| Special #56 - July 31, 2020 |
| |
Live Webinars for August
Cost only $49 each Webinar Utilizing HR Metrics to Illustrate & Enhance HR's Contribution Date - Tuesday, August 11, 2020 Time - 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM EDT
Transitioning from a Traditional Manager to a Strategic Leader Date - Friday, August 14, 2020 Time - 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT
Effectively Leading a Customer Service Team Date - Thursday, August 20, 2020 Time - 11:00 AM – 12:00 PM EDT
|
| | HR and Employment Law News |
| - Comstangy.com News & Analysis: L&E TV: Who says TV isn’t educational? By Susan Bassford Wilson & Cherie Silberman
July 28, 2020
- HRDive News BRIEF: Resume 'partitioning' can counter implicit bias in hiring, study says
AUTHOR Sheryl Estrada
PUBLISHED July 29, 2020
- ¶47,158 NLRB proposal rolls back email, phone number voter list requirements; establishes military leave absentee ballots — AGENCY REGULATION By Pamela Wolf, J.D.
July 30, 2020
- ¶47,159 FDIC revises, codifies Section 19 Statement of Policy on hiring individuals with criminal records — AGENCY REGULATION, By Colleen M. Svelnis, J.D.
July 30, 2020
- HRDive News BRIEF: Exempt employees who perform nonexempt duties during pandemic will not lose status, DOL say AUTHOR Katie Clarey@kclarey21
PUBLISHED July 28, 2020
- Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report
|
| | | Comstangy.com News & Analysis: L&E TV: Who says TV isn’t educational?
By Susan Bassford Wilson &
Cherie Silberman
July 28, 2020
In this podcast, we examine examples from popular TV shows like NCIS, Gilmore Girls, and The Office to find the good, the bad, and the ugly of employment law on TV. Warning: May contain content that is painful to human resources professionals and employment lawyers.
This podcast is made available for educational purposes only, to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice or to establish an attorney-client relationship. This podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.
|
| | | | HRDive News BRIEF: Resume 'partitioning' can counter implicit bias in hiring, study says
AUTHOR Sheryl Estrada
PUBLISHED July 29, 2020
Dive Brief:- Countering implicit bias, or unconscious bias, in the recruitment process to improve talent pipeline diversity may be as simple as partitioning candidate applications into different categories, according to a group of researchers. The report, Let's choose one of each: Using the partition dependence effect to increase diversity in organizations, was published in May, and then a July 21 analysis by the authors in the Harvard Business Review (HBR) explained how categorizing applicants increases the probability that qualified, diverse applicants won't get overlooked.
- The authors said that "partition dependence bias" can occur when a person has to select multiple options out of numerous, uncategorized options. If the options are grouped together by categories, an individual is more likely to choose some options from each group, thus creating a more diverse selection, the researchers said. In the study, 121 experienced HR managers were asked to review the profiles and resumes of 16 job applicants who graduated from four top universities. One group of HR professionals was given resumes in alphabetical order, but not organized by specific categories. Meanwhile, another group was given resumes categorized by university. All of the HR professionals were asked to select four candidates to interview.
- In the group that received uncategorized resumes, 14% of HR managers chose candidates from all four universities, according to researchers. However, the percentage increased to 35% when the resumes were categorized by university. The researchers found the results were similar when candidates were categorized by gender, ethnicity and nationality. This method "only draws managers' attention to qualified minority candidates who might otherwise not attract their attention," the researchers said in HBR. However, they also noted that categorizing applicants is only effective if managers don't have strong biases against a particular group.
Dive Insight:
Although the study on partition dependence focused on a simple method to select diverse candidates, inclusion is the key factor in sustaining a diverse workforce, according to experts.
"Often when people talk about building a diverse workforce, they immediately think of recruiting and hiring," Cheryl Roubian, vice president of people at Greenhouse Software, previously told HR Dive in an interview. "But it's important to realize that even if you're wildly successful in diversifying your workforce, if you haven't created an environment where staff, irrespective of their backgrounds, can feel a sense of belonging, they won't stay."
A check-the-box mentality toward diversity and inclusion is counterproductive, RedPeg Marketing Director of Employee Experience Pearlie Oni similarly told HR Dive in a previous interview. "At RedPeg, our focus always has been creating an environment in which people of color and women can come to work," Oni said. "Instead of checking off boxes, we check ourselves about the kind of culture we are offering. If you change the culture internally, if it's a space where people feel like they can come in and thrive, you will attract the diversity you're seeking."
Implicit biases can derail long-term inclusion issues, as well. What Works? Evidence-Based Ideas to Increase Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Workplace is a collection of research by academics and business leaders released May 13. A report included focused on countering discriminatory behavior by tracing implicit attitudes and beliefs about different social groups.
Improvements in implicit (and explicit) attitudes in the workplace toward race, skin tone and gender roles can improve over the long-term as a result of "large-scale cultural shifts," according to the researchers. It benefits companies to understand the nature of implicit social cognition — how individuals process information — including its parameters for change, the Harvard University researchers noted.
Research also has revealed a lack of belonging for many employees who work at diverse, multinational companies. Globalization Partners Inc.'s second annual survey released March 24 found that 9 in 10 employees surveyed described their organizations as diverse, however 3 in 10 respondents said they don't feel a sense of belonging or inclusion. This can drive turnover as it negatively impacts employee engagement, happiness and trust, according to the report.
"Companies who want to position themselves to reap the benefits of diversity — in both employee sentiment and competitive advantage — must also put resources toward managing the challenges posed by it," the report stated.
Improvement in diversity is experienced by companies that not only have systematic, business-led approaches to diversity and inclusion but emphasize inclusion, according to McKinsey & Company research. And, if HR professionals accept surface-level diversity, inclusion suffers, according to a May 14 report by Clutch, a B2B rating and review firm.
Of the 505 HR professionals surveyed by Clutch — HR generalists hiring managers, executives and recruiting specialists across the U.S. — 79% said they believe their company is diverse. But the respondents may have focused on "small elements of diversity," instead of areas for improvement including diversity in sexual orientation, according to Clutch. Few respondents valued specific diversity initiatives, the report found. In this case, the HR professionals may build overly diverse perceptions of their companies, according to the report.
Instead, leaders who are "culture makers" understand the intricacies of inclusion, and their organizations' profits are almost three times higher than those of their peers, according to Accenture's global survey of more than 30,000 professionals in 28 countries.
|
| | | | ¶47,158 NLRB proposal rolls back email, phone number voter list requirements; establishes military leave absentee ballots — AGENCY REGULATION
By Pamela Wolf, J.D.
July 30, 2020 from GEA HR Answers Now
Using privacy concerns as its justification, the National Labor Relations Board proposes to amend its rules and regulations to eliminate the requirement that employers must, as part of the Board’s voter list requirement, provide available personal email addresses and available home and personal cellular telephone numbers of all eligible voters. The Board also wants to provide absentee mail ballots for employees who are on military leave, according to the proposed rule notice published in the Federal Register July 29.
Voter lists. According to the Board, the elimination of the requirement that employers provide available personal email addresses and available home and personal cellular telephone numbers of all eligible voters during an election campaign "will better balance employee privacy interests against those supporting disclosure of this information." The current voter list requirement affords insufficient weight to employee privacy interests, the Board contends. Eliminating the required disclosure of personal email addresses and personal telephone numbers will purportedly redress this imbalance.
2014 modifications. Until 2014, under the Board’s 1966 Excelsior Underwear decision (156 NLRB 1236), only the voter’s name and address was required. However, in 2014, the Obama-era Board adopted a series of amendments to its representation case procedures that, among other things, codified the voter list requirement with a series of modifications that included mandating that employers disclose "available" personal email addresses and home and personal cellular telephone numbers of all eligible voters. The change was made in part based on dramatic changes in telecommunications that warranted disclosure of email addresses and telephone numbers because it would permit non-employer parties to:
- promptly convey information concerning the question of representation to all voters;
- make it more likely that non-employer parties could respond to employee questions;
- allow non-employer parties to engage with employees in a more timely manner; and
- facilitate faster union investigation of names included on the list, thus reducing the risk that unions would challenge voters based solely on lack of knowledge as to their identity.
2017 request for information. Those amendments, however, continued to garner criticism largely centered around privacy concerns. On December 12, 2017, the Board issued a Request for Information that generally solicited information about whether the 2014 amendments should be retained without change, retained with modifications, or rescinded (published in the Federal Register December 14, 2017).
Fosters union campaign communications. The Board said that virtually every responder addressed the expanded voter list disclosures. Supportive responses generally praised the provision of available personal email addresses and telephone numbers as a desirable modernization of the Excelsior requirement and a great help to fostering union campaign communications (and in offsetting employers’ greater access to employees).
Privacy interests not adequately considered. Critical responses asserted that the 2014 amendments had not adequately considered employee privacy interests and contended those interests should have been (or, based on subsequent developments, should now be) afforded greater weight than they were. Critical responses also reported:
- employee complaints over the disclosures;
- disclosures have led to harassment or excessive communications from non-employer parties; and
- disclosure of contact information beyond employee names and home addresses was not necessary.
And another thing—absentee ballots. The Board also proposes an amendment that would modify its current general policy of not providing absentee ballots (not set forth in the rules and regulations, though) so that absentee mail ballots for employees who are on military leave would be permitted. The Board believes that it should seek to accommodate these voters in light of congressional policies facilitating their participation in federal elections and protecting their employment rights.
Further, a procedure for providing these voters with absentee ballots may be instituted without impeding the expeditious resolution of questions of representation, according to the Board.
Comments. Comments on the proposed rule must be received by the Board on or before 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register. Comments replying to comments submitted during the initial comment period must be received by the Board on or before October 13, 2020. Reply comments should be limited to replying to comments previously filed by other parties. No late comments will be accepted.
Source: By Pamela Wolf, J.D.
|
| | | | ¶47,159 FDIC revises, codifies Section 19 Statement of Policy on hiring individuals with criminal records — AGENCY REGULATION, By Colleen M. Svelnis, J.D.
July 30, 2020 from GEA HR Answers Now
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has approved a final rule to revise and codify its current Statement of Policy related to individuals with certain criminal offenses on their records who seek employment in the banking industry. The changes will narrow the circumstances under which the FDIC’s written consent is required for a financial institution to hire these individuals. The FDIC expects that the revisions in the final rule will reduce applications required under Section 19 by 30 percent, and reduce regulatory burden on financial institutions and individuals. The final rule will take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, and at that time, the existing Statement of Policy will be rescinded.
According to the FDIC, the new rule promotes public policy objectives by reducing barriers for individuals who have paid their debt to society and reformed their conduct, as well as enhances transparency and accountability, and reduces regulatory burden for financial institutions and individuals.
The final rule is substantially similar to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that was issued in November 2019.
The FDIC released a Fact Sheet explaining the changes in the final rule. FDIC Staff also recommended that the agency approve the conversion of the Statement of Policy to a regulation and adopt the proposed changes to clarify the application process. In addition, the FDIC issued a Financial Institution Letter summarizing the effect of the changes on FDIC-insured institutions.
Prohibitions under Section 19. Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act prohibits, without prior written consent of the FDIC, any person from participating in banking who has been convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust, or money laundering, or who has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with the prosecution for such an offense. The FDIC’s Section 19 Policy, which was originally promulgated in 1998, defines key terms, establishes when an application is required, specifies which factors the FDIC will evaluate when considering an application, and describes the de minimis rules for granting automatic consent. The SOP has also been amended on four separate occasions, with the last being in July 2018 (see Banking and Finance Law Daily, Aug. 2, 2018).
FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams issued a statement on the change, noting that since the beginning of 2017, the FDIC has approved every Section 19 application that would qualify for relief under the final rule "without controversy." McWilliams stated that the changes in the final rule, "will have a major impact on individuals who no longer need to obtain written consent from the FDIC in order to work for a bank." Former FDIC Chairman and member of the Board of Directors, Martin J. Gruenberg also released a statement highlighting changes, including that the final rule would exclude from Section 19 "all covered offenses that have been expunged or sealed by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of law." Gruenberg also detailed changes to expand the de minimis exception for which a person will be deemed automatically approved and no application required.
The expanded scope of the de minimis exception includes certain qualifying offenses involving the use or possession of false or fake identification, as well as for small-dollar, simple theft offenses. Additionally, the rule eliminates the waiting periods for applicants who have had only one qualifying covered offense, and allows a person with two, rather than one, de minimis crimes to qualify for the de minimis exception, and decreases the waiting period for individuals with two such offenses.
Source: By Colleen M. Svelnis, J.D.
|
| | | | HRDive News BRIEF
Exempt employees who perform nonexempt duties during pandemic will not lose status, DOL says
AUTHOR Katie Clarey@kclarey21
PUBLISHED July 28, 2020
Dive Brief:
- Employers may continue to treat salaried executive, administrative and professional employees who are exempt under the Fair labor Standards Act (FLSA) as exempt, even if they perform nonexempt duties during the pandemic, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) said in guidance released July 20. "COVID-19 is a rare event affecting the public welfare of the entire nation that an employer could not reasonably anticipate and is consistent with the FLSA's regulatory criteria for emergencies," the agency said.
- Employers must pay workers for all hours of telework, including any overtime compensation due for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek, DOL continued in the guidance, which also touched on the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). "This is true even of hours of telework that you did not authorize," DOL said.
- Employers need not compensate employees for unworked hours that interrupt their work days, the agency opined. Continuous workday guidance generally mandates that "all time between the performance of the first and last principal activities of a workday is generally compensable work time." But because the pandemic has called for "needed flexibility" to facilitate teleworking arrangements, DOL included in its FFCRA rulemaking that employers need not count unworked hours between employees' first and last principal activities in a workday.
Dive Insight:
I n its updated guidance, DOL addressed two major wage and hour issues: overtime exemption and hours worked.
Its guidance regarding hours worked appears to further the logic DOL generally applies in enforcing this area of the FLSA, at least in part. For instance, employers may want to create a policy that establishes workers will be paid for any unauthorized work they complete, but such behavior risks penalties, Freeborn & Peters Partner Erin E. McAdams Franzblau previously told HR Dive.
DOL's other pieces of guidance appear to depart from established wage and hour logic. Generally, employers are told to examine wage and duties when classifying employees as exempt or nonexempt. Here, however, DOL counsels employers to temporarily maintain exempt classifications regardless of workers' pandemic duties, so long as their pay meets the exemption threshold. And, as DOL itself pointed out, its guidance regarding flexible work and the hours interrupting an employee's work day departs from its continuous workday guidance.
Follow Katie Clarey on Twitter
|
| | |
Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report For: 07/30/2020 Updated 3pm daily
Totals for Georgia
07/30/2020
Confirmed Cases - 182,286
Hospitalizations - 18,303
|
| | |
Georgia Employers' Association |
|
|
| |
