Your Employee Matters

Life is short. There’s absolutely no reason why we can’t have fun while making money every day. What follows are 13 suggestions that you might want to employ at your company.

1. Set up a fun committee. Put some of the “funniest”� people at your organization in charge. Give them a budget maybe $10 per employee per week and see what they can do with it for a couple of months.
2. Have a community service day. Giving back to the community is fun. Whether you coordinate an event for the Boys and Girls Club, a homeless shelter, senior citizen home, a group cleanup project, etc, giving back on a group basis is even more fun.
3. Set a red noses day. Whether you wear red noses, Groucho glasses, or silly hats, it’s fun to have a day like that. You simply can’t take each other seriously when you do (I can hear the chorus now, “But I want to be taken seriously!”).
4. Ask for kids pictures. A number of companies have encouraged their employees’ children to produce pictures that they can hang up in a hallway. One company specifically created slot-like frames for 8.5″ x 11″� paper, which made it very easy for the parents and kids. You can’t stay in a funk very long walking past a bunch of pictures drawn by kids.
5. Bring in a magician. Let them walk around and do some magic tricks for your employees. Sure, they might be distracted for all of five minutes, but they’ll have fun doing it, which is exactly the point!
6. Hold theme days. Whether it’s Country/Western, 60s, 70s, or otherwise, it’s fun to not only dress up employees, but the environment as well. This goes great for St. Patrick’s Day, Fourth of July, Veterans Day, and of course, Halloween.
7. Require people to provide a joke with their resume. When one CEO told us about this, we thought it was a brilliant idea. He said reading resumes is one of the most boring things you can do. Requiring a joke certainly makes it more fun. Second, if people can’t follow instruction he won’t hire them. And third, you get an idea of what type of sense of humor they have.
8. Run a cartoon caption contest. Get a cartoon, blank out the caption, and then have a contest for your employees to fill in.
9. Hold food events. Eating with your friends and colleagues can be fun. Many companies will have food events around a holiday theme. Encourage people to bring a dish native to their heritage. We’ve tasted some of the best and most unusual food at these events.
10. Stage a murder mystery. A body was just found by the water cooler. Who did it? You can easily hire actors who perform these skits in the evening to come into your company and spend an hour or two some afternoon.
11. Throw a sundae party. Bring in a boatload of ice cream, nuts, and cherries and engage in some sugar overload. What could be more fun than that?
12. Have story day. Have folks share a humorous workplace story either at your company or a previous employer. Issue some basic guidelines, such as no obscenities and no ridiculing any current employees, to avoid offending them. Keep a time limit of, say, five minutes.
13. Get out and do something physical together. Whether it’s a ropes course, bowling, or miniature golf, it’s fun to engage in physical activity. Many companies also have softball, soccer, basketball teams, and the like as well.

There are dozens of other ways to have fun, limited only by your imagination!

My years as a litigation attorney provided me with excellent insight into failed business and employment relationships. Here are a few critical questions business owners, managers, and employees can ask themselves to make sure that their thinking is on the right path:

• Is it in the best interest of the team? There’s no substitute for playing with a win/win attitude. As they say, “A rising tide floats all boats.”� Putting the team first does not mean that you have to settle for mediocrity or that you decide simply on a consensus basis. Putting the team first means that you ask the critical question: “Is this in the best interest of the team (or company, nation, family, etc.)?”
• Will this increase or decrease the level of trust in the environment? I’ve never seen a failed relationship where the parties trusted each other. Trusting partners even dissolve their relationships in an amicable manner. To make a trustworthy decision means that you have the skills or critical thinking necessary to make this decision and that you do so with good intent. That’s what makes anybody trustworthy to me. They have the skills and desires I can trust.
• Is it in alignment with our vision, mission, and goals? Sometimes there can be a true conflict among these outcomes. For example, NASA wanted to launch its shuttles in both a timely and safe manner. When the goal of timeliness overwhelmed the goal of safety, it resulted in an ethical violation and lost lives. Because it’s very hard to know if you’re in alignment if you haven’t clearly identified your vision, mission, or goals, you might want to throw in values, commitments, and anything else on which you intend to focus.
• How has this approach worked for us or others in the past? There’s nothing much that’s new. Chances are, somebody has been in your position before and made a decision that either worked or did not. What method did they use? Can you copy it? Is the method you intend to use being modeled by anyone else with success, or failure?
• How does the approach feel? Often we make poor decisions because we’re running so fast that we can’t feel what’s going on. This is one reason why I often sleep on major decisions, perhaps even for a few days, before making a major decision. If after three or four days it still feels right, I’ll go for it. Unfortunately, when I forget this lesson, I end up paying the price.
• Is it legal? Are you sure or just guessing about it? What further research should you conduct?
• Should I get outside advice? There’s no substitute for professional help when making decisions. People rely on the Worklaw® Network and I try to answer their Hotline calls as part of the HR That Works program. Knock on wood, but from what I can tell, not a single one of these calls has turned out poorly for a client who followed the advice. It’s important to be able to get outside your own head when making critical decisions.

Conclusion: Follow these steps and you’ll avoid a variety of risk management problems.

Congress has extended the federal subsidy for COBRA Health insurance premiums for employees who are terminated involuntarily. The nine-month, 65% premium subsidy is extended by six months, to a total of 15 months.

The subsidy now is available to those who involuntarily lose their jobs through February 28, 2010. The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose initial nine-month COBRA premium subsidy has run out. In addition, the legislation gives beneficiaries whose subsidy ran out, and who did not pay the full premium, a second chance to opt for coverage. For example, a beneficiary whose nine months of subsidized coverage ran out November 30, and who did not pay the regular unsubsidized December 2009 premium, can pay the 35% premium share in January 2010 and receive coverage for December. The legislation requires employers to notify current COBRA beneficiaries and future beneficiaries of the new 15-month premium subsidy.

Here’s an important excerpt from a recent GAO report on OSHA audits that addresses concerns about disincentives for reporting injuries (Italics added):

“Occupational safety and health stakeholders we interviewed and occupational health practitioners we surveyed told us that primary factors affecting the accuracy of injury and illness data include disincentives that affect workers’ decisions to report work-related injuries and illnesses and employers’ decisions to record them. Stakeholders most often cited workers’ fear of job loss and other disciplinary actions as disincentives that can affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. Occupational health practitioners concurred: 67% reported observing worker fear of disciplinary action for reporting an injury or illness, and 46% said that this fear of disciplinary action has at least a minor impact on the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness records. Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions might be compounded by policies at some worksites that require workers to undergo mandatory drug testing following incidents resulting in reported injuries or illnesses, regardless of any evidence of drug use. Several labor representatives described mandatory drug testing policies as a disincentive that affects workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, and 67% of health practitioners reported they were aware of this practice at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008.

“Stakeholders also said employers’ safety incentive programs can serve as disincentives for workers reporting injuries and illnesses. These programs reward workers when their worksites have few recordable injuries or illnesses. One-half of the health practitioners who responded to our survey reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008. Safety incentive programs are designed to promote safe behavior by workers; and 72% of health practitioners reported that these programs motivate workers to work in a safe manner. However, some stakeholders said these programs could discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses; more than three-quarters of health practitioners said they believed workers sometimes avoid reporting work-related injuries and illnesses as a result. Stakeholders also said that in addition to missing the chance to win prizes for themselves, workers who report injuries and illnesses might risk ruining their coworkers’ chances of winning such prizes.

“Disincentives that discourage workers from reporting and employers from recording injuries and illnesses might also result in pressure on occupational health practitioners to treat workers in a manner that avoids the OSHA requirement to record injuries and illnesses. From our survey, we found that more than one-third of health practitioners were asked by company officials or workers to provide treatment that resulted in an injury or illness not being recorded, but also was not sufficient to treat the injury or illness properly. For example, in some cases, practitioners stated that employers might seek out alternative diagnoses if the initial diagnosis would result in a recordable injury or illness. One practitioner said that an injured worker’s manager took the worker to multiple providers until the manager found one who would certify that treatment of the injury required only first aid, which is not a recordable injury. More than half (53%) of the health practitioners reported that they experienced pressure from company officials to downplay injuries or illnesses, and 47% reported that they experienced this pressure from workers. Further, 44% of health practitioners stated that this pressure had at least a minor impact on whether injuries and illnesses were accurately recorded, and 15% reported it had a major impact. In some cases, this pressure might be related to the employers’ use of incentive programs. Of those experiencing pressure from workers, 61% reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers. In comparison, among the practitioners who reported not experiencing pressure from workers in 2008, 41% reported being aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers.

“Various disincentives might also discourage employers from recording workers’ injuries and illnesses. Stakeholders told us employers are concerned about the impact of higher injury and illness rates on their Workers Compensation costs. Several researchers and labor representatives said that because employers’ Workers Compensation premiums increase with higher injury and illness rates, employers might be reluctant to record injuries and illnesses. They also said businesses sometimes hire independent contractors to avoid the requirement to record workers’ injuries and illnesses because they are not required to record them for self-employed individuals. Stakeholders also told us employers might not record injuries and illnesses because having high injury and illness rates can affect their ability to compete for contracts for new work. The injury and illness rate for worksites in certain industries, such as construction, affects some employers’ competitiveness in bidding on the same work.

“An OSHA official told us that OSHA does not have an official policy on incentive programs or practices that might affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, but it has authority under the OSH Act to discourage inaccurate reporting by employers. The official stated that, under a planned National Emphasis Program, OSHA will explore the possible impact that incentive programs have on workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. To address disincentives that might affect employers’ decisions to accurately record injuries and illnesses, the official stated that OSHA can issue citations or fine employers when recordkeeping violations are found.”

Lessons to be learned:

• There are inherent pressures not to report injuries or to minimize their scope.
• Employees are afraid of losing jobs, receiving discipline, or being drug tested (even where drug use plays no part in causation).
• Safety programs designed to reduce injuries, lost time on the job, and insurance costs can create a disincentive for reporting injuries.
• These factors also affect managers and health care providers.
• OSHA will be more vigilant in exploring how employees might be reluctant to report injuries at the workplace.
• Keep these lessons in mind when designing and implementing injury-reporting systems.

Read the entire report here.

Congress has extended the federal subsidy for COBRA Health insurance premiums for employees who are terminated involuntarily. The nine-month, 65% premium subsidy is extended by six months, to a total of 15 months.

The subsidy now is available to those who involuntarily lose their jobs through February 28, 2010. The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose initial nine-month COBRA premium subsidy has run out. In addition, the legislation gives beneficiaries whose subsidy ran out, and who did not pay the full premium, a second chance to opt for coverage. For example, a beneficiary whose nine months of subsidized coverage ran out November 30, and who did not pay the regular unsubsidized December 2009 premium, can pay the 35% premium share in January 2010 and receive coverage for December. The legislation requires employers to notify current COBRA beneficiaries and future beneficiaries of the new 15-month premium subsidy.

Here’s an important excerpt from a recent GAO report on OSHA audits that addresses concerns about disincentives for reporting injuries (Italics added):

“Occupational safety and health stakeholders we interviewed and occupational health practitioners we surveyed told us that primary factors affecting the accuracy of injury and illness data include disincentives that affect workers’ decisions to report work-related injuries and illnesses and employers’ decisions to record them. Stakeholders most often cited workers’ fear of job loss and other disciplinary actions as disincentives that can affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. Occupational health practitioners concurred: 67% reported observing worker fear of disciplinary action for reporting an injury or illness, and 46% said that this fear of disciplinary action has at least a minor impact on the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness records. Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions might be compounded by policies at some worksites that require workers to undergo mandatory drug testing following incidents resulting in reported injuries or illnesses, regardless of any evidence of drug use. Several labor representatives described mandatory drug testing policies as a disincentive that affects workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, and 67% of health practitioners reported they were aware of this practice at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008.

“Stakeholders also said employers’ safety incentive programs can serve as disincentives for workers reporting injuries and illnesses. These programs reward workers when their worksites have few recordable injuries or illnesses. One-half of the health practitioners who responded to our survey reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008. Safety incentive programs are designed to promote safe behavior by workers; and 72% of health practitioners reported that these programs motivate workers to work in a safe manner. However, some stakeholders said these programs could discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses; more than three-quarters of health practitioners said they believed workers sometimes avoid reporting work-related injuries and illnesses as a result. Stakeholders also said that in addition to missing the chance to win prizes for themselves, workers who report injuries and illnesses might risk ruining their coworkers’ chances of winning such prizes.

“Disincentives that discourage workers from reporting and employers from recording injuries and illnesses might also result in pressure on occupational health practitioners to treat workers in a manner that avoids the OSHA requirement to record injuries and illnesses. From our survey, we found that more than one-third of health practitioners were asked by company officials or workers to provide treatment that resulted in an injury or illness not being recorded, but also was not sufficient to treat the injury or illness properly. For example, in some cases, practitioners stated that employers might seek out alternative diagnoses if the initial diagnosis would result in a recordable injury or illness. One practitioner said that an injured worker’s manager took the worker to multiple providers until the manager found one who would certify that treatment of the injury required only first aid, which is not a recordable injury. More than half (53%) of the health practitioners reported that they experienced pressure from company officials to downplay injuries or illnesses, and 47% reported that they experienced this pressure from workers. Further, 44% of health practitioners stated that this pressure had at least a minor impact on whether injuries and illnesses were accurately recorded, and 15% reported it had a major impact. In some cases, this pressure might be related to the employers’ use of incentive programs. Of those experiencing pressure from workers, 61% reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers. In comparison, among the practitioners who reported not experiencing pressure from workers in 2008, 41% reported being aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers.

“Various disincentives might also discourage employers from recording workers’ injuries and illnesses. Stakeholders told us employers are concerned about the impact of higher injury and illness rates on their Workers Compensation costs. Several researchers and labor representatives said that because employers’ Workers Compensation premiums increase with higher injury and illness rates, employers might be reluctant to record injuries and illnesses. They also said businesses sometimes hire independent contractors to avoid the requirement to record workers’ injuries and illnesses because they are not required to record them for self-employed individuals. Stakeholders also told us employers might not record injuries and illnesses because having high injury and illness rates can affect their ability to compete for contracts for new work. The injury and illness rate for worksites in certain industries, such as construction, affects some employers’ competitiveness in bidding on the same work.

“An OSHA official told us that OSHA does not have an official policy on incentive programs or practices that might affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, but it has authority under the OSH Act to discourage inaccurate reporting by employers. The official stated that, under a planned National Emphasis Program, OSHA will explore the possible impact that incentive programs have on workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. To address disincentives that might affect employers’ decisions to accurately record injuries and illnesses, the official stated that OSHA can issue citations or fine employers when recordkeeping violations are found.”

Lessons to be learned:

• There are inherent pressures not to report injuries or to minimize their scope.
• Employees are afraid of losing jobs, receiving discipline, or being drug tested (even where drug use plays no part in causation).
• Safety programs designed to reduce injuries, lost time on the job, and insurance costs can create a disincentive for reporting injuries.
• These factors also affect managers and health care providers.
• OSHA will be more vigilant in exploring how employees might be reluctant to report injuries at the workplace.
• Keep these lessons in mind when designing and implementing injury-reporting systems.

Read the entire report here.

Back in October 2009, Time magazine ran a special report on women. A number of the statistics in this report deserve a closer look:

• More women think that men resent women who have power than is the fact. Nearly seven in ten (69%) of the women surveyed felt that men resented women who have greater power than they have; in reality, only 49% of men did (yes, half the guys out there have difficulty with powerful women, but they’ll have no choice but to get over it).
• More than four in five (84%) respondents believe that businesses have not done enough to address the needs of modern families. Given that women are roughly half of the workforce, providing a family-friendly work environment can help to attract and retain employees. Job sharing, flexibility, more paid time off, and day care options are all factors women look for when entering the workforce.
• More men (60%) than women (50%) are convinced that there are no longer any barriers to women’s advancement in the workplace. You can only imagine which women are more successful; those who believe their success lies entirely in their own hands, or those who believe that somehow there remain barriers to their advancement. Of course, this might depend on the type of industry they’re in.
• Interestingly, more women felt that female bosses are harder to work for than male bosses (45% versus 29%) are. This raises the question: Do women feel they have to be tougher than men to be successful managers?
• Most women (84%) believe they are just as committed to their jobs as women who do not have children. Interestingly, more women disagree that it’s difficult for them to establish a warm and secure relationship with her children if they work than do men.
• More women (52%) than men (27%) believe that women bear the primary responsibility of taking care of sick or elderly parents. Many women are “sandwiched” between kids and parents.
• The most important issues for women in general are health (96%), self-sufficiency (85%), financial security (81%), and job fulfillment (72%).

What does this data mean for employers? Answer: If you want to attract women to your workforce, create the flexibility that allows them to take care of children and elderly parents, including more paid time off and better day care options.

Every year HR Executive publishes a list of the 50 highest paid HR executives. All of these people work for public companies and each of them earned more than $1.3 million, often including sizable bonuses.

Click here to view the list.

Here’s the point: HR professionals can be paid well, if they’re good at their job and take on a lot of responsibility. The chances are that these folks all put in long and stressful workweek — but the results were well worth it!

In response to a large number of questions received regarding eligibility for the COBRA premium reduction under current law, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has updated the COBRA page (www.dol.gov/COBRA) to add new FAQs here. We encourage readers to visit this page for updates.

In a California case, AM vs. Albertson’s Supermarket, an employee of Albertson’s underwent a difficult operation to help cure cancer of the tonsils and larynx. The treatment affected her salivary glands, which required her to drink water constantly and, as a result, go to the bathroom frequently. Albertson’s, aware of its obligations under California and federal disability law, did everything possible to accommodate the plaintiff.

Unfortunately, the plaintiff worked under a new manager unaware of her limitations, which led to a situation in which the plaintiff was stuck at the register and despite requests to be relieved so that she could go to the bathroom, obtained no relief. Unable to hold it anymore, the plaintiff urinated in her pants and went home distressed.

As it turns out, she had suffered since youth from post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), which caused her to cycle into depression and lose a great deal of time from work. At trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff $200,000 — $12,000 for lost wages, $40,000 in future medical expenses, and $148,000 for past emotional stress.

Albertson’s argued that under the circumstances, the plaintiff had a continuing duty to communicate with the new manager regarding her need for an accommodation or simply to leave the register and use the bathroom. In upholding the plaintiff’s verdict, the court reminded employers of two important obligations: 1) You take employees “as you find them.” For example, if you have an employee with PTSD, and an incident causes them to become depressed, when a normal person would not, the plaintiff is entitled to damages; and 2) If an employee is being accommodated and you have new management, you must make them aware of this accommodation Read the entire case here.