| Special #86 March 18, 2021 |
|
Constangy.com Podcast: News & Analysis COVID-19 Vaccine Q&A for Employers
03.16.21
Can employers mandate COVID-19 vaccinations? Should they? Do employees’ sincerely held religious or moral beliefs alter that analysis? What about employees’ pre-existing medical conditions or pregnancy? How should employers communicate with employees about vaccinations? What litigation can employers expect related to COVID-19? Join Susan Bassford Wilson and Guest Jon Yarbrough for a discussion of your vital vaccination questions!
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.
|
| | | Leading Your Team in a Virtual Environment Pete Tosh
COVID-19 has changed the world and certainly our business environment. Millions of employees are now working remotely and this work-from-home paradigm may never fully switch back.
Recent surveys conducted by PwC, Gallup, International Workplace Group and other research houses have found that:
- Many employees have become used to working from home and expect that to become their new normal – especially if they have shown that they are as productive
- Many organizations have already adopted a hybrid workforce while Facebook and Microsoft have asked their employees to work from home on a long-term or potentially permanent basis
- So, organizations are recognizing that virtual leadership will be vital to their future success!
Yes, leading remotely is leading – the task is the same and so many sound leadership practices apply. However, what is different is how to apply those leadership practices in different communication mediums and environments. And the way in which a leader applies those practices is significant!
Leading virtually is challenging because:
- Leaders have communicated in person for a lifetime and interacting through Zoom, email, texts, etc. seems cold, impersonal and leads to misinterpretation
- Communicating face-to-face provides rich feedback – tone of voice, rate of speech, facial expressions, body language, etc. While our remote communication options lack some or all of these communication clues
- With fewer touchpoints with their direct reports, leaders have fewer opportunities to assess whether their team is aligned, motivated and performing
Want to know more about Leading Your Team in a Virtual Environment
join us for a one hour Webinar on this topic.
Presented in Conjunction with The Focus Group
Presenter: Pete Tosh
Time: April 13, 2020 – 9:30am – 11:00am EST
Registration Fee:
Members: $89.00
Non-Members: $99.00
*(3% processing charge for credit card payments)
|
| |  |
HRDive.com Article: 10 HR lessons learned during the coronavirus pandemic's first year
Employers in the U.S. have been dealing with the pandemic's disruptions for a year now and have found ways to continue training, investigations and more.
PUBLISHED March 15, 2021
When the novel coronavirus upended work nearly overnight, employers scrambled to keep essential, front-line workers safe and set up others for remote work.
HR pros found themselves tasked with training employees on topics ranging from remote productivity to mask mandate enforcement. Some HR pros also were managing layoffs, while others were implementing mass-hiring campaigns using new-to-them tech.
As the dust settled after the early weeks, employers also realized they needed to maintain ongoing learning and development initiatives in a new environment. They still needed to prioritize diversity and inclusion, and they couldn't delay harassment investigations and performance reviews any longer.
HR Dive spoke with various experts on the best ways to address these needs during the pandemic's first year, and many focused on the need for empathy, transparency and flexibility. The following 10 stories address these lessons and more. Read More >>
|
| | How Will Evolving Marijuana Laws Impact the Workplace in 2021?
Lisa Nagele-Piazza, J.D., SHRM-SCP
By Lisa Nagele-Piazza, J.D., SHRM-SCP
March 16, 2021
[This article has been updated from an earlier version.]
President Joe Biden supports marijuana decriminalization, but efforts to legalize cannabis consumption are likely to continue at the state level for now. In 2021, employers will need to review their policies and ensure that they comply with evolving laws, particularly those covering medical marijuana patients.
"There's a lot of speculation about whether the new administration will push to legalize marijuana," observed Mariah Passarelli, an attorney with Cozen O'Connor in Pittsburgh. She doesn't think federal legalization is likely to happen anytime soon.
At the federal level, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, which means it is deemed to have no medical value and a high potential for abuse. The executive branch can reschedule cannabis, but Passarelli said this would have a limited effect. Dispensaries may gain some tax advantages, but recreational use would remain illegal. Legalizing marijuana would take congressional action.
Although federal changes may come slowly, employers can expect to see speedier actions at the state level. Even states that have already legalized medical marijuana use are expanding their laws to cover more reasons for use and ways to use cannabis (such as smoking and vaping), Passarelli noted.
"As more states legalize marijuana use, companies with operations across multiple states will be forced to re-evaluate their workplace policies, as well as whether it is still practical to continue spending resources on drug testing," said Michael Freimann, an attorney with Greenspoon Marder in Denver.
Read More >>
|
| | Constangy.com News & Analysis
The cons of the PRO Act
By Tom Scroggins / Birmingham Office
3.16.21
The Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021 (also known as the “PRO Act”) is back with its laundry list of organized labor’s most-wanted government handouts. After decades of declining membership, unions see the PRO Act as a way to energize their rolls of dues-paying members by making it much easier for unions to organize in the modern workplace and restrain the ability of employers to fend off organizing drives. The U.S. House of Representatives passed it on to the Senate last week, by a vote of 225-206.
Citing concerns about a shrinking middle class, income inequality, and economic insecurity for families, the AFL-CIO has hailed the PRO Act as the most significant worker empowerment legislation since the Great Depression. It would make many radical changes to longstanding labor law and election processes. The following are the “highlights”:
Joint employer standard. The PRO Act would codify the joint employer standard set forth in the NLRB’s 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, making it much more likely that two or more employers would be considered “joint employers” of a worker assigned by an employment or temporary agency. The Board in Browning-Ferris held that indirect or reserved control could be considered to determine joint employer status as opposed to just direct control or control exercised in fact. The indirect or reserved control standard would put many businesses in jeopardy of being deemed joint employers by virtue of contractual provisions in agreements with professional employer organizations and temporary labor agencies, and in franchise agreements.
Elimination of “Right to Work.” The Act would allow bargaining agreements to require payment of dues by all represented employees, upending state laws that let employees opt out of union membership and dues obligations.
“Captive audience” meetings. The Act would prohibit small-group meetings where employees are compelled (and paid) to attend so that they can learn about unions. Long a staple of employer strategy during union election campaigns, attendance at such meetings would become voluntary.
“Employees” versus “independent contractors.”The Act would expand the definition of “employee” to allow workers currently classified as independent contractors to form and join unions. The Act would adopt California’s “ABC Test” in determining whether a worker was an “employee” or an “independent contractor.” This would essentially make every worker who performs work in the usual course of business of the company an employee instead of an independent contractor.
Use of company resources for organizing. The Act would allow employees to use company computers, email, internet access, telephones, etc., to communicate with co-workers for union organizing purposes.
No permanent replacement of strikers. The Act would prohibit the permanent replacement of workers who participate in strikes. Under current law, employers can permanently replace workers who go on economic strikes, subject to preferential recall rights.
No lockouts. The Act would prohibit employer-initiated work stoppages designed to influence the position of employees or their bargaining agent before a strike.
Fewer “supervisors.” The Act would tighten the test for determining which employees are “supervisors” within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Under the PRO Act, an employee would not be a “supervisor” unless the supervisory activities were conducted “for a majority of the individual’s work time.” The Act would also eliminate “assign” and “responsibly to direct” employees from the NLRA list of supervisory duties. The effect would be to classify more employees as “non-supervisory” and thus eligible to join a union – particularly team leaders or line leaders.
Excelsior list. Under the PRO Act, employers would be required to provide to the union the list of eligible voters within a mere two days from the date that an election is directed. This list must include names, work locations, shifts, job classifications, home addresses, home telephone numbers, cell phone numbers, work email addresses, and personal email addresses.
First contract negotiations and arbitration. The PRO Act would require the employer and the union to begin bargaining within 10 days of the union’s request, following certification of the union as the collective bargaining agent. Then, if no agreement is reached after 120 days, a three-member arbitration panel would decide the terms of a two-year collective bargaining agreement.
No class/collective action waivers. Employers would be prohibited from entering into class or collective action waivers with employees, or enforcing the waivers.
Private right of action for NLRA claims. The PRO Act would allow employees to sue employers directly for alleged violations of the NLRA, and recover punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Currently, an employee must file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, which can prosecute the charges in administrative proceedings.
The PRO Act now heads to the Senate, where its future seems far from certain. Democrats will have to muster a number of Republican votes or eliminate the filibuster to push this through. If it passes in the Senate, President Biden has said he will sign it as part of his promise to be the nation’s “most pro-union president.”
For a printer-friendly copy, click here.
|
| Upcoming Training (Virtual Sessions) |
| 2021 Leadership Training Series Virtual Workshops (First of the year) Trainers: Humphries Consulting, Inc.
Virtual (possible move to Face-to-Face when safe) Trainer: Pete Tosh Starts March 9, 2021 9:00am - 12:00pm EST
Virtual (possible move to Face-to-Face when safe) Trainer: Pete Tosh Starts March 11, 2021 9:00 am - 12:00 pm
|
| | | | |
Georgia Employers' Association |
|
|
| |
