Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Archive

Posted on November 29, 2006July 10, 2018

Manufacturing Workers Find Home in Biotech

Tens of thousands of furniture and textile jobs in North Carolina have succumbed to international competition in recent years.


But putting together a chair or weaving fabric requires workers to perform highly mechanized tasks each day. Those habits can translate to a laboratory setting—and provide a potential path out of unemployment.


“Skilled workers are skilled workers,” says Russ Read, executive director of the National Center for the Biotechnology Workforce, located at Forsyth Technical Community College in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. “They’re able to cross-train and be effective in a biotech world.”


The center, established in 2004 by a grant from the Department of Labor, is aimed at transforming ex-manufacturing workers into biotechnology research assistants and technicians.


Demand for lab workers is projected to grow by 15 percent to 20 percent annually in the state, which is home to many pharmaceutical, research and diagnostic firms.


Students in the program earn a two-year associate’s degree in applied science in biotechnology. The students range in age from their early 20s to mid-60s. About 67 percent are female.


Classes include biology, chemistry, statistics, introduction to the Internet and technical specialty electives. Each semester, about 120 students start the program. So far, 50 have graduated.


Attrition doesn’t necessarily come in the form of students dropping out altogether. Often, they switch their focus to another health care field, like nursing.


But seeing through a midlife career change takes fortitude. One student entered the biotech program at 56, having been laid off by two electronics companies. After he earned his biotech degree, he went on to work at the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University.


“He was very courageous. He persevered,” says Bob Hall, project coordinator at the BioNetwork Pharmaceutical Center in Winston-Salem.


While students have to dig deep within themselves to remain employed in a shifting economy, communities in northwest North Carolina have to collaborate to build the kind of labor pool that will lure high-tech businesses.


In the Piedmont Triad, which encompasses the cities of Winston-Salem, High Point and Greensboro, business, education and government will work together as part of a three-year, $5 million annual federal grant for workforce innovation.


An implementation plan released in September calls for leaders of companies in four clusters—advanced manufacturing, creative enterprises and the arts, health care and logistics/distribution—to outline the skill sets that employees will need. They’re asked to describe how education and training providers throughout the region can deliver those skills.


“A lot of the goals are to break down institutional, geographic and political barriers,” says Don Kirkman, president of the Piedmont Triad Partnership. “We need to think and act regionally.”


Doing so produces results, he says. Dell Inc. announced in 2004 that it was going to build a plant in the region to manufacture computers and servers. Later, the company settled on the exact location—Winston-Salem—for the facility, which now employs 1,100 people, or 400 more jobs than were projected.


“They are a Piedmont Triad company, not just a Winston-Salem or Forsyth County company,” Kirkman says.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posted on November 28, 2006July 10, 2018

Supreme Court Wrestles With Pay Discrimination Time Frame

A pay discrimination case facing the U.S. Supreme Court may hinge on whether justices decide that a worker can sue an employer for many years of unfair wages—a cumulative-effect approach that would treat pay suits similarly to suits involving sexual harassment.


On November 27, the court heard a case involving Lilly Ledbetter, a former floor manager at a Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, Alabama. Ledbetter, who worked for Goodyear from 1979 to 1998, is suing the manufacturer for paying her substantially less than it paid men for performing the same work.


Ledbetter filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 25, 1998. Alleging that the discriminatory practices dated to the beginning of her tenure, she sought a ruling against the company for pay disparity that had accumulated over decades.


Such a time frame is far beyond the 180-day statute of limitations for a Title VII case. Goodyear argued that it should not be liable for any pay discrimination unless it occurs within the statute window.


A trial jury sided with Ledbetter, who was eventually awarded $360,000. But the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta overturned the verdict, citing the 180-day limitation.


The way the Supreme Court rules on the case may come down to whether pay discrimination can be assessed over a number of years, in much the same way a judgment can be made about a negative work atmosphere that fosters sexual harassment.


“Do you put it in the box with the hostile environment that builds up over time, and as long as the environment is hostile at the time you bring your complaint, then it doesn’t matter that it started 20 years ago?” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “This notion of one year [a raise is] 2 percent, and the other person got 3 percent, you don’t really have an effective claim unless it builds up to the point where there is noticeable disparity.”


Justice Samuel Alito asked Ledbetter attorney Kevin Russell whether it was necessary to show that a company intended to discriminate when a paycheck was issued during the 180-day EEOC charge period.


“No,” Russell said. “The execution of a prior discriminatory decision constitutes a present violation of Title VII.” Russell said companies are responsible for knowing whether they have been giving disparate pay based on an employee’s sex.


The attorney representing Goodyear argued that courts have ruled a claim of intentional discrimination is limited to a 180-day time frame in which a case is filed.


“No one at Goodyear took Miss Ledbetter’s sex into account during the charge filing period in deciding what to pay her,” said Glen Nager, Goodyear’s counsel. “What Goodyear did was it said, ‘We are looking at the pay rate contained in our payroll system and applying those rates as they are mandated for all our employees, male or female.’ “


But Ledbetter says the payroll system was skewed against women—something she didn’t discover until she received a copy of Goodyear’s pay scales anonymously in the mail.


“I’m very disappointed a large company would do this,” she told reporters after the oral argument. “I didn’t have any idea I was getting paid so much less. Once [pay] gets out of line, you can never get it back in line, which I learned much too late.”


An employment lawyer says companies must keep payroll records for one year or so, depending on the statute. If plaintiffs can reach back decades to make pay discrimination claims, it would put the company at a disadvantage in gathering evidence and witnesses to defend itself.


“The rationale and documentation behind those decisions may be long gone,” says Debra Friedman, an attorney with Cozen O’Connor in Philadelphia. “Employers are in a position of having to defend against stale claims.”


If the lawsuit clock can be turned back to when an original discriminatory decision was made, long before the 180-day limitation, companies might face big costs.


“It could open the floodgates for long-term employees to bring pay claims,” Friedman says.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Posted on November 24, 2006July 10, 2018

Nissan Filling Up on Talent in Tennessee

It’s been three months since Nissan North America moved its headquarters from Southern California to central Tennessee. Despite losing more than half of the 1,300 employees from its Gardena, California, facility, the automaker says it has now filled the 1,000 open positions that it had.


In November 2005, Nissan announced it was relocating to Tennessee to take advantage of lower taxes and cheaper real estate. The automaker established a temporary headquarters in Nashville as it builds a permanent home 15 miles south in Franklin, Tennessee, that is scheduled to open in summer 2008.


The company has not been hindered by the loss of talent resulting from the move, says James Morton, vice chairman of Nissan North America. Fifty-eight percent of the 1,300 employees didn’t relocate, including 20 percent of its management. Nissan has recruited aggressively across the country, particularly in the Detroit area.


“Last I heard, we had about 50,000 résumés,” Morton says.


The company also realized several workforce-related benefits from the relocation, Morton says. Once it settles into its Franklin headquarters, Nissan’s financial, marketing, product planning and engineering staffs will be less than an hour away from the company’s manufacturing headquarters in Smyrna, Tennessee, where it has 6,500 workers.


“People are now in the same time zone and able to meet face to face easily,” Morton says. “It’s easier to bring people together now.”


Nissan hopes that having its employees in closer proximity to one another will facilitate faster decision-making and help the company stay ahead of its competitors, Morton says.


But losing so much Southern California talent is likely affecting Nissan’s sales, says Arthur Wheaton, a workplace and industry education specialist at Cornell University.


“As much as the auto manufacturers want to make it about the car and the mechanics, this is really a people business,” he says. “Those people in sales and marketing were their biggest link to the dealerships. Losing a lot of those connections has to be hurting sales.”


In September, Nissan North America reported sales of 88,340 vehicles, a decrease of 9.2 percent from the prior year.


Morton concedes that the company lost good people, but recruiting has been a top focus at Nissan.


“I am very pleased with the hires we have made,” he says. “This is one area where we felt we did a very good job.” The company has filled all key management positions, he says.


Even if Nissan has some short-term struggles while rebuilding its staff, the company will realize the benefits through cost savings in the long term, says Jim Hossack, a consultant at Auto­Pacific, a research and consulting firm in Southern California.


“They are going to be short on people for a bit,” he says. “But Detroit is long on people and they will be able to bring in some great folks.”


—Jessica Marquez

Posted on November 22, 2006July 10, 2018

Report Savings From Offshoring HR Processes Will Create Demand

Fortune 500 companies that move a number of their HR processes offshore can save $15.6 million annually, according to a recent report by Atlanta-based consulting firm the Hackett Group.


“116 Million Reasons Why the World Is Flat,” a report based on Hackett’s analysis of HR and other processes at a number of Fortune 500 companies, also finds that a Fortune 500 company can cut its HR staff by 44 percent through offshoring various HR processes.


These findings should serve as a wake-up call to HR executives, says Michel Janssen, managing director at Hackett. HR executives need to get in front of the trend before their CFOs start the process ahead of them, he says.


Those HR processes that offer the largest return-on-investment opportunities for employers include typical high-volume activities like data management, reporting and compliance, total rewards administration and payroll administration.


“This is where there are opportunities for labor arbitrage because these processes are people-intensive,” says Rick Bertheaud, a client executive at EquaTerra, a Houston-based sourcing advisor.


Despite the opportunity for cost savings, organizations have been slower to migrate HR processes offshore than they have been with outsourcing other activities like information technology and procurement, Janssen says.


“We do expect a large number of HR functions to move offshore, but it’s just going to be slower than other functions because of the additional complexities,” Janssen says. HR tends to be more involved with employees than IT or procurement, so offshoring these activities can be more complex.


Hackett anticipates that more companies will start moving their HR processes offshore along with other activities, like IT or finance and accounting, says Steve Joyce, HR practice leader at Hackett.


“HR by itself can’t justify moving offshore, so I think you will see it trailing and being combined with other areas,” he says. “This is an opportunity and you have to invest in it.”


Executives need to evaluate their organizations and see how they can rationalize processes before deciding whether to offshore them. And while companies shouldn’t just jump into offshoring, they do need to start doing such analysis sooner or later, Janssen says.


“Chief financial officers are adopting offshoring as a corporate-wide initiative,” Janssen says. “They may be starting out with other areas, but HR executives should use this time to prepare for it.”


—Jessica Marquez

Posted on November 22, 2006July 10, 2018

School District Goes Extra Mile to Disclose Fees

Disclosing retirement plan fees to employees is a Catch-22 for most organizations. On one hand, there is pressure for more disclosure, given an increasing level of regulatory scrutiny and litigation surrounding fees that retirement plan participants pay. On the other hand, disclosing fees to employees might be more confusing than illuminating, experts say.


Revenue-sharing fees in particular have been a source of much controversy. These fees, which are paid by investment managers in retirement plans to the plans’ administrators, often end up being passed through to employees. Despite this, plan providers are not required by law to disclose these fees to participants.


But one organization, the Los Angeles Unified School District, is taking extra measures to disclose such fees to its 110,000 employees.


Specifically, the school district is having its provider, American International Group, list the revenue-sharing fees for each of the funds in its new retirement plan to employees in every communications piece they receive.


Los Angeles Unified has suffered the consequences of failing to disclose fees in the past, says David Holmquist, chief risk officer with the district.


The problem began with a 403(b) plan that the district had in place, a retirement savings vehicle for public entities similar to a 401(k). A few years ago, employees were outraged when many of them realized that they couldn’t withdraw money from that plan—which invested in annuities—without paying high withdrawal fees, he says.


Unlike 401(k) plans, in which employers act as fiduciaries and are legally responsible for understanding fees, employers who offer 403(b) plans are not, and so the district couldn’t intervene, Holmquist says. “The only thing we offered was the payroll deduction service,” he says.


This year, however, the school district has launched a 457 plan—the public-entity equivalent of a 401(k). And that puts the fiduciary responsibilities in the hands of the employer. In this role, Los Angeles Unified wants to take extra care to make sure its teachers understand the fees they are paying.


“We want to protect our employees,” Holmquist says.


But some experts aren’t sure that disclosing these fees will help participants.


“We are concerned about that level of disclosure,” says David Wray, president of the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America. “If employees are in a voluntary plan where they have to decide to save, we find that they are less likely to do so if they get complicated and intimidating information,” he says.


Holmquist says the school district is making a concerted effort to educate employees on the fees. “We have 20 marketing reps from AIG dedicated to our account who are explaining this individually to employees,” he says. Additionally, the district is offering workshops to employees and has online tools on its Web site.


“I fully expect to have some people confused about what these fees are and how it affects them,” Holmquist says. “But we felt the right thing to do was to encourage employees to get more educated and, as a result, make better informed decisions.”


—Jessica Marquez

Posted on November 21, 2006July 10, 2018

Yahoo, Newspapers Ink Historic Job Board Pact

Yahoo Inc. and a consortium of seven national publishing giants are forging one of the largest multimedia partnerships in history, allowing classified advertisements to be distributed online and across 38 states through a network of 176 newspapers.


The deal, which takes effect immediately, gives job board giant Yahoo HotJobs a much-needed shot in the arm and cements a trend in inter-media alliances between job boards and newspapers.


“The partnership takes a No. 3 player and brings it into back into contention,” says Peter Zollman, founding principal of consulting firm Classified Intelligence.


Under the agreement announced Monday, November 20, HotJobs will power co-branded career sites for print partners Hearst Newspapers, Belo Corp., Cox Newspapers Inc., Journal Register Co., Lee Enterprises Inc., MediaNews Group and E.W. Scripps Co.


Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and both the publishers and Yahoo were vague on financial projections.


HotJobs expects that combining its job listings with those of its print partners will enable it to secure leading market positions in 20 of the country’s top 25 markets, according to Daniel Finnigan, senior vice president at the job board. The publishing companies dominate several of the nation’s largest markets, including Dallas, St. Louis, Atlanta, Salt Lake City, Houston and San Francisco, and will compete in others with rival job boards CareerBuilder and Monster.


Most industry experts contend that HotJobs will finally gain momentum from the deal. The job board has had a difficult time benefiting from the synergies it attained when Yahoo purchased the company in 2002. In spite of Yahoo’s tremendous Web audience, HotJobs had been a distant third in the job board industry. According to Corzen, a New York City-based statistical data provider in the recruitment industry, CareerBuilder has a market share of 39 percent, Monster has 37 percent and HotJobs has 25 percent.


Market share, while important, is only one measure of success, Zollman says. Creating a competitive advantage for HotJobs will depend on other factors, such as recruitment results.


“Producing results for advertisers is what’s important,” he says. “If a recruiter is not satisfied with an outcome, he simply won’t return to the job board.”


The partnership is expected to shake things up not only in the job board industry, but also in publishing.


“This is a turning point for the newspaper industry,” says Dean Singleton, CEO of MediaNews Group.


The publishers will be able to tap new, younger audiences and generate fresh revenues by gaining access to Yahoo, which draws 130 million unique visitors each month.


Several members of the consortium admit having explored similar partnerships with other job sites, including CareerBuilder and Monster, before settling on HotJobs, whose key advantage is being part of Yahoo, a multipurpose Web portal that attracts visitors for various reasons. CareerBuilder and Monster are exclusively job board search engines.


“The world is changing rapidly,” Singleton says. “Yahoo has better technology and a better platform that will allow us to keep up with the pace.”


For its part, HotJobs will be able to personalize its international brand and attain local reach through the partnership. Furthermore, it will benefit financially since the local sales forces of the newspapers will begin selling ads for the job board, Zollman says. Many of the newspapers involved in the partnership are local leaders in recruitment advertising, including The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, he explains.


Both Yahoo and its partners believe the consortium will expand beyond the seven founding print partners.


“I know of many newspapers that have expressed interest in joining the group,” Singleton says.


It could spell trouble for CareerBuilder, which has built its business through strategic partnerships with newspapers. CareerBuilder has a network of some 190 print partners. The company’s print allies are derived from newspapers owned by founding partners Gannett and the Tribune Co., as well as McClatchy, which gained a 15 percent stake in the company in the summer.


“We expect to maintain our leadership position in top markets nationwide,” says Jennifer Sullivan, a spokeswoman for CareerBuilder. The job board has been pursuing a strategy of diversification. This month the company announced a strategic partnership with Lycos Canada, one of the country’s most popular online sites. In addition, the company joined forces with India’s largest Web site, Naukri.com, in September.


—Gina Ruiz


Posted on November 21, 2006July 10, 2018

All You Need to Know About Overtime Exemptions You Can Learn From TV

It comes as a big surprise to many employers when they learn that they are not entirely free to decide which of their employees should be paid set salaries and which should receive wages and overtime. Those decisions are governed by complicated laws that hinge on the details of each individual employee.


    The best way to explain the rules is by pointing to specific employees and then describing exactly what about their jobs requires them to be paid salary or overtime. The problem is common frames of reference: Where can you find employees who will be known and recognized beyond their own provincial workplaces?


    The answer, of course, is television. Homer Simpson, MacGyver, Dwight Schrute (the weird guy from NBC’s The Office) and other TV characters are better teachers of overtime exemption rules than most wage-and-hour attorneys.


Exempt versus nonexempt: the basics
    Under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and some state laws, employees are presumed to be entitled to premium pay for overtime hours they work. These laws exist primarily to prevent unscrupulous employers from working employees excessively for nominal pay.


    However, the FLSA and applicable state laws all contain exemptions by which certain kinds of employees are not required to be paid overtime and can instead be paid set salaries regardless how much time they work. These employees are referred to as “exempt” (as in exempt from overtime requirements), whereas employees who must be paid overtime are “nonexempt.”


    There are dozens of different exemptions, many of which are of limited use to most employers. For example, employees who process maple syrup have their own special exemption, as do lumberjacks, fishermen and sheepherders. The exemptions that are most commonly used are for white-collar employees.


    Employers generally try to extend exemptions to as many employees as possible in order to fix labor costs and reduce administrative burdens, such as tracking employee work time. Many employees, however, like to remain nonexempt in order to collect overtime. And others view salaried jobs as more prestigious than wage positions.


    Exemption rules are based on theoretical employee archetypes that sometimes do not fit with modern workplaces. Employers try to match their employees as closely as possible to one or more of the archetypes (employees can be subject to multiple different exemptions).


    But when the fits are not perfect, which is almost always, employers are forced to make judgment calls about whether employees who are “on the bubble” should be characterized as exempt or nonexempt.


    Making the wrong decision can be costly. If an employee is improperly characterized as exempt and then works long hours, the employee can later sue the employer for the overtime she should have been paid, plus fees and various penalties. If numerous employees have been misclassified, they can bring class actions that can easily result in multiple thousands (if not millions) of dollars in liability.


    It is critical to understand the employee archetypes upon which the white-collar exemption rules are based. And since archetypes can only be understood so much in the abstract, it is often helpful (and certainly a lot of fun) way to explain them using identifiable characters from TV, movies and other media to illustrate which kinds of employees are exempt, which are not exempt and which are on the bubble–and why.


Specific exemptions
    There are three white-collar exemptions: the executive, the administrative and the professional. To qualify for any of the white-collar exemptions in California, employees must receive a minimum amount of compensation (at least double the minimum wage for a 40-hour workweek); they must also spend more than 50 percent of their work time performing “exempt” job duties. Whether an employee’s job duties qualify as exempt depends on the specific exemptions to which the employee is subject.


The executive exemption–general rules and pitfalls
    The executive exemption is intended for mid- to high-level managers and supervisors. Duties that qualify for the executive exemption include:


  • Actively managing a recognized department or subdivision consisting of at least two direct reports (or the equivalent thereof).


  • Having authority to hire and fire employees, or having enough authority to make recommendations about hiring and firing that are given particular weight.


  • Customarily and regularly exercising independent judgment and discretion in the execution of job duties.


    Problems occur with the executive exemption when employees are managers in name only and lack any real authority over personnel or departments, and when executives wear multiple hats and do not spend a sufficient amount of time actually managing other employees.


Executive characters: exempt
    Gruff newsman Lou Grant of The Mary Tyler Moore Show is arguably the best example of an exempt manager because that is all you ever saw him doing: managing the plucky reporters of WJM-TV in Minneapolis. He was the quintessential boss, his authority absolute and unquestioned. He also never got his hands dirty doing day-to-day chores that he had employees to take care of, meaning that he was never in danger of spending less than half his time managing.


    Honorable mention: Lt. Anita Van Buren (Law & Order), Michael Scott (The Office) and Charles Townsend (Charlie from Charlie’s Angels).


Executive characters: not exempt
    Two words can summarize why Dwight Schrute, the workplace suck-up on the U.S. version of The Office, would not be an exempt executive: “to the,” as in he is the assistant to the regional manager, instead of the assistant regional manager (as he likes to tell his co-workers). Schrute has no direct reports and no authority to hire, fire or discipline other employees, as he was pointedly told when he requested “emergency power” to fire a co-worker when he was left in charge of the office for an afternoon. He also spends the vast majority of his work time selling Dunder Mifflin paper products, rather than managing.


    Honorable mention: Gareth Keenan (Schrute’s counterpart on the U.K. version of The Office); Michael Brown, former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Not a fictional character, but he listed a former position with Edmond, Oklahoma, as “assistant city manager,” rather than assistant to the city manager, which was reportedly more accurate).


Executive characters: on the bubble
    Assuming that employees on the U.S.S. Enterprise would be governed by California’s wage-and-hour law, rather than interplanetary rules, Capt. James T. Kirk might not have qualified for the executive exemption because of the excessive amount of time he spent beaming down to planet surfaces.


    While having sexy and exciting adventures on unknown worlds may make for great TV, it probably would not qualify as exempt supervision work, which means that Kirk may have been in danger of spending less than 50 percent of his work time actually managing his subordinates.


    Honorable mention: Archie Bunker, of Archie Bunker’s Place, because of the time he spent tending bar rather than managing his employees. (This article assumes that all the characters mentioned were employees of their respective businesses, rather than owners. Federal rules have provisions that exempt equity owners under certain circumstances. As a practical matter, most owners also would not challenge their exemption status.)


Administrative exemption–general rules and pitfalls
    The administrative exemption is both the most confusing of the white-collar exemptions, and the most utilized. When other, more specific exemptions cannot apply (e.g., no executive exemption because an employee has no direct reports), employers often turn to the administrative exemption as a last resort.


    The administrative exemption is intended for mid- to high-level support employees such as buyers, marketing employees, human resources professionals, assistants to high-ranking executives, and anyone else who provides the multiple ancillary services needed to make a business run. As with all the white-collar exemptions, administrative employees must receive a minimum salary and they must spend more than 50 percent of their time performing exempt job duties. Duties that qualify for the administrative exemption include:


    Performing office or non-manual work directly related to management policies or general business operation of either the employer or the employer’s clients/customers.


  • Customarily and regularly exercising discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.


  • Regularly and directly assisting an exempt executive or administrative employee.


  • Performing work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience or knowledge.


  • Performing special assignments and tasks under only general supervision.


    The administrative exemption is unique among the white-collar exemptions in that it is subject to the so-called “production exception,” a carve-out that is more ambiguous and confusing than the exception itself.


    According to the production exception, employees who are directly involved with the creation or provision of the employer’s final product or service cannot qualify as administrative employees. For example, if an employer’s end product is technical troubleshooting, no one directly involved with the provision of that service can qualify as administratively exempt, even if they meet all of the other criteria listed above.


    The production exception is perhaps the biggest pitfall of the administrative exemption. Other problems occur when employees perform manual work as part of their jobs, or when low- to mid-level employees are not given sufficient discretion and authority over matters of significant importance.


Whether and to what extent employees have “discretion and authority” generally depends on the diversity of the problems they encounter (expansive or cookie cutter?), the diversity of the options they must consider to solve the problems, and whether they have enough autonomy to decide on a course of action themselves.


Administrative characters: exempt
    George Costanza of Seinfeld: As assistant to the traveling secretary of the New York Yankees, George Costanza likely qualified for the administrative exemption—not that there’s anything wrong with that. He performed non-manual desk duty, he regularly and directly assisted an exempt executive employee (the traveling secretary himself, Mr. Wilhelm), and he had nothing to do with the Yankees’ end product, playing baseball. Hence he was not in danger of falling into the production exception.


    It is debatable whether he had discretion and authority over matters of significant importance, since the most important thing he ever seemed to do was decide what hotels the Yankees would stay in when they were on the road. However, he was able to unilaterally decide that the Yankees should switch to all-cotton uniforms (which ultimately shrank in the rain), so he likely had sufficient authority to qualify.


    Honorable mentions: Winston Wolf, Pulp Fiction (a “problem solver” who helps dispose of dead bodies, Harvey Keitel’s Wolf is a perfect example of someone who performs special assignments under only general supervision).


    Waylon Smithers, The Simpsons (in his tireless service to his beloved Mr. Burns, Smithers illustrates a maxim about assistants: the more high-ranking the executives they assist and the more duties those executives delegate to them, the more likely they will be deemed exempt). Julie McCoy, Love Boat (the Pacific Princess’ cruise director likely had sufficient discretion and authority over ancillary matters of significant importance, but may have come close to falling into the production exception).


Administrative characters: not exempt
    Kelly, Sabrina and Jill of Charlie’s Angels are a good example of how the production exception can wreak havoc with administrative employees. They had all the qualifications that normally would qualify employees for the administrative exemption: They functioned independently, with little to no direct supervision (except occasionally from Bosley), and they handled life-and-death matters of undeniable importance.


    Other than the occasional karate fights they got into, their detective work also probably qualified as sufficiently non-manual for the exemption. The problem, however, is that they were directly involved in the end product of Charlie’s business, i.e., crime-stopping. Thus they fell squarely into the production exemption and were therefore not exempt.


    Honorable mentions: Homer Simpson, The Simpsons (federal regulations state that Homer’s job, safety inspector, should generally not qualify for the administrative exemption because it often requires knowledge and skills, not discretion and authority).


    Duane Schneider, One Day at a Time (the loveable handyman performs way too much manual work to qualify as administratively exempt, despite the fact that he appeared to have complete discretion and authority over how he did his job).


    Billy Campbell, Melrose Place (as an assistant to conniving Amanda Woodward at D&D Advertising, Billy was likely too low-level to have the requisite discretion and authority needed to be exempt).


Administrative characters on the bubble
    As the spy whose mind was the ultimate weapon, Angus MacGyver of MacGyver was the very embodiment of discretion and authority. Should he turn bubble gum into a grappling hook to escape a vat of acid? Or make a tube of Chapstick into a surface-to-air missile to bring down an escaping villain?


    As he proved time and again, MacGyver had almost limitless ways to deal with the equally diverse range of problems he encountered, and it was up to him alone to decide what to do. Although such creativity and autonomy normally would almost guarantee an exemption, MacGyver may have had the same problem as Charlie’s Angels. He may have been too close to providing his employer’s core service to qualify as administratively exempt.


    Honorable mention: Tattoo, Fantasy Island (definitely appeared to be the right-hand man to the Island’s apparent owner/manager, Mr. Rourke. However, it was never clear what he did besides announcing the arrival of “da plane, da plane”).


    Thomas Magnum, Magnum, P.I. (the only way Magnum would not have been subsumed by the production exception is if he worked for Robin Masters’ overall enterprise, rather than for a discrete private investigations company).


Professional exemptions
    There are three different professional exemptions: The learned professional, the creative professional and the computer professional.


Learned professionals: general rules and pitfalls
    The learned professional exemption is intended for employees who do work that requires advanced knowledge in science or learning that is generally acquired through a specialized degree.


    Employees who acquire comparable knowledge through other means, such as training and experience, can sometimes qualify for the exemption, but only in rare circumstances.


    In California, employees must work in one of eight specified fields to qualify for the learned professional exception: law, medicine, dentistry, optometry, architecture, engineering, teaching or accounting. They also must actually use their advanced knowledge to do their jobs; it is not sufficient simply to have a professional degree unrelated to the employee’s job duties.


    Problems occur with the learned professional exemption when employees do jobs that do not actually require their advanced degrees, such as a lawyer doing marketing work), or when jobs do not actually require advanced knowledge. As a general rule, the more employees in a job who do not have a specialized degree, the more likely it is that the job does not require advanced knowledge.


Learned professional characters: exempt
    There is a long list of characters who likely would qualify as exempt learned professionals: Cliff and Clair Huxtable, The Cosby Show (he as a doctor, she as an attorney); Doogie Howser, Doogie Howser, M.D. (there is no age requirement for the learned professional exemption); Elise Keaton, Family Ties (Meredith Baxter Birney’s character was an architect); and Ralph Hinkley, The Greatest American Hero (he was a teacher).


Learned professional characters: not exempt
   Conversely, there were several other characters who just as clearly appeared to not qualify for the exemption, including Elvin Tibideaux, the son-in-law on The Cosby Show who, upon graduating from medical school, decided to open up a wilderness store (he was not using his advanced medical knowledge to run his business); and Dr. Mark Sloan, Dick Van Dyke’s character from Diagnosis: Murder (trained as a doctor, but he worked on the show as a detective).


Learned professional characters: on the bubble
    Vivien Thomas, the real-life doctor who was the subject of the HBO movie Something the Lord Made, aptly illustrates how employees can be on the bubble with the learned professional exemption.


    Dr. Thomas spent the majority of his early career as a lab technician with no formal education or degrees in medicine. Through an extraordinary combination of innate ability and on-the-job training, Thomas acquired sufficient knowledge to eventually become a recognized pioneer in heart surgery. He was a doctor for all intents and purposes, but because he acquired his knowledge through means other than formalized education and degrees, his status under the learned professional exemption is uncertain.


    It is generally difficult to extend the exemption to people who have acquired their advanced knowledge through means other than education resulting in a formal degree (e.g., apprenticeships, vocational training, on-the-job training, etc.). However, it can be done in rare circumstances involving exceptional, truly one-in-a-million individuals such as Dr. Thomas.


Creative professionals: general rules and pitfalls
    The creative professional exemption is intended for employees whose jobs truly depend on creativity, imagination and talent, such as artists and writers. The work must be original and creative in character, meaning that exempt employees must have significant discretion and authority over the eventual expression of the work, rather than simply filling in the lines of, or parroting, work that was created by others.


    Problems arise under the creative professional exemption when employees have jobs that focus more on their non-creative attributes (e.g., diligence, accuracy, etc.), and when employees do not have sufficient creative control over their work. This can occur either when employees are using templates or existing work to copy or fill in, or when they are given such stringent guidelines that their work amounts to simple assemble of the elements of the guidelines, rather than true creation.


Creative professional characters: exempt
   There have been a healthy number of characters that probably would have qualified for the creative professional exemption: Henry Russo, Too Close for Comfort (Ted Knight’s character on the show was the classic creative professional because he drew “Cosmic Cow” cartoons for a living); Mary Jo Shivley, Designing Women (Annie Potts’ character was an interior designer); and Tom Bradford, Eight Is Enough (Dick Van Patten’s patriarch character was a newspaper columnist, a position which generally can qualify for the exemption because it involves creativity).


Creative professional characters: not exempt
   Likewise, there have been a good number of characters who likely would not have qualified: Clark Kent, Superman (Superman’s alter ego was a newspaper reporter, rather than a columnist; breaking news stories generally are not deemed to be sufficiently creative to qualify writers for the exemption); and Banky Edwards, Chasing Amy (in the hilarious opening scene of the movie, Jason Lee’s comic illustrator character shamefully admits to being a “tracer” of pictures drawn by Ben Affleck).


Creative professional characters: on the bubble
   Bubble cases typically involve low-level employees who may not have sufficient creative control to qualify. For example, Henry Desmond, Peter Scolari’s character from Bosom Buddies, was a junior copywriter. Whether he qualifies for the exemption depends on whether he was truly creating his own work, or just parroting work that someone else dictated to him.


Computer professionals: general rules and pitfalls
    The computer professional exemption is generally intended for employees who create sophisticated code, programs and other applications. In California, the exemption is also subject to a special compensation requirement mandating that employees must be paid at least $44.63 per hour to qualify. The high compensation requirement is the single most common pitfall to the computer professional exemption in California.


Computer professional characters: a short list in media
    There is a surprising dearth of computer nerd characters who would qualify for the exemption. Ryan Phillippe’s character from the 2001 movie Antitrust would probably qualify because he is a highly sought-after tech star (thus suggesting he was highly paid) who appeared to do nothing but write source code.


    Most of the techie characters who appear on TV and in movies, however, likely would not qualify because they are generally depicted as low- to mid-level drones—as in the movie Office Space—who probably make far less than $45 per hour. The tech support guy Jimmy Fallon played on Saturday Night Live also would not qualify because his job appeared to be technical troubleshooting, rather than actually writing code.

Posted on November 19, 2006July 10, 2018

Study Workers Are Disengaged but Staying Put

Meet the new American worker: less satisfied, less engaged, but no more likely to leave his job.


Those are the conclusions of a new study by human resources consulting firm Sibson that surveyed some 1,200 employed people in the United States. The report found satisfaction scores dropped for all major categories of work rewards, including compensation, benefits, and career development and advancement. Also tumbling was the level of engagement, defined as a combination of a worker’s understanding of company direction and his motivation to achieve corporate goals. Just over half of employees rated themselves as engaged or highly engaged.


Yet the percentage of workers planning to quit within a year remains at 16 percent, the same as it was three years ago. The results add up to the specter of workers who are “quitting on the job,” according to Sibson.


“Just because you don’t have a turn­over problem doesn’t mean you don’t have a problem,” says Jim Kochanski, who leads Sibson’s organization effectiveness practice.


The report comes amid reduced retirement and health care benefits, stagnant earnings for typical workers and fears of outsourcing. Meanwhile, cynicism toward corporations is fueled by massive executive pay packages along with scandals such as Hewlett-Packard’s spying project.


Some observers, though, see a surge of corporate interest in establishing a good reputation and building trust. Sibson asked about company reputation for the first time in its study this year. It found that 76 percent of respondents gave a favorable rating to their company’s reputation—a relatively high score, Kochanski says.


But other measures related to employees’ sense of affiliation to their employer were gloomier. The level of trust in management fell from 63 percent in 2003 to 56 percent this year. Just 53 percent of employees gave favorable ratings to their organization on the question of its fairness in decisions.


The career category—which refers to long-term opportunities for development and advancement in the organization—showed the greatest dip, with favorable ratings in this area falling from 71 percent in 2003 to 53 percent this year. Satisfaction with the level of training plunged to 47 percent from 70 percent three years ago. And career satisfaction dropped from 61 percent in 2003 to 41 percent.


Americans’ growing unhappiness with compensation has something to do with pent-up demand for salary increases, says Bill Coleman, senior vice president of compensation at research and software firm Salary.com. He also attributes the frustration to a switch to pay for performance, where workers may get a bonus but often don’t see their paychecks rise much, if at all.


“It doesn’t feel like you’re getting as much money,” he says.


Karen Noble, senior consultant at HR advisory firm WFD Consulting, says employees aren’t leaving discouraging situations because they’re too busy working to seek a new position. “It’s a full-time job, as we all know, to find a job,” she says.


Among the steps organizations can take to avoid workplaces full of detached zombies, Kochanski says, is designing jobs that increase employees’ decision-making responsibilities. “Work content is very important both for motivation and retention,” he says.


—Ed Frauenheim

Posted on November 17, 2006July 10, 2018

HHS Secretary Urges Companies to Adopt Cost, Quality Criteria

A Bush administration official wants to see 60 percent of U.S. employers incorporate comparable cost and quality criteria into their requests for proposals when they start to shop for health care providers next spring, a number that an HR executive acknowledged is a “high bar.”


Speaking to employers in Washington, D.C., on Friday, November 17, Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael Leavitt outlined four “cornerstone” goals for improving quality and lowering costs in the U.S. health care system: putting medical records in a nationwide electronic system, establishing health care quality and cost measures, and providing incentives for companies to select care at the lowest prices.


Leavitt is leading a nationwide outreach by the federal government to encourage employers to sign a statement supporting those goals, which were first outlined in an executive order signed by President Bush this summer.


“There is an imperative for action–an imperative morally and an imperative economically,” Leavitt says. He will visit many of the largest 200 companies in the U.S. to make his pitch over the next six months.


The executive order stated that federal agencies, including the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, as well as Medicare and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, would meet the goals when they purchase health care. These groups represent about 40 percent of the market.


The centerpiece of the Washington conference, titled “Implementing Health Care Transparency: A National Summit for Employers on the President’s Executive Order,” was a health care “tool kit” that included the statement of intent and a model request for proposal that employers can use when buying health care. (Both can be downloaded here.)


The conference, hastily organized by the Business Roundtable at Leavitt’s request, was designed to bring together dozens of companies and business groups to show support for the initiative.


Many corporations are embracing the notion of lowering their health care bills by improving information related to costs and quality, but it’s not clear that 60 percent of them will sign on by the spring.


“It’s a significant objective, and it will not be easy to achieve,” says Jerome Carter, senior vice president for human resources at International Paper Co. “He set the bar pretty high.”


After Leavitt’s speech, Carter announced that the HR Policy Association is going to send a letter to chief human resource officers at companies throughout the country urging them to adopt the four goals set out in Bush’s executive order. The letter was signed by executives at Textron, IBM, General Electric, Ball Corp., Caterpillar, Rolls-Royce North America, Lowe’s Companies Inc., McDonald’s, Boeing, Honeywell and Northwestern Mutual.


Carter asserts that companies must coalesce around a uniform and consistent approach to cost and quality transparency. For now, they are approaching those goals on their own.


“We can do a little bit of good [individually], but we can’t turn the tide,” Carter says. “We can do it faster and better if we work together.”


Leavitt acknowledged that setting quality and price standards requires collaboration that can be undermined by competing agendas from companies, insurers and health care providers.


Companies, which are feeling extraordinary health care cost pressure, want to start using quality measures immediately, even if they’re imperfect. Doctors, on the other hand, want to make sure that the ratings are fair and accurate, a difficult objective given the plethora of ways to make that determination.


“That’s a healthy tension,” Leavitt says.


Over the next five to 10 years, Leavitt’s goal is to change the health care system into one in which “value” is the focus.


“Competition today is based on brand,” he says.


Part of the tension is a result of time. Leavitt has two years left to fulfill his goal of reforming the way health care is paid. He says he will spend a good amount of time in 2007 traveling the country to promote the executive order and the need for employers to lead the change.


—Mark Schoeff Jr. and Jeremy Smerd

Posted on November 17, 2006July 10, 2018

Kennedy Takes Reins of Senate Labor Committee

Vowing to make progress on what he calls issues that American families care about most, Sen. Edward Kennedy will lead efforts next year to raise the minimum wage, extend paid sick leave to every American worker and facilitate unionization.


Over a longer timeline, Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, will work on a broad health care measure that would expand Medicare to cover the uninsured.


In a meeting Thursday, November 16, with reporters on Capitol Hill, Kennedy outlined his agenda for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, a panel that he will chair beginning in January thanks to the Democratic takeover of the Senate.


The top priority for Kennedy and the Democratic majority in the House is to increase the minimum wage. Kennedy is set to reintroduce a bill in January that would boost the rate to $7.25 from $5.15. With House Democrats putting the issue at the top of their “100 Hour” agenda, it’s likely that legislation will move quickly.


Although raising the minimum wage has garnered some Republican support on Capitol Hill, it’s unclear whether President Bush would sign such a measure.


Kennedy also is promoting the Healthy Families Act, which would guarantee workers seven paid sick days for their own illness or to tend to a family member. The law would apply to companies with 15 or more employees.


A measure that would make it easier for unions to organize a workplace likely will gain significant momentum in the Democratic Congress. Kennedy is advocating the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would compel the National Labor Relations Board to recognize a union if a majority of employees authorize collective bargaining by signing cards.


The bill is a high priority for labor, which asserts that the so-called card-check method to organize protects workers from employer intimidation. But corporate advocates argue that all union votes should be done by secret ballot because employees are subject to union intimidation under the card-check system.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and seven other business organizations sent a letter to Congress on November 16 criticizing card-check authorization, citing the fact that U.S. elections and congressional leadership votes are conducted by secret ballot.


“American workers should have this traditional, democratic protection when making decisions about their own work environment,” they wrote.


The card-check bill garnered more than 215 co-sponsors in the House this year and is the subject of a grass-roots labor campaign. Kennedy says that the Employee Free Choice Act has “high approval ratings, almost as high as the minimum wage.”


Another bill Kennedy is advocating, the Protecting America’s Workers Act, would increase criminal penalties and fines for employers who willfully violate federal workplace safety rules.


Kennedy’s most ambitious proposal in the committee’s health portfolio is “Medicare for All.” Under the plan, the Medicare program would be extended in phases to all Americans under 65.


The goal would be to provide insurance to the approximately 46 million who lack it. Participants would choose among dozens of health plans in a system modeled after the one used by federal employees.


Kennedy’s office asserts that the plan would save $380 billion a year through better prevention and earlier treatment of disease and another $160 billion because of efficiency gains produced by improved health information technology.


A bill summary provided by Kennedy’s staff calls the plan “the starting point for discussions on achieving universal coverage.”


Critics are likely to balk at the costs. Kennedy did not indicate how the proposal would be funded, saying that his panel would have to work with the Senate Finance Committee.


But he ruled out increasing taxes on low-income people and the middle class. He says he would entertain hikes “for those who fall in the millionaire category.”


One of the top education priorities for Kennedy is to increase funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, a bill passed by Congress four years ago designed to raise K-12 education standards. He also wants to increase the amount of money offered to college students in Pell Grants, cap student loan payments and cut their interest rates.


Kennedy’s agenda addresses what he says are concerns voters expressed during the election about Washington ignoring their needs. “They want to know someone is on their side,” he says.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 204 Page 205 Page 206 … Page 591 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