| Special #57 - August 4, 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 |
| - Constangy.com News & Analysis: OSHA reverses course on COVID-19 hospitalization reporting requirement August 3, 2020
By Mollie Smith & Bill Principe / Atlanta Office
- Constangy.com Blog: Employers, what do you prefer? BY ROBIN SHEA ON 7.31.20
POSTED IN HIRING, HR
- HRDive.com DEEP DIVE: How employers can train front-line workers to implement mask rules AUTHOR Pamela DeLoatch
PUBLISHED Aug. 4, 2020
- HRDive.com BRIEF: OSHA medical records rule a 'mixed bag' for employers, source says AUTHOR Katie Clarey@kclarey21
PUBLISHED Aug. 3, 2020
- ¶47,166 As pandemic changes view of telecommuting, expert suggests employers stay flexible — PRACTICE TIP, Aug. 4, 2020
By Turan Tulay, J.D. from GEA HR Answers Now
- Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report
|
| | | Constangy.com News & Analysis: OSHA reverses course on COVID-19 hospitalization reporting requirement
August 3, 2020 By Mollie Smith* & Bill Principe / Atlanta Office
For a printer-friendly copy, click here.
In July, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published a “Frequently Asked Question” containing new instructions for reporting work-related hospitalization cases of COVID-19. Our July 16 bulletin explained that this new interpretation required employers to report cases of inpatient hospitalization due to confirmed COVID-19 within 24 hours of an employer’s learning about it, regardless of the amount of time that had passed since the employee was last exposed to the coronavirus at work. However, on the weekend of July 25, OSHA took down that FAQ from its website, without publishing any notice that the Agency was doing so. OSHA left posted with its other COVID-19 FAQs only the Agency’s general instructions about the mechanics of how to report any case involving either an inpatient hospitalization or death from a work-related injury or illness.
Presumably, this withdrawal of the FAQ brings us back to treating work-related COVID-19 cases like any other case under the existing hospitalization reporting rule, 29 CFR §1904.39(b)(6). This rule requires a work-related, inpatient hospitalization to be reported only if the hospitalization “occurs within twenty-four (24) hours of the work-related incident.” The “incident” in a COVID-19 case, as with any other illness, would be the last exposure in the workplace to whatever caused or contributed to the condition.
As of today, OSHA has not offered any explanation for the sudden withdrawal of the reporting FAQ. It is possible that the Agency received many objections to the new interpretation because it was contrary to the existing regulation dealing with the reporting of inpatient hospitalizations, § 1904.39(b)(6). Regardless of the reason, with the withdrawal of the FAQ, we recommend applying § 1904.39(b)(6) in determining when you need to report a work-related COVID-19 hospitalization.
*Mollie Smith is a rising senior and prelaw student at Samford University who is working for the summer in our Atlanta Office.
|
| | | | Constangy.com Blog: Employers, what do you prefer?BY ROBIN SHEA ON 7.31.20 POSTED IN HIRING, HR
Read online @ Constangy.com>>
A resume liar, or a candidate who gives you the hard truth?
Let's say you have a great candidate for your vacant position of Director of Widgetary Management. Work experience is on point, excellent presentation in the interview, meets or exceeds all of your hiring criteria.
The only negative is an 18-month gap in employment, and the gap is current.
You would ask about that gap, right?
Scenario One
Let's say you do, and let's say the explanation is innocuous: "I quit my job and thought I'd be able to get another right away, but it turned out to be more difficult than I'd expected. So I waited for the right opportunity -- and here we are! Of course, while I was unemployed I kept up with all of the latest developments in widgetary science and attended all the major conferences."
That's a decent explanation, right? And then you call her last employer listed on the resume (the one she left 18 months ago), and that employer gives her raves. You would hire, wouldn't you?
One year later (summer of 2021) . . .
You're at a Human Resources conference and run into your friend Henry, who is in HR at another company in your industry. Henry is complaining about how his company's Director of Widgetary Management "ghosted" her boss during the coronavirus pandemic of 2020. She just stopped working and dropped all contact with the company. "How awful!" you reply. "We hired a fantastic Widgetary Director about a year ago. She has worked out great. Maybe she would have some good contacts for you. I'm told that she attends all the major conferences."
"Really?" Henry asks. "I would appreciate that. Can you give me her name?"
You know that Henry is not the type to raid your employees. "Melba Toast. Here are her email address and phone number."
"Did you say -- 'Melba Toast'?"
"Yes -- cute name, isn't it?"
"Melba Toast is the director who dropped off the face of the earth last year during the pandemic! We have her down for job abandonment, and she isn't eligible for rehire. She went completely incommunicado. We even sent somebody to her house because we thought she might be dead. If you ask me, it was rotten of her to bail on her VP like that during such a difficult time."
Ugh.
Would you fire Melba for lying in her interview, even though she is doing a great job for you now? Even if you decide to keep her, I can't imagine that her lack of candor is going to give you a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Scenario Two
Now let's go back in time to the summer of 2020, during your interview of Melba. You ask about her gap in employment, and she says, "I am not proud of this, but I was overwhelmed with the pressure of working from home and fear of getting coronavirus, and I just lost my ability to function. I stopped working and didn't communicate with my VP. Since that time, I've been getting counseling, and my counselor and I both think I am well equipped to handle whatever crisis we may face in the future. I've also made amends with my VP. If you will check with the employers I had before my last position, both of whom I worked for for many years, they will tell you that I did an outstanding job."
Better? Or would the truth be a turn-off?
"What does Robin think?"
If I were doing the hiring, I'd prefer the Melba in Scenario Two. I would have concerns, but at least she's being honest, and given the crazy circumstances in which we were living this past spring, maybe her inaction is understandable though not justifiable. If she really was an awesome Director of Widgetary Management at the other two companies, it might be worth giving her another chance.
Yes, this blog post is a rip-off
I got these scenarios from Karla Miller's workplace advice column in the Washington Post. The letter writer "ghosted" her employer during the height of the COVID-19 crisis, feels terrible about it now, and needs to find another job.
I agreed with some of Karla's advice. She thought the letter writer should call her former boss and apologize and explain to the best of her ability, without asking the former boss to provide a reference. YES to all that.
One of the letter writer's other former employers had gone out of business, so Karla advised the letter writer to track down the owner using whatever resources she had so that she could get a good reference from that employer. ABSOLUTELY.
But, Karla said that one option would be to leave the most recent job off the letter writer's resume and application since she wasn't there that long and might get away with it.
I understand that telling the truth may make it harder for Melba to find another job. But it will also make it easier for her to keep her job if the truth comes out (again) later.
Of course, that's just me. Readers, if you were HR, what would you do? Please comment below, and be honest! Tell the truth!
Tags: Advice Columns, Hiring, HR, Karla Miller
|
| | | HRDive.com DEEP DIVE: How employers can train front-line workers to implement mask rules
Workers must be able to de-escalate situations before they become heated and possibly violent, one source told HR Dive.
AUTHOR Pamela DeLoatch PUBLISHED Aug. 4, 2020
In response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, many companies are requiring customers and employees alike to wear face masks. Walmart announced July 15 that face masks would be mandatory for customers, signaling the start of a widespread requirement among retailers and those in other industries. Such mandates stem from elsewhere, too; Law firm Littler maintains a tracker that lists more than 40 states enacting some type of face mask requirement.
Employers tasked with implementing mask mandates — whether they come from legislators or from within — face a hot-button issue, especially in industries like retail, where employees come face-to-face with customers.
Companies will need to rely on front-line employees as they balance customer engagement with face mask enforcement, sources told HR Dive. Employers that trained employees on store operations and policies must now develop lessons on how to de-escalate charged encounters with customers who aren't wearing masks.
Unmask the issue
Retailers have long used the motto "no shirt, no shoes, no service." So customers might treat a store's face mask rule as simply another requirement. But in the middle of a pandemic, stress levels are high. Couple those stress levels with shoppers' perceived lack of autonomy and the issue escalates, David Rock, CEO and co-founder of the NeuroLeadership Institute, told HR Dive in an interview. NeuroLeadership Institute is a science-based leadership consultancy. "In the case of autonomy, when we feel someone is controlling us, there's quite a strong threat response," he said. That threat response can literally feel like pain, he said.
Sometimes customers turn their wrath onto employees. The Washington Post reported several instances of employees being berated, assaulted and even killed for enforcing mask rules.
Train to maintain a balance
At Walmart, employees in the newly designated role of "health ambassador" are trained to greet customers at the door, Kory Lundberg, senior director, global communications, told HR Dive by email. "I think the first thing that's helpful to remember is that because some customers are unable to wear a face-covering due to medical, religious or age reasons, customers will still see some people in our stores not wearing a face covering. We believe our requirement will result in many more people wearing masks in our stores than before, and that's ultimately what we are aiming for."
A video from Walmart's Training Academy that Lundberg provided to HR Dive outlines the steps the health ambassador should take when greeting a mask-less customer. Ambassadors should welcome all customers, the video states. If a customer doesn't have a mask, the employee should bring up the mandate and ask the shopper to put on a face covering. If a customer refuses without referencing age, health or religion, the employee should let the customer proceed into the store but escalate the concern to a manager. The video cautions that the ambassador should not try to keep the customer from entering the store.
The video reminds employees to stay calm. To prepare employees for these encounters, Walmart also uses virtual reality training.
Walmart tapped Strivr to provide this training. The immersive nature of virtual reality makes it suitable for training workers to deal with this kind of situation, Strivr CEO and co-founder Derek Belch told HR Dive in an interview. "You're trying to give an end-user a flight simulator-like experience where you put the headset on, and you're going to experience what you experience in the real world," he said.
Using this technology, employees can act out various scenarios, using company protocols. "If a customer doesn't want to [put on a mask], if a customer gets in your face or says something racially insensitive, you're operationally prepared and emotionally prepared."
Mandate without a bite?
Companies that have requirements may differ from each other in how stringently they enforce their mandates. To avoid confrontations, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowe's, Walgreens, CVS and others will still allow customers who refuse to wear a mask to shop in the stores, CNN reported.
But other companies have strict "no mask, no service" approaches. Southwest Airlines, for example, recently tightened its policy, requiring all customers over the age of 2 to wear a mask, regardless of a medical exception. In a July 20 press release, the airline said: "If a customer is unable to wear a face-covering or mask for any reason, Southwest regrets that we will be unable to transport the individual."
Strategies for de-escalation
Regardless of how businesses address customers who refuse to wear a mask, the ideal outcome is to get customers to cooperate before the situation becomes a conflict, Rock said. He added that the key is recognizing the customer's heightened stress level and using a "brain-based model" which uses research on human behavior to understand motivation.
- Status. The employee should maintain the customer's sense of status by being warm and positive, so the customer does not feel personally attacked or diminished.
- Certainty. Help the customer feel more certain by providing more information, such as: "we're asking everyone to do this," or by outlining when and where the mask needs to be worn
- Autonomy. Address the freedom a customer wants to feel. The employee should provide additional options for the customer, such as to shop online or send someone else to shop
- Relatedness. The employee should acknowledge that the mask requirement is uncomfortable that they understand how the customer feels.
- Fairness. Let the customer know they are not being singled out and that this is required in every store.
Rock calls this approach the SCARF method. "Employees need to be trained to intentionally send positive SCARF signals to de-escalate how stressful this interaction could be," he said.
When de-escalation doesn't work
Sometimes, positivity and politeness won't make customers wear a mask. But letting customers shop without wearing masks can still cause employers trouble. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that Walgreens paid $6,000 after receiving eight citations for not enforcing mask mandates imposed by Chicago suburb Cicero, Illinois.
Businesses could face even greater liability if they don't enforce face mask laws and a customer gets sick, Michael Booher, an employment attorney at Booher Law Firm, told HR Dive. If a customer can prove they contracted the virus in the store and that the store didn't enforce wearing masks, the customer could file a claim of negligence against the retailer. "If they are lax on enforcement and turning a blind eye, they breached their duty to create a safe environment for customers," he said.
Although a company should try every strategy to diffuse a confrontation, if a customer refuses to follow regulations to wear a mask, employers can have the most experienced manager let the customer know that they are trespassing and require them to leave, Booher said. If the customer won't go or shows signs of violence, he said, the manager should call store security or the local police.
|
| | | HRDive.com BRIEF: OSHA medical records rule a 'mixed bag' for employers, source says
PUBLISHED Aug. 3, 2020
Dive Brief:
- The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a final rule July 30 in which it revised the rules that determine how agency personnel obtain and use personally-identifiable employee medical information.
- The changes include the elimination of the requirement that "direct personal identifiers" be removed for OSHA's review of medical information away from a worksite and the creation of "new procedures for the access and safeguarding of personally identifiable employee medical information in electronic form," according to the rule. OSHA also clarified that a written medical access order "does not constitute an administrative subpoena."
- OSHA's medical records officer will now approve written medical access orders, transferring that power from the agency's assistant secretary of occupational safety and health, a position that has remained vacant throughout the Trump administration.
Dive Insight:
OSHA's changes come to employers as "a mixed bag," Eric Conn, Conn Maciel Carey founding partner and OSHA practice group chair, said. While it lifts some burden off of employers, the rule appears to have been designed to prioritize the agency itself.
"If we think about our context right now, it makes a lot of sense," Conn said. "We're amid a major public health crisis where OSHA in the course of its inspections needs access to a lot more employee health information." The agency had been encountering challenges in its medical access order processes, specifically in getting the orders issued fast enough as it began inspections and investigations of virus-related issues in workplaces. "That struck me as what seemed to be the principal purpose of the rule, to make it easier for OSHA," Conn said.
Even so, the rule reduces the burden on employers in a couple of ways. It did away with the requirement that employers heavily redact medical records before producing them, for example. Still, this measure may have been implemented to speed up production for OSHA rather than ease employer workloads, Conn said.
The regulation also created a kind of tool for employers to use as they negotiate information requests with OSHA during inspections. It includes "some self-limiting language about the scope of medical access orders" that is narrow and limited both in terms of information and in the people who get access to it.
Follow Katie Clarey on Twitter
|
| | | | | ¶47,166 As pandemic changes view of telecommuting, expert suggests employers stay flexible — PRACTICE TIP,
Aug. 4, 2020 By Turan Tulay, J.D. from GEA HR Answers Now
Few employees telecommuted on a full-time basis prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, but that is no longer the case. Telecommuting has increased tremendously in an effort to prevent the spread of the virus. As the pandemic continues into the summer and probably the fall, telecommuting is bound to continue, perhaps even beyond the discovery of a vaccine. To understand the current and future state of telecommuting and the issues that go along with it, Wolters Kluwer reached out to Elissa Jessup, SHRM HR Knowledge Advisor.
WK: How many employers allowed telecommuting before the pandemic? How many employees were full-time telecommuters?
Jessup: Prior to the pandemic, it is estimated that approximately 3 percent of workers were telecommuting on a full-time basis. That number has increased to 64 percent since March 2020.
WK: How will employers proceed with telecommuting over the next several months?
Jessup: During the peak of the pandemic, many employers were forced into allowing workers to telecommute. Considering the pandemic is still ongoing, many employers are continuing to allow employees to telecommute in order to create a safe and healthy workplace.
WK: Must an employer continue to allow employees who are currently working at home to continue doing so if they don’t feel comfortable returning to the office once it re-opens?
Jessup: There may be many reasons why an employee may not be comfortable returning to the office once it re-opens. Generally, employees cannot refuse to return to work unless they believe they are in imminent danger under OSHA guidelines. However, if an employee has a medical condition, or a disability under the ADA, they may need a reasonable accommodation which could include working from home. Also, depending on an employee’s circumstances they may be eligible for either expanded FMLA or emergency paid sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
WK: How many companies will let employees who started working remotely during the pandemic continue working remotely indefinitely?
Jessup: A recent SHRM survey found more than 45 percent of employers have yet to set a return to work date. Sixty-eight percent of organizations probably or definitely will adopt broader or more flexible work from home policies for all workers. Additionally, 29 percent of employers are allowing employees to work remotely for the rest of 2020.
WK: What issues should an employer consider before implementing a full-time telecommuting program?
Jessup: There are several considerations such as technology needs, business expenses, equipment, security of information, team building, and communication/collaboration just to name a few.
WK: Are there different issues or concerns with telecommuting when employees are hourly versus salaried?
Jessup: Telecommuting arrangements for exempt employees is typically viewed as an easier arrangement for an employer to maintain since exempt employees are owed their weekly salary regardless of the number of hours worked. For non-exempt employees, employers are required to maintain certain records such as number of hours worked each day, the total hours worked each workweek, total overtime earnings for the workweek which can be challenging when non-exempt employees work from home.
WK: What should be contained in a telecommuting policy and/or agreement?
Jessup: A telecommuting policy and/or agreement should have clear expectations of performance that an employer expects from employees. This may include information about which positions are eligible for telecommuting (based on job duties), eligibility requirements such as performance standards or length of service, what type of equipment or reimbursement will be provided (certain states require employers to reimburse business expenses), as well as security of company information and safety standards in an employee’s home workspace.
WK: What are the tax implications for either employees or employers regarding telecommuting?
Jessup: Tax implications are typically based on where an employee is performing the work, regardless of where an organization is located. If an employee works in a different state than where the business is physically located, there could be tax implications for both an employer and employee.
WK: What are the cost savings for both employers and employees associated with telecommuting? What are the expenses?
Jessup: Both employees and employers can save with telecommuting. Employees can save on commuting time, gas money and parking or public transportation costs. An employer can save on space in their office. For non-monetary savings, an employer typically sees increased productivity, increased employee morale and reduced turnover.
Expenses for an employee or employer depend on where an organization is located. Certain states require businesses to reimburse telecommuting employees for related business expenses. If there is not a state regulation, an employee may need to use their own funds for internet and other expenses. An employer may wish to provide telecommuting workers with equipment they will need to do their jobs efficiently and confidently.
WK: Are there any changes needed regarding how an employer communicates with employees who telecommute? If so, what should change?
Jessup: Communication is different for employees who telecommute. An employer should encourage their managers to check in frequently with their employees to help them feel connected and continue to provide performance feedback in a timely manner. Video conferencing tools can also be utilized to help employees still feel part of a team and can help foster collaboration and effective communication. Chat functionality can help employees communicate with their coworkers and the rest of the organization in a quick and efficient manner as well.
WK: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Jessup: The coronavirus pandemic has certainly changed the way many organizations previously viewed telecommuting. As the pandemic continues, organizations may wish to remain flexible, and consider allowing employees to continue to telecommute to offer flexibility to their employees, while also helping prevent the spread of the coronavirus.
Source: Written by Turan Tulay, J.D.
|
| | |
Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report For: Updated 3pm daily
Totals for Georgia
08/04/2020
Confirmed Cases - 197,948 Deaths - 3,921
Hospitalizations - 19,426
|
| | |
Georgia Employers' Association |
|
|
| |
