| Special #72 - October 5, 2020 |
| |
Strategic HR Leadership Series Starting Back / New Schedule
- Enhancing or Designing a Wage & Salary Administration Plan
October 13, 2020 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
- Functioning as a Human Resource Strategic Business Partner
October 30, 2020 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
- Practical Techniques to Enhance Your Training
& Facilitation Skills
November 17, 2020 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
- Positively Impacting Employee Behavior through Performance Appraisals, Coaching & Counseling
November 27, 2020 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
- Utilizing HR Metrics to Illustrate & Improve HR's
December 15, 2020 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
- Employment Law Essentials with Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete Attorneys
Date TBD 9:00 AM – 12:30 PM
Visit our website to view the overview of workshops and to register
Location of Workshops, unless otherwise noted, to be conducted at:
Cherry Blossom Room (16th Floor)
Fickling & Company Building
577 Mulberry St , Macon, GA 31201
|
| HR and Employment Law News |
| - Constangy.com News & Analysis: OSHA clarifies when COVID-19 cases must be reported 10.2.20- Constangy.com Blog: Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa, and a couple of crazy lawsuits 9.25.20- Constangy.com News & Analysis: New USCIS filing fees may become effective October 2 9.25.20- Constangy.com News & Analysis: Possible U.S. travel options for foreign nationals amid the pandemic 9.28.20- HRDive.com DEEP DIVE - 'Everyone's been impacted': How to keep pandemic-driven flexibility fair PUBLISHED Sept. 30, 2020- Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report
|
| | | | | | Constangy.com News & Analysis: OSHA clarifies when COVID-19 cases must be reported
By Workplace Safety Group - Chairs - Bill Principe & Pat Tyson / Atlanta, GAThe Occupational Safety and Health Administration had initially published guidance in early July explaining when COVID-19 cases had to be reported, and then without explanation or announcement retracted that guidance. OSHA has now issued new guidance that clarifies the circumstances under which cases involving either an admission to a hospital or a fatality must be reported to the nearest OSHA Area Office.
OSHA’s new guidance for cases involving admission to a hospital is consistent with the existing recordkeeping rule on reporting, and the case analysis that we recommended in August:
Under 29 CFR 1904.39(b)(6), employers are only required to report in-patient hospitalizations to OSHA if the hospitalization "occurs within twenty-four (24) hours of the work-related incident." For cases of COVID-19, the term "incident" means an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace. Therefore, in order to be reportable, an in-patient hospitalization due to COVID-19 must occur within 24 hours of an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 at work. The employer must report such hospitalization within 24 hours of knowing both that the employee has been in-patient hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19. Thus, if an employer learns that an employee was in-patient hospitalized within 24 hours of a work-related incident, and determines afterward that the cause of the in-patient hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19, the case must be reported within 24 hours of that determination. [Citation omitted.]
COVID-19-related fatality cases must be reported to OSHA no later than eight hours after the employer learns both that an employee had tested positive for COVID-19 and that the employee died as a result. But as the new guidance provides, fatality cases must be reported only if the fatality occurred within 30 days of the employee’s last work-related exposure to coronavirus, which under most circumstances would be the last day the employee was at work.
Lessons learned
Many employers have been reporting COVID-19 hospitalization cases unnecessarily, believing incorrectly that all such cases needed to be reported within 24 hours of the admission to a hospital. With this new guidance, OSHA has stayed true to its existing regulation, which provides that the admission must be within 24 hours of the last work-related exposure.
Please also remember to analyze carefully whether COVID-19 cases at your facility are work-related, because OSHA has created a significant exception if an employer can find “an alternative explanation” for the case, such as an exposure away from work.
For a printer-friendly copy, click here.
|
|
| | Constangy.com Blog: Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa, and a couple of crazy lawsuits
BY ROBIN SHEA ON 9.25.20
POSTED IN POLITICS
UPDATE (Saturday, 9/26): The nominee is ACB!
We'll know for sure tomorrow evening when President Trump announces his pick, but word on the street is that the two front-runners for the Supreme Court seat held by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Judge Barbara Lagoa of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Don't know your circuits? Check our handy guide.
Both women are getting worked over in the media -- especially Judge Barrett, with worse to come if she is the nominee -- but the emphasis in the media is on their stands on social issues, who will be the most help to President Trump's reelection chances, and whether anyone should be nominated at all before the November 3 election.
You can get that kind of news anywhere, am I right? But where else but here at Employment & Labor Insider can you find out how the contenders have ruled on bizarro employment lawsuits filed by pro se plaintiffs?
(A pro se plaintiff is one who is representing himself or herself without an attorney.)
There are not a lot of employment law decisions from either judge because they were not appointed to U.S. appeals courts until relatively recently. (Judge Lagoa wasn't appointed until December 2019, although she had many years before that with the Florida Supreme Court.) And, of course, they have to hear cases on topics other than employment law. But here are two doozies. Our two candidates joined, but were not the authors of, the opinions discussed below.
Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Collins v. Barnes & Thornburg (April 2019). Mr. Collins was fired in 1978, when Jimmy Carter was President of the United States. In 1980 he (Mr. Collins, not Jimmy Carter) sued his employer. Apparently, he lost. Approximately 30 years later, he sued his former employer again, claiming that he was discriminated against and that the former employer stole money from him.
A federal judge in Indiana dismissed the lawsuit as "time-barred and frivolous." Mr. Collins appealed, and a three-judge panel that included Judge Barrett agreed with the lower-court judge. The panel also admonished Mr. Collins that he should not file any more lawsuits or he might be subject to sanctions and banned from the Seventh Circuit.
I can't disagree with Judge Barrett on this one.
Judge Barbara Lagoa
Williams v. Bank of America Corporation (August 2020). Mr. Williams sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act and 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 for pay discrimination. The defendants tried to take his deposition, and he rambled and was generally unresponsive. He also reportedly called a female attorney "little lady" and called a male attorney an "elitist" and an "idiot."
The attorneys had to get a magistrate judge involved, and everyone agreed that they would reconvene later to finish the deposition.
The defendants then scheduled the continuation of the deposition, but Mr. Williams said that he would show up for only one hour and would only answer questions related to his damages.
Of course, this, too, wound up before the magistrate judge, who told Mr. Williams that he would have to be deposed for two and a half additional hours and would have to answer what the defendants asked him.
The defendants tried to schedule the deposition again, and Mr. Williams responded by filing a motion to vacate the magistrate judge's order. This was not very smart, because his motion went before the district court judge, who affirmed the magistrate judge's order and told Mr. Williams to Show. Up. Or. Else.
The defendants tried again to schedule the deposition. Mr. Williams said he was not available on the date they chose but could be available two days later. The defendants agreed to that. But then Mr. Williams appealed the district court's order to the 11th Circuit.
Oh, yeah, and he also no-showed for the deposition.
The defendants had had it, and they filed a motion with the magistrate to dismiss the lawsuit as a sanction for Mr. Williams's bad behavior. The magistrate assessed a monetary sanction against Mr. Williams but did not dismiss the lawsuit.
Here is where Mr. Williams messed up. (In addition to all the other places where he messed up.) He took it to the district court judge, who wasn't as patient and easy-going as the magistrate judge. The district judge threw out the lawsuit entirely as a sanction. "With prejudice," which means "forever."
Mr. Williams appealed to the 11th Circuit. (Of course he did!) Enter Judge Lagoa and her fellow judges.
AFFIRMED.
I think I can live with either of these judges on the Supreme Court.
|
| | | | | Constangy.com News & Analysis: New USCIS filing fees may become effective October 2 By Barbara Kihumba / Atlanta Office & Will Krasnow and Punam Rogers / Boston Office 9.25.20
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is poised to implement new filing fees on October 2, under regulations published in the Federal Register on August 3. However, two lawsuits were filed in federal court about a month ago challenging the increases, one in the District of Columbia and the other in the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek injunctive relief to prevent the rule from going into effect and monetary damages.
Both lawsuits allege (1) that the Department of Homeland Security did not have the authority to implement the fee increase because the Acting Secretaries who proposed and issued the regulations were appointed without constitutional or statutory authority; (2) that the regulations are arbitrary and capricious, and unenforceable under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) that the regulations violate the due process and equal protection rights of low-income individuals by effectively denying them, because of the high fees, access to needed immigration benefits.
It is uncertain whether a court will issue an injunction in advance of October 2, so here is a summary of the changes.
Fee increase
The new rule significantly increases fees on most applications by a weighted average increase of 20 percent, although some filing fees have been reduced. The USCIS has said that the additional fees are needed to help recover its operational costs and avoid a projected deficit of $1 billion.
The new fee schedule, which is tailored primarily to employer or employer-related filings and naturalization, is available here.
Impact on temporary visa petitions
Form I-129 is used for almost all non-immigrant worker (temporary) classifications, such as H-1B, L-1, TN, E, and O-1. The current Form I-129 requires the same fee of $460 regardless of the visa classification requested. In the regulations, the USCIS would impose new fees for each nonimmigrant visa classification, with increases across the board:
- H-1 petition: $555 (20 percent increase)
- L petition: $805 (75 percent increase)
- O petition: $705 (53 percent increase)
- TN petitions: $695 (51 percent increase)
The regulations also impose additional fees for employers with a high proportion of H-1B and L-1 employees. Employers with more than 50 employees, and with more than 50 percent of employees in H-1B or L-1 status, currently pay an additional fee of $4,000 for each initial and change-of-employer H-1B petition, and $4,500 for each initial L-1 petition. Under the regulations, this additional fee would apply to all H-1B and L-1 petitions filed by employers that meet the “50-employee and 50 percent” test, whether the petitions are for new employment or for an extension of stay.
Premium processing deadline
The USCIS must make a decision on a premium processing petition within 15 calendar days of the date of filing. Under the new regulations, the existing premium processing fee of $1,440 will stay the same, but the timeframe for a decision will be extended to 15 business days, which increases the time from the current two weeks to three weeks.
“Green card” applications
The regulations marginally decrease the filing fee for Form I-485 adjustment of status applications from $1,140 to $1,130. However, applicants will no longer be able to pay a single I-485 filing fee for the Form I-765 Employment Authorization Document application, the Form I-131 Advance Parole Document, and the Form I-485 when all three are filed together. Instead, if and when the regulations go into effect, applicants will be required to pay separate filing fees for the EAD and AP applications filed with the form I-485 adjustment application, which will increase the filing fee by 85 percent, to $2,270 for an initial filing.
Currently, there is a one-time filing fee of $1,225 ($1,140 basis fee and $85 for biometrics) or $740 (children under the age of 14 filing with their parent) for adjustment of status, the last step of the green card process. This fee covers the applications for initial filing of the Form I-765 Employment Authorization Document application and Form I-131 Advance Parole travel authorization document, as well as any renewals while the underlying application is pending with the USCIS. Under the regulations, the same $1,130 fee would apply to all applicants, regardless of age. Therefore, the reduced Form I-485 filing fee for children under the age of 14 filing with their parent is removed.
New forms
In conjunction with the fee increases, the USCIS will update some of its forms, and will post the new and revised forms online 30 days before the regulations go into effect. The updated forms have not yet been released, but they will include the following:
- Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
- Form I-600/I-600A, Supplement 3, Request for Action on Approved Form I-600/I-600A
- Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization
- Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver
There will be a grace period of up to 60 days in which either the current or the new version of the forms may be used, as long as payment of the new fees accompanies the forms.
What to do
If your application will be affected by the increase in filing fees, you should consider filing early to avoid the fee increase. We will continue to monitor the pending litigation. However, it is likely that any petition or application postmarked on or after October 2 will require the new filing fees.
For a printer-friendly copy, click here.
|
| | | | Constangy.com News & Analysis: Possible U.S. travel options for foreign nationals amid the pandemic
9.28.20
Recently, the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention announced that it would stop screening international passengers for COVID-19, even from what were deemed “high-risk” countries such as China, Iran, Brazil, and the majority of the Schengen Area in Europe (Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland).
The CDC had previously designated 15 airports where flights from those countries had been routed. Upon landing in the United States, all passengers had to undergo a COVID-19 “travel screening” where the individual’s health would be assessed for any indications that the COVID-19 virus might be present.
The CDC has now ended this practice, saying that it had “limited effectiveness.” The new policy allows international flights to be routed to any international airport in the United States.
Foreign nationals from “high-risk” countries
Generally, foreign nationals do not have unrestricted travel to the United States, even under the new policy. However, the State Department has provided some relief.
Since late January 2020, the Administration has issued seven proclamations directly or indirectly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Five of the proclamations generally prohibited entry into the United States by nationals from China, Iran, the Schengen Area in Europe, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. The end of CDC screening does not affect those travel bans: they remain in effect.
This means that any foreign national who has been physically present in any of these countries 14 days before arrival in the United States will continue to be prohibited from entering the United States. The Trump Administration has issued two additional proclamations that bar the entry of immigrants (Proclamation 10014) and nonimmigrant holders of H-1B, H-2B, certain J-1, and L-1 visas (Proclamation 10052). The travel restriction also applies to individuals who have only transited through an airport in any of these countries.
The only way for a foreign national to enter the United States from one of these regions is by meeting one of the few exceptions outlined in each of the proclamations. Limited relief applies to students from the Schengen area, the United Kingdom, and Ireland who have valid F-1 and M-1 visas, and their dependents. These individuals may travel to the United States while the health-related proclamations are in effect.
Any other foreign national must meet the criteria for a National Interest Exception, discussed below.
Obtaining an appointment for a nonimmigrant visa
A foreign national who can demonstrate either that he or she clearly qualifies for one of the exemptions from the travel ban or meets the criteria for a National Interest Exception may apply for a nonimmigrant visa. If so, the individual may be able to obtain a visa appointment even if the consulate is not currently open for regular visa processing. To confirm whether the consulate is open for nonimmigrant visa scheduling procedures, the foreign national should contact the consulate or embassy directly and review its website for the most current information.
It is important to note that the Department of State did not institute a uniform policy or process regarding NIE waivers. Therefore, the procedures vary at each consulate or embassy, and whether services are available will depend on local health conditions.
If the visa appointment is ultimately granted, this is not a guarantee that a nonimmigrant visa or NIE will be granted. The consular officer has full discretion to make this determination at the appointment.
National Interest Exception waiver
The Presidential proclamations restricting entry to the United States due to COVID-19 have an exception that states as follows:
“any alien whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their designees.”
The following categories of travelers may now qualify for national interest exceptions under Presidential Proclamations 9993 and 9996:
- Public Health: Travel as a public health or health care professional or researcher to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, or to continue ongoing research in an area with substantial public health benefit (e.g., cancer or other disease research).
- Students: All students, and their dependents, traveling to the United States on an F or M visa to pursue a full course of study, or on a J visa to participate in an exchange program as a bona fide student.
- Academics: All exchange visitors and their dependents traveling to the United States on J visas in the following categories: Professors, Research Scholars, Short Term Scholars, or Specialists.
- Investors: Travel in connection with investment or trade in the U.S. economy that generates a substantial economic impact, including investors and treaty-traders on E visas and the senior-level employees who provide strategic direction or expertise essential to the success of the investment, and their dependents.
- Economic: Temporary travel that provides a substantial economic benefit to the U.S. economy, including the following:
Technical experts and specialists to install, service, maintain, or receive training for vessels, machinery and other specialized equipment used by U.S. and foreign firms with a substantial investment in the United States. Travel is temporary in nature and for a defined period of time.
Senior-level managers and executives, and their dependents, who provide strategic direction necessary for the success of the company or venture.
Professional athletes, dependents, and essential staff who enter the United States to participate in major sporting events, which bolster the U.S. economy.
Regarding NIE waivers for specific nonimmigrant visa categories in Proclamation 10052, the State Department has provided guidance and examples of situations where a grant of an NIE waiver may be possible. The guidance is as follows:
For H-1B visa holders:
For travel as a public health or healthcare professional, or researcher to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, or to conduct ongoing medical research in an area with a substantial public health benefit (e.g. cancer or communicable disease research). This includes those traveling to alleviate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic that may be a secondary effect of the pandemic (e.g., travel by a public health or healthcare professional, or researcher in an area of public health or healthcare that is not directly related to COVID-19, but which has been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic).
Travel supported by a request from a U.S. government agency or entity to meet critical U.S. foreign policy objectives or to satisfy treaty or contractual obligations. This would include individuals, identified by the Department of Defense or another U.S. government agency, performing research, providing IT support/services, or engaging other similar projects essential to a U.S. government agency.
For L-1 visa holders:
Travel as a public health or healthcare professional, or researcher to alleviate the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, or to conduct ongoing medical research in an area with a substantial public health benefit. This includes those traveling to alleviate effects of the COVID-19 pandemic that may be a secondary effect of the pandemic.
For H-2B visa holders:
Travel based on a request from a U.S. government agency or entity to meet critical foreign policy objectives or to satisfy treaty or contractual obligations. An example of this would be supporting U.S. military base construction (e.g. associated with the National Defense Authorization Act) or IT infrastructure.
For J-1 exchange visa holders:
Travel to provide care for a minor U.S. citizen, [lawful permanent resident], or nonimmigrant in lawful status by an au pair possessing special skills required for a child with particular needs (e.g., medical, special education, or sign language). Childcare services provided for a child with medical issues diagnosed by a qualified medical professional by an individual who possesses skills to care for such child will be considered to be in the national interest.
Travel by an au pair that prevents a U.S. citizen, lawful permanent resident, or other nonimmigrant in lawful status from becoming a public health charge or ward of the state of a medical or other public funded institution.
Childcare services provided for a child whose parents are involved with the provision of medical care to individuals who have contracted COVID-19 or medical research at United States facilities to help the United State combat COVID-19.
An exchange program conducted pursuant to [a Memorandum of Understanding], Statement of Intent, or other valid agreement or arrangement between a foreign government and any federal, state, or local government entity in the United States that is designed to promote U.S. national interests if the agreement or arrangement with the foreign government was in effect prior to the effective date of the Presidential Proclamation.
Interns and Trainees on U.S. government agency-sponsored programs (those with a program number beginning with “G-3” on Form DS-2019): An exchange visitor participating in an exchange visitor program in which he or she will be hosted by a U.S. government agency and the program supports the immediate and continued economic recovery of the United States.
Specialized Teachers in Accredited Educational Institutions with a program number beginning with “G-5” on Form DS-2019: An exchange visitor participating in an exchange program in which he or she will teach full-time, including a substantial portion that is in person, in a publicly or privately operated primary or secondary accredited educational institution where the applicant demonstrates ability to make a specialized contribution to the education of students in the United States. A “specialized teacher” applicant must demonstrate native or near-native foreign language proficiency and the ability to teach his/her assigned subject(s) in that language.
Critical foreign policy objectives: This only includes programs where an exchange visitor [sic] participating in an exchange program that fulfills critical and time sensitive foreign policy objectives.
For dependent family members (H-4, L-2, and J-2, respectively):
National interest exceptions are available for those who will accompany or follow to join a principal applicant who is a spouse or parent and who is not subject to [Presidential Proclamation] 10052 (including those who have been granted a national interest exception). This exception can be extended to derivative applicants when the principal is currently in the United States or has a valid visa.
How to request an NIE waiver
If a foreign national already has a valid unexpired visa, or clearance to the United States through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization, the NIE waiver request can be made to the U.S. consulate or embassy where he or she is physically present. Otherwise, the request must be made at the same consulate or embassy where the foreign national is scheduled for a nonimmigrant visa appointment. Again, the process and evidentiary requirements will vary from one consulate or embassy to another. No specific guidance has been issued regarding the precise evidence needed to “prove” that a foreign national qualifies for an NIE waiver.
We strongly recommend that employers check with the specific consulate or embassy regarding its NIE waiver processes. If the foreign national is approved for an appointment, the employer should ensure that the foreign national is aware of the documentation needed to support the NIE waiver application. Once an NIE waiver is granted, the foreign national will either have an annotation on the visa foil in his or her passport, or will be provided a letter or email.
Finally, the NIE waiver is valid for only one entry into the United States, which must take place within 30 calendar days from the issuance of the NIE. An individual who leaves the United States and wishes to return must be reassessed for a new NIE waiver through the State Department or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Although the COVID-19 Presidential proclamations included China, Iran, and Brazil, it is not clear whether the consulates or embassies in these regions have been provided guidance on the issuance of NIE waivers or whether NIE waivers are being issued at all.
We will continue to monitor this developing issue. If you have any questions about this or other business immigration law issues, please do not hesitate to contact any of our immigration attorneys.
For a printer-friendly copy, click here.
|
| | | | ¶47,320 Pandemic may fuel higher employer health care cost increases in 2021, analysis finds — SURVEY RESULTS,
Oct. 1, 2020 From GEA HR Answers Now
While the pandemic drove a significant decrease in the use of health care services in 2020, employer health care benefit costs in 2021 are likely to increase above and beyond non-pandemic projections as care deferred in 2020 is pushed into the future, according to a new Willis Towers Watson analysis of medical claims and the potential impact of COVID-19 on care utilization and costs.
Willis Towers Watson studied four potential future patterns of COVID-19 infection and the subsequent impact on the level of care delivered to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. The analysis found employer health care costs in 2020 will likely come in between 3.3% and 8.8% lower than originally expected in the absence of the pandemic, as system capacity shifts and a fear of contracting the virus in medical settings continues to drive a significant volume of foregone and deferred care.
In 2021, however, costs are expected to rise again, between 0.5% and 5.0% above non-pandemic projections due to continued care for COVID-19 patients and delivery of previously deferred non-COVID-19 care. When 2020 and 2021 are combined, the study shows cost reductions of between 2.8% and 3.8% from non-pandemic levels across the four patterns.
COVID-19 has played havoc with all previous projections of health care utilization levels,” said Trevis Parson, chief actuary, Willis Towers Watson. “In 2020, we may see a reduction in national health care expenditures on a per capita basis for the first time since 1960. However, this reversal in trend is highly likely to be only temporary, despite the continued uncertainty about the virus, as previously deferred care returns in 2021.”
The analysis noted that the impact of COVID-19 on specific employer plans will differ based on a variety of factors that are geographically sensitive. “Employers need to pay special attention to the impact of COVID-19 on their health care spend,” says Parson. “The pandemic is driving significant volatility, which demands effective measurement. Broader changes to the health care system are likely to result, which will challenge employers as they look to drive value to employees through their health care plans. Employers will need to understand the rapidly changing health care market landscape and the shifting needs and risk profiles of their workforce.”
Source: Willis Towers Watson.
|
| |
HRDive.com DEEP DIVE - 'Everyone's been impacted': How to keep pandemic-driven flexibility fair
The pandemic revealed operations weaknesses for many employers, but HR can still make employees feel cared for regardless of situation.
AUTHOR Kathryn Moody @KatMMoody PUBLISHED Sept. 30, 2020
COVID-19 shattered workplace norms and prompted emergency responses from companies across the U.S. Six months later, companies are shifting from lockdown mode to "business as usual" — with some differences. For many, this return to a semblance of normal operations means examining which employees still need help.
There has been a particular focus during the pandemic on the impacts experienced by caregivers, particularly those of young children or the elderly. That inclination is also reflected in employer benefits. But everyone, from twenty-somethings living with three roommates to parents of four kids, is feeling strain, experts told HR Dive.
"Every situation has some level of disruption," Michael Weiner, director of EY's employee assistance program, told HR Dive. Social distancing and remote work has worsened rates of anxiety and depression, as workers are more isolated now than potentially ever before, Weiner said.
While some employers have turned to wellness programs to protect workers, the new normal requires managers to step up and ensure everyone — from caregivers to single young workers — is treated fairly and given the space they need to do their work and find a balance.
"Everyone's been impacted," Keith Kitani, founder and CEO of GuideSpark, a communications solutions company, said. "There can't be one size fits all. You have to trust your leaders and managers to evolve."
Emerging from emergency thinking
When employers were first reacting to lockdown orders, most were operating on an emergency basis, Kitani said. In other words, everyone across the company did what they had to do to get by. Six months later, a different challenge has emerged as it looks less and less likely that COVID-19 will have a true "end date" for some time, Kitani said.
"Now what do we do? Do we provide equipment? Perk spending? What about culture?" Kitani said. "What does this mean as we move forward?"
To reduce uncertainty, employers will need to lean on and empower managers, Kitani said — especially as each team may have deeply varied needs. While HR can reduce uncertainty by providing guidelines for budgets, leave allowances and so on, managers also need to be able to act independently.
"It's going to be impossible to put a policy in place to support every single [individual]," Kitani said. Empowering managers to make decisions for their teams "gives them the ability to do the right thing."
Approaching the work from that point of view may also help employers preserve a sense of fairness across an organization, Adam Pressman, partner at Mercer, said in an email, especially if employees "feel they have a voice in designing a flexible work approach that works best for their life situation."
In addition, employers offered new and expanded benefits to fill gaps where they could — and not just for caregivers. Weiner mentioned that EY offers not only backup care for parents, but also resources for pet owners, help for individuals after medical procedures and the ability to purchase equipment for home offices to ensure all of the organization's employees have the assistance they need during this time.
Potential pitfalls
The loss of the "softer side of culture," as Kitani called it, impacts everyone, top to bottom, and may contribute to feelings of isolation.
"A lot of that stuff happens in informal ways," Kitani said, including through chats before and after meetings and in common areas. Soft culture was hard to execute at an organizational level before, Kitani said, and the remote-nature of many kinds of work during the pandemic only makes it more difficult.
Teams have opted to use Zoom and other virtual forums to bring people together, Pressman said, but managers may "forget to be intentional about connecting with the individuals on their team, listening to them and working to understand and empathize with their work and life situation."
That individual-level management is key during what could be a mental health crisis; sometimes the only sign someone is struggling is a sudden dip or change in work performance, Weiner said. Managers should ask how employees are doing beyond the performance problem alone — and that may be enabled via new forms of "watercooler chat."
"You didn't want to spend five to 10 minutes talking about non-work stuff in a meeting, but now that stuff is lost," Kitani said. Now that time may be one of the few times a manager can catch up with direct reports and catch potential issues — just one of a few changes brought about by this new world of work.
Keep fairness top of mind
To ensure everyone feels heard, Pressman said employees should have some choice regarding their work situation. But employers will need to map out boundaries regarding how far those choices reach — be it location, hours worked or otherwise.
"Mapping out these boundaries while incorporating employee desires and preferences will be an important component of having an approach that is viewed as fair and equitable," Pressman said. Some of the workforce also may not be able to work remotely. Flexibility for an on-site job may require an employer to allow more choice regarding when and how the work gets done, Pressman added.
Fairness may also encompass an expansion of benefits to all employees rather than a certain subset. For example, EY expanded a partial paid leave program that was originally intended for individuals dealing with family matters to be available for any personal leave, Weiner said; "If there's an individual who needs to take some time, they don't need to explain why."
And now, more than ever, managers may need to "be thoughtful about the softer sides" of culture, Kitani said. When impersonal communication, like email, are the only options for some workers, training managers to be mindful can go a long way in preserving an organization's cohesive culture.
Follow Kathryn Moody on Twitter
|
| | |
Update from 10/01/2020 (State of Georgia)
Confirmed Cases 319,334
Deaths 7,063
Hospitalizations 28,668 ICU Admissions 5,300
Visit Georgia Department of Health website for more information:
|
| | | | | |
Georgia Employers' Association |
|
|
| |
