor Tom Perez will appear at Jeni’s Ice Cream in Columbus, Ohio, May 18 to announce the Department of Labor’s new overtime rule.

The rule, as expected, increases the salary level at which one qualifies as an exempt white-collar employee ($913 per week; $47,476 annually), while leaving alone (for now) the duties one also must meet to qualify. It is expected that 4.2 million white-collar workers will now qualify for overtime.

The effective date of the final rule is Dec. 1, giving employers more than six months to digest the new rules, reclassify workers and comply with the new salary test.

In advance of today’s announcement, late yesterday the DOL published the Final Rule, along with some guidance for employers. It also published this handy chart, comparing the current regulations, last year’s proposed regulations, and the final regulations.

 
 
 
What does the DOL want you to know about the new rule? It …

  1. Only applies to the administrative, executive, and professional exemptions.
  2. Sets the salary level at the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census Region, currently the South ($913 per week; $47,476 annually).
  3. Sets the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (HCE) subject to a minimal duties test to the annual equivalent of the 90th percentile of full-time salaried workers nationally ($134,004).
  4. Establishes a mechanism for automatically updating the salary and compensation levels every three years.
  5. Permits employers to use non-discretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the new standard salary level (this is new to the FLSA, and a pleasant surprise for employers).
I will say, while a 50 percent increase in the salary test is significant, the Final Rule is not nearly as bad for employers as it could have been or was feared.

  • The salary test is based on the lowest-wage Census area (the South);
  • It will update every three years (not every year, as feared);
  • It left the duties test alone (for now);
  • It providers a much longer than feared six months until effective; and
  • It introduced the inclusions of bonuses and commission into the salary calculation.

Perhaps what is most interesting, however, is the guidance that the DOL chose to publish along with the Final Rules. Much of the criticism lobbed at the DOL over the increased salary test related to the higher salary level’s impact on small businesses, non-profits, higher-education institutions, and governments. Not so coincidentally, take a look at the guides and fact sheets the DOL published alongside the Final Rule:

  • Guidance and Fact Sheet for Nonprofits
  • Guidance and Fact Sheet for Higher Education
  • Guidance for Businesses
  • Fact Sheet for State and Local Governments
Employers, you have a little more than six months to get your wage-and-hour houses in order. You need to figure out which of your exempt employees make less than $47,476, and determine what you are going to do with them—switch them to non-exempt or gross-them up to the new salary level.
If you switch them to non-exempt, you will have to deal with the employee-relations issues that arise from tracking (or restricting) overtime and limiting flexibility. If you gross them up to keep them exempt, you will have to deal with the employee-relations issues that arise from salary contraction. Will your manager be happy that she is being paid nearly the same as her assistant manager/supervisor?
There are no easy answers, but you have until Dec. 1 to figure it out.

Posted on May 16, 2016July 30, 2018

The $15 Minimum Wage is an Employee Relations Nightmare

The Cleveland City Council recently introduced legislation to raise the city’s minimum wage to $15. Mayor Frank Jackson has come out against the bill, stating that he opposes the legislation because it puts the city at a competitive business disadvantage against other cities.

“I continue to support a minimum wage increase if mandated by the state or federal government and not just for the city of Cleveland. For the full economic impact this has to be a united effort throughout Ohio and the United States.”

There is much debate over the positive or negative impact of a $15 minimum wage. Where you fall on the debate depends on whether you are pro-employee or pro-business, and, if you look, you can find empirical evidence to support either argument.

Here’s one argument, however, that I have not come across. If the minimum wage rises to $15 an hour, what happens to all of those employees already earning $15 an hour? What happens to the employee, hired 10 years ago at $7 an hour, who worked his butt off for the past decade, and, through a series of promotion and raises, earned his way up to $15 an hour? Those employees will not receive a proportional raise to keep pace. The $15 minimum wage will convert these millions of workers into minimum-wage employees. And, for better or worse, there is a certain stigma with being classified as minimum wage — especially if you’ve worked hard for years not to be minimum wage.

There is no easy answer or quick solution to providing people with a livable wage. There is lots to discuss before we make the reflexive decision to cure the wage gap in this country by increasing the minimum wage. One issue that cannot be discounted is the employee-relations nightmare that we will create for those already earning this new minimum wage.

Posted on January 24, 2016July 30, 2018

Wagering on Equal Wages

The Gap Inc. didn’t wait for California’s new law on fair pay to kick in to do something about it.

Last year, the San Francisco-based retailer hired an outside firm to audit its pay practices to make sure women and men in the same jobs got the same wages. The consultants analyzed the company’s 129,992 employees and confirmed it — their salaries were on par.

The California Fair Pay Act took effect on Jan. 1, and labor experts predict more companies in and outside the state will take similar steps to minimize the gender pay gap.

That and other types of income inequality have contributed to a shrinking U.S. middle class and become an issue of the 2016 presidential election campaign. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders has built his campaign around ending it.

Through it all, one of the most entrenched inequities has been the difference in pay between the sexes. In 2014, the median full-time wage and salary for women was 81 percent of what it was for men, according to the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 19-cent difference is an improvement from 38 cents in 1979, the first year the agency measured the wage gap. But it’s remained between 17 cents and 20 cents for the past dozen years, according to a November 2015 BLS report.

Like Gap, some companies have narrowed or closed the margin. They did it by creating hiring committees that represent a wide swath of the company’s employee population to curb recruiters’ and hiring managers’ potential biases. They use data-based performance metrics to award raises and promotions. They run mentor programs and sponsor opportunities that help women advance. Some work with nonprofit apprentice programs that help place women intotraditionally male-dominated trades.

'Because we have such a free-flowing conversation, it helps women feel like they're more empowered.'

—Patti Murphy, Walsh Construction

Once companies start to see that with a few simple changes they could increase their percentage of women or bring more women into leadership positions, “They’re going to put some of those mechanisms in place,” said Connie Ashbrook, executive director for Oregon Tradeswomen Inc., a nonprofit that helps place women into apprenticeships in union-heavy trades.

Here’s a deeper look at three organizations that have taken action to close the gender pay gap.

Wage Audits and Compensation Policies

Gap, which has a workforce that’s 73 percent female, hired diversity and inclusion consulting firm Exponential Talent to audit its own findings on gender pay. The firm ran a series of assessments, including tests comparing average male and female salary by level, and tests to detect differences in salary by gender based on factors such as full-time status and number of years on the job.

The consultant found no significant gender wage differences between men and women within Gap job codes globally or in any of its five largest locations (the United States, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom and China). Gap didn’t return a request for comment, and Exponential Talent executives declined to comment.

With the California Fair Pay Act coming online, labor and employment lawyer Gary Gansle sees more companies following in the clothing retailer’s footsteps. “California is often a bellwether,” said Gansle, a partner with the law firm Squire Patton Boggs in Palo Alto, California. “More progressive states will look to California and likely adopt some or all of the new pay equity principles over time.”

He recommends companies review existing hiring and performance review policies to see if they’re likely to produce gender pay gaps and formulate a compensation philosophy that focuses on gender equity. He also suggests training management to recognize and root out unconscious biases that could cause gender-related pay problems. Companies “are more likely to work toward gender pay equity if it is an established and articulated goal,” he said.

Apprentices and Mentors

Walsh Construction Co. has taken some of those suggestions to heart to move women closer to job and wage parity in the male-dominated commercial real estate construction industry.

The 55-year-old general contractor’s workforce is still predominately male. Men represent 93 percent of its 249-person construction crew, and 69 percent of its 213-person project management and engineering staff, according to Patti Murphy, human resources director for the business, which is based in Portland, Oregon.

Many of the women in Walsh’s construction crew came in through partnerships with nonprofit groups, such as Oregon Tradeswomen, that help them find apprenticeships in carpenter, painter, machine operator and other trade jobs. Because construction jobs are covered by unions, there’s no difference between hourly wages for men and women, Murphy said.

While women might make the same hourly wage as men in construction apprenticeships and jobs, their annual incomes are likely to be lower because they aren’t offered the same hours, said Oregon Tradeswomen’s Ashbrook. The same holds true for men and women of color in the trades, she said. She sees that changing, though, as boomers age out of the industry “because there won’t be enough of the traditional demographic of white males” to meet demand.

Murphy said she didn’t know whether annual income for women on Walsh’s construction crew is less than their male counterparts. The fact that the tenure for Walsh’s tradeswomen employees is seven years, longer than the company’s 6.3-year average, indicates that they feel well-treated, she said. “I think that’s unique for the industry.”

On the professional side of the business, Walsh actively promotes women into positions where they might oversee part or all of constructing at an apartment complex or mixed-use building, and manage budgets of $1 million or more. Today, 29 women hold some type of management role, representing about 14 percent of the total, up from 11 percent a decade ago. “We still have work to do at the executive level,” Murphy said, “but in middle-management roles is where we’ve seen an increase.”

To help more women get there, Walsh created a peer group for women project managers that meets once a month. Junior- and senior-level female employees mentor each other and use the group to share information. “I think it has really helped them feel like they have more support and resources,” Murphy said. “Periodically the general manager attends their meetings to gain a better understanding of issues and concerns they face as women in the industry. This has been particularly helpful in getting new women project managers to feel integrated.”

Walsh’s approach to the performance review process is more informal than companies that use software-based rating or ranking systems, which Murphy said helps female employees feel comfortable talking about their jobs and pay. After project managers finish a job — which could take anywhere from six to 18 months — they discuss with their bosses and other executives how it went, what they could have done better and what they’d like to do next.

“Depending on where someone is in their career, they might have owned a piece of the budget, but not all,” Murphy said. “For the next one, we’d ask them what other pieces they’d want to take on. We don’t use reviews as a way to take corrective action, it’s all about development.

“Because we have such a free-flowing conversation, it helps women feel like they’re more empowered,” she said.

Walsh also levels the playing field by having women coming into entry-level positions work on site for their first few years. Many have no experience on a jobsite, so giving them an idea of what it’s like helps them understand how a building is put together. It’s also generates goodwill for Walsh. “Many of the women we have hired from other companies have said they were typically stuck in the office and came to Walsh because they heard they could get field experience and training,” Murphy said.

Metrics-Based Pay and Promotions

Financial planning adviser Sullivan, Bruyette, Speros & Blayney relies on results, a gender-neutral interview process and the goodwill of its founders to remove biases from hiring, compensation and promotions and maintain income parity.

The McLean, Virginia-based firm, a division of BMO Financial Corp., has 45 employees, including 24 certified financial planners plus staff.

Sullivan’s advisers’ livelihood depends on how much new business they bring in and how successful they are at managing existing clients’ investments. The firm bases pay and promotions on those financial metrics, which are relatively easy to track.

“If women are performing equally well as men, they’ll be compensated equally well,” said Martine Lellis, the firm’s chief operating officer.

Lellis credits Sullivan’s top management for creating a culture that recognizes and rewards people based on merit. The three founders still active at the 25-year-old firm — the fourth, a woman, has retired — are committed to fairness in everything from hiring practices and promotions to compensation and annual reviews. “That takes us away from the culture of hoarding clients and creates more of a collaborative, collegial environment,” she said.

As the firm’s COO, Lellis manages hiring, a process that includes putting a prospect in front of an interview committee composed of male and female employees at all levels. Candidates must analyze and write about an investment case study, work that Lellis and several other advisers review, though she declined to say whether job applicants’ names were redacted to avoid any bias.

“The point is, I’m getting input from people who haven’t met the interviewee in person, so they look at it from a different angle,” she said. Everyone who interviews a candidate or reads their work is part of a debriefing session, and gives input on whether the person should be hired.

Lellis said the system works, and as proof points to employees’ tenure: an overall average of 9.35 years for women and 9.94 years for men, and for financial advisers, 16 years for women and 17 years for men.

Sullivan isn’t an anomaly. In general, the pay gap between the sexes is relatively smaller in financial advisory firms than the national average. Female advisers who are not firm owners earn 86 cents for every $1 male advisers earn compared with the national average of 81 cents, according to a November 2015 report from Investment News.

The pay gap varies by job type, with women in lower-level service adviser and support adviser jobs equaling or surpassing their male counterparts after three to 10 years of experience, according to the report. Women in higher-level financial adviser jobs were worse off, with median earnings lagging their male counterparts by 5 percent after eight to 10 years, and 6 percent after 20 to 30 years, according to the report.

Lellis agrees that the numbers, though promising, could be better. If there’s still a gap, “There’s still a problem we need to work on,” she said.

Posted on December 21, 2015October 28, 2020

Minimum-Wage Analysis Takes Maximum Effort to Determine True Business Costs

minimum wage

When people enter the job market, there’s a tacit expectation that their wage will increase over time. Whether it’s a one-off bonus, a promotion or a new job with a nice salary bump, people want to leave the office with a paycheck they feel values their work and time.

Enter the minimum wage debate, which has taken center stage across the country. The hikes are long overdue. In the United States the minimum wage is more than 25 percent below its peak in 1968, and a federal wage hike to $12 an hour by 2020 from the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour would lift wages for 35 million American workers.

Yet the naysayers have their own supporting data, claiming that the wage hikes would destroy jobs because of increased labor costs, and existing employees would be forced to work harder and longer. Several Republican presidential candidates have rejected calls for a $15 per hour minimum wage, while the Obama administration continues its attempts to push its minimum wage proposal forward.

The truth is, no matter what side of the fence you’re on, it’s easy to find data to support your argument — and the reality is not as clear-cut or generic as many pundits would have you believe.

Sweeping generalizations won’t help businesses strike the right balance in managing employee morale, productivity, customer satisfaction and business growth. Rather, what the minimum wage debate has illustrated is the imbalance that exists in businesses today in juggling these four interconnected factors. The food services industry has the highest turnover rate compared with other sectors, with over 100 percent churn annually. This has a palpable effect on how a business hires workers, retains talent and achieves a competitive advantage. The greater the imbalance, the greater effect there is on the business.

Instead of focusing on wages per se, businesses must establish the right mix of talent, costs and technologies to support their goals. Sure, the immediate reaction with the minimum wage debate is to cut employee hours or lay off staff, but businesses should first exhaust all options of finding ways to increase employee productivity. Are there areas where people are spending too much time on highly labor-intensive administrative tasks or other inefficiencies? For example, is the human resources department focusing most of its time in processing manual documents rather than using that time more effectively in driving strategies in hiring, training and retention?

Senior management must identify the right pool of talent and skills for the business — including part-time or full-time employees, remote or office-based staff or independent contractors. With the payroll process accounting for more than 50 percent of operating expenses in businesses, paying employees is one of the biggest costs to any organization – and high employee churn can add costs when you factor in interviewing candidates, hiring, training and reduced productivity costs. For entry-level employees, it costs between 30 and 50 percent of their annual salaries to replace them, while for high-level or highly specialized employees the estimate is closer to 400 percent. Reducing hours and staff also has the potential consequence of affecting employee morale — and raises a yellow flag for retention.

Secondly, an analysis of operating expenses is crucial. For example, in the professional services industry, data need to be entered quickly and accurately to invoice clients on time and minimize revenue leakage from potentially missing hours in time sheets, lost transactions and inaccurate billing. Lengthy cycle times in processing invoices increases the chances of missed revenue, and the more disparate the information, the higher the chances of error.

Thirdly, businesses should consider investing in technology. It’s the age-old dilemma to drive business growth — balancing investments while improving costs. Here’s where it makes sense to investigate automated technologies to drive profitability and productivity gains.

While the minimum wage debate continues across the country, pay is only one piece of a bigger jigsaw puzzle. Companies might not have the final say on the increase in wages and when they will be enforced, but they can be on the front foot by looking at how they can cultivate their resources to forge their own path to success.

Raj Narayanaswamy is the co-founder and co-CEO of time and workforce management software company Replicon Inc. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Workforce on Twitter at @workforcenews.

Posted on April 20, 2015June 19, 2018

Paying the Boss: Compensation Rises — as Does Performance Expectations

As the 2015 proxy season nears, a new survey of executive compensation hints that the C-suite has fared well in the past year.

The Association of Executive Search Consultants surveyed 900 members of its candidate database in October and November 2014 and found that 43 percent of the CEOs and 56 percent of other C-suite executives got base salary increases in 2014. Of CEOs whose compensation grew, almost one-quarter got raises of 16 percent or more.

The raises reflect a closer alignment between CEO compensation and company performance, said Julia Salem, senior marketing manager at the association. The U.S. market ended 2014 with solid gains. Executive pay has increased as profits have risen now that the economy has emerged fully from the recession, she said.

Few C-level executives saw their pay dip. The 2014 AESC’s “BlueSteps Executive Compensation Report” shows that 4 percent of CEOs and only 2 percent of other C-suite executives saw a decrease.

The average CEO compensation in AESC’s survey was $312,494.

The AESC cautions against using its data to predict what proxy filings will show. To be sure, AESC’s survey captures data from a diverse group of organizations. Its executives lead organizations with annual revenue from less than $5 million to more than $50 billion. Sixty-eight percent are privately held, 28 percent are public and 4 percent are nonprofit. The average CEO compensation in AESC’s survey was $312,494.

It is the latest report showing that CEO compensation has been surging.

At Standard & Poor’s 500 firms, the median total compensation for CEOs was $10.1 million in 2013, according to compensation-research firm Equilar Inc., up from $9.3 million in 2012. That’s more than $27,671 per day. Companies will disclose executive compensation for 2014 as they file proxy statements in the coming months.

Trends that have defined the makeup of executive compensation are expected to remain dominant in 2015, experts say.

CEO compensation continues to shift toward equity with performance hurdles, said Aaron Boyd, director of governance research at Equilar. Never before has as much of CEO compensation come from equity as it does now, Equilar data show.

“What I think you’re really starting to see now — because a lot of people have moved to performance in equity in the last several years — is a refinement of it,” Boyd said.

A decade into the trend, companies have gained a better sense of how to set reasonable-yet-challenging targets with effective metrics that serve investors.

Simultaneously, discretionary bonuses have fallen out of favor with shareholders.

“Positive discretion is one of those things we don’t see exercised very often,” Boyd said. “And when it is, it’s highly securitized.”

The trends have resulted in what compensation consultant Greg Arnold calls “homogenization” as companies comply with what Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass Lewis & Co., the nation’s two major proxy advisers, consider to be good pay programs.

“Homogenization doesn’t make sense for all companies and all circumstances,” said Arnold, a principal at Semler Brossy, an executive-compensation consulting firm. “The challenge for the [compensation] committee is to figure out when to go along with those things that are viewed as ‘best practice’ and when to deviate.”

Some compensation committees are beginning to question the reliance on what has emerged as the most popular gauge: total shareholder return.

“It’s not the silver bullet metric that solves every problem,” Boyd said.

A key shortfall: Total shareholder return tends to reward companies that are more volatile because they’ll rebound from lower performance and then outperform because of their low starting point,  Arnold said.

“These things started to get put in place at the beginning of Say on Pay,” Arnold said. “Now people are starting to see payouts on them and starting to realize maybe they’re not exactly what they thought they were.”

Public companies have been required to conduct Say on Pay votes since 2011. These nonbinding votes have largely ended gross-up payments to cover an outgoing CEO’s IRS bill, Arnold said, and checked absolute compensation growth.

“They’re at the top of everyone’s mind,” he said, “and they drive a lot of the plan design elements we’re seeing.”

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 … Page 19 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress