Subscribe to feed Latest Entries

Understanding Construction Contracts

Posted by Allen Baker
Allen Baker
Energy Risk Specialist
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 22 May 2012
in Coverage Insights · 0 Comments
RISK INSIGHTS PIC NAME

Construction contracts can contain terms that impact your company’s bottom line. Reviewing them carefully prior to signing is indispensable, and can save your company time and money. This contract review guide is meant to be a starting point for reviewing contracts in general. It highlights some common contract terms and their potential impact.

Tags: Untagged

Understanding Construction Contracts

Posted by Allen Baker
Allen Baker
Energy Risk Specialist
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 16 May 2012
in Risk Insights · 0 Comments
RISK INSIGHTS PIC NAME

Construction contracts can contain terms that impact your company’s bottom line. Reviewing them carefully prior to signing is indispensable, and can save your company time and money.

Work Comp Insights: Understanding Your Workers' Compensation Experience Modification Factor

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Friday, 04 May 2012
in Risk Insights · 0 Comments

WORK COMP INSIGHTS 

The key to calculating a workers’ compensation premium is the experience modification factor, also known as your mod. Understanding your company’s mod and the data used to obtain it helps you identify ways to minimize your workers’ compensation premium.

Tags: Untagged

Work Comp Insights: NCCI Changes Primary - Excess Split Point for 2013

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Friday, 04 May 2012
in Risk Insights · 0 Comments

WORK COMP INSIGHTS

NCCI Changes Primary-Excess Split Point for 2013

 

Tags: Untagged

OSHA Working on Cadmium Regulations

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 26 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments

Good Housekeeping Increases Safety

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Wednesday, 25 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments

Good housekeeping is more than just mopping up a spill at the end of the day. Housekeeping should be done throughout the workday and in all areas of the plant, including aisles, stairs, storage areas and employee facilities.

...

Did You Know: Manufacturing Workers and Musculoskeletal Disorders (MSD)

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Friday, 20 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments

...

Physicians: Avoid a Negative Online Reputation

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Thursday, 19 April 2012
in Risk Insights · 1 Comment

More patients are consulting the internet first to research their symptoms and read physician reviews before scheduling a doctor appointment. A physician's presence (or non-presence) on the internet can affect their reputation and the reputation of the office or hospital they work for.

...
Tags: health care

Workplace Injuries More Likely for Hispanic Construction Workers

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments

According to the Center for Construction Research, a construction worker has a 75 percent chance of suffering a disabling, work-related injury over the course of a 45-year career period, with Hispanic workers having a 20 percent greater risk of dying than white, non-Hispanic workers.

...

Readers Say Most Employers Allow Personal Mobile Devices

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
We recently asked our readers, "Does Your Organization Permit Employees to BYOD?" According to the poll, only 17 percent of employers do not allow employees' mobile devices at work.

Here are the specific responses:
  • Yes, employees can have their own devices, but not use them for work. (24%)
  • Yes, employees can bring their own devices and use them for work. (54%)
  • No, employee devices are not permitted at work. (17%)
  • Don't Know. (5%)
Commentary

The important statistic for employers is that over half (54 percent) of employers not only allow employees to bring their own devices to work, but also allow or require them to use their own devices for work purposes.

This workplace trend brings challenges for employers – confidentiality, liability, harassment, social networking, email and file-sharing are all areas of potential risk.

This Site offers a model policy titled Equipment, Internet and Network Usage. To see if you have access to this policy, log on and go to Knowledge Vault and then Model Policies. Developing a policy tailored to your organization's needs is critical.


This informational piece was published on April 6, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Discrimination Against Military Service Members-A Rising Concern

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
In fiscal 2011, 1,548 soldiers filed complaints of violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), enacted in 1994.

The law applies to all employers but the federal government was the largest single offender in 2011 accounting for 18 percent of the complaints.

More than a quarter of federal employees are veterans, and the federal government is the largest employer of National Guard and reservists. About 14 percent of the 855,000 Guard members and reservists serving hold civilian jobs with the federal government. But lately the U.S. government has denied jobs and withdrawn job offers because service members were not yet released from military service. Other veterans claim they have been fired after service-related absences. Some government employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of employment, which is also prohibited.

USERRA calls on the federal government to be a "model employer" for service members. At the same time, some of the worst offenders are the Defense Department, Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Postal Service.

One purpose of USERRA is to protect the civilian careers of returning service members so that they are not disadvantaged because of their service. Experts say the system for changing employer practices is flawed because there is not a single agency with enforcement oversight, and there is little incentive for the government to improve. "Returning veterans allege job discrimination by federal government," www.mysanantonio.com (Feb. 19, 2012).

Commentary

Congress passed USERRA in 1994 to prohibit employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees or applicants for employment because of their past, current or future military service.

USERRA covers nearly all employees, including part-time and probationary employees. The Act applies to persons who perform duty in the "uniformed services," including the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Public Health Service commissioned corps, as well as the reserve components of each of these services. Federal training or service in the Army National Guard and Air National Guard also falls under USERRA. In addition, under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002, certain disaster response work (and authorized training for such work) is considered "service in the uniformed services."

While the source article focuses on discrimination by government employers, virtually all employers, regardless of size, are subject to USERRA.

Employers must make reasonable efforts to train or retrain returning service members to help them qualify for reemployment or provide alternative positions if the returning employee cannot qualify for the "escalator" position – the job the employee could have expected to achieve if he or she had stayed on the job rather than serving in the military.

But employers must not forget that discrimination based on military service or status is prohibited by the Act for first time job applicants as well. With many service members returning to the workforce, employers must not reject job applicants who have served in the armed forces simply because of preconceived notions, assumptions or stereotypes relating to their military service.

Also, USERRA requirements provide a minimum standard, but states can add additional protections that go beyond the federal ones. An employer should always check with an attorney to see if its state has protections for service members beyond those found in USERRA.

Related Links

Tags: Untagged

Flexible Work Schedules - What Works and What is Illegal

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments
According to a report by Regus, 67 percent of Singapore employers claim that flexible working practices have helped increase their productivity. Sixty-six percent of the employers reported that "flexi-working" is directly linked to an increase in revenues.

Employers reported that flexible working practices make workers feel more energized and motivated. Globally, flexibility also enables organizations to reduce employee turnover because of improved worker morale and health. In fact, 58 percent of respondents say their employees feel healthier because of flexible working practices. Sixty-seven percent of employees are now working more on the move compared to the time when flexible working practices were not yet popular. At the same time, more employees are likely to work part-time at some point in their careers.

Despite the clear productivity benefits of flexible working practices, small businesses are accepting flexible working practices more readily than are large firms. The study shows that 80 percent of workers from small businesses work flexibly compared to only 60 percent of workers in large firms.

According to William Willems, regional vice president for Regus, Australia, New Zealand and Southeast Asia, technology and network improvements along with employee demands for a better work/life balance are making flexible working schedules the norm. "Flexible working practices increase productivity," business.asiaone.com (Feb. 13, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

Compressed workweeks are one form of flexible scheduling. Other examples are staggered shifts or flexible daily hours.

The benefits of flexible scheduling are many: from boosting morale to reducing commute times to improving employee health and productivity. Furthermore, an employer providing flexible scheduling has a recruiting and retention advantage over employers not offering flextime.

Flexibility is a favorite employee benefit, and the productivity reward might make many employers want to establish a flextime policy. There are, however, some risks of having a flextime policy.

Consider the EEO risks associated with flexibility benefits. In particular, feelings of unfairness may arise in employees who are not allowed, or who are unable, to participate in a flexibility program. When feelings of unfairness exist, the employer faces a higher risk of discontent and discrimination claims. Employers offering flextime must evaluate the risks as well as the benefits of flextime.

A flexible work schedule is generally a matter of agreement between an employer and employee. The Department of Labor (DOL) has compiled a list of resources that addresses the subject. Go to Work Hours-Flexible Schedules to learn what the DOL has to say about flexible scheduling.

Employers considering flextime should review these suggestions:
  • Offer flextime to men and women equally.
  • Offer flextime to employees with or without families.
  • When selecting positions for flextime, make certain that other positions are not overly burdened when flextime is chosen.
  • Make certain that positions that do not have flextime as an option have other additional benefits that make the position attractive.
  • Consider coupling the flextime choice with a cost such as fewer vacation days or the choice of refusing flextime with a benefit such as a higher bonus potential.
  • Make certain that employees on flextime are monitored so that their production is consistent with their position and the benefit.
  • Before implementing a flextime policy, make certain to have an attorney review the policy.


This informational piece was published on April 4, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Want Happy Employees? Check Applicants' Facebook Pages

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology shows a strong relationship between characteristics revealed on Facebook profiles and success on the job.

Researchers asked two students and a university professor to spend 10 minutes going through the Facebook profiles of employed college students. They looked at comments, photographs, friends and interests and then answered a series of personality-related questions about the student workers. (e.g., "Is this person dependable?" "How emotionally stable is this person?")

A large number of friends and a wide range of interests demonstrated agreeability. The researcher also found that photographs of employees partying were seen as positive because they showed the person was sociable and extroverted.

Six months later the researchers obtained supervisors' performance reviews of the students' work and compared them to the earlier Facebook evaluations. They found a strong correlation between high scores for traits including curiosity, agreeability and conscientiousness and successful performance at work. The researchers believe the Facebook evaluations proved to be more accurate than traditional personality tests that employers often use to gauge potential employees. "Your Facebook profile 'can help predict your job performance,'" www.economictimes.com (Feb. 23, 2012).

Commentary

The study described in the source article was conducted by Dr. Peter A. Rosen, a professor at University of Evansville and Dr. Don Kluemper of Northern Illinois University. According to an article posted in Social Media News, the two men decided to team up to do the research because Dr. Rosen's research was focused on social networking websites and Dr. Kluemper's research was centered on personality.

When Dr. Rosen was asked what job seekers should avoid on their Facebook profiles, he said, "While you might think that I am going to say avoid posting pictures of you and your friends enjoying an adult beverage, my answer is a little different. My personal peeve is the person that consistently posts negative status messages, which shows that they score low in the personality trait of emotional stability. There is something to be said about hiring a positive person in the workplace."

Based on the study, employers can glean both positive and negative attributes from applicants' social media posts. The best practice for employers is to check a job applicant's public social media profile as part of the background check process. They should look for qualities that may help the applicant in the job as well as positive, negative and detrimental posts.

Remember, few jobs require a negative attitude. In the end, happy employees are better employees.

For more information on using social media in the hiring process log on to read Social Media Background Checks - A New Tool or a New Source of Liability? published on this Site.


This informational piece was published on April 3, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Hiring or Not Hiring Job Seeking Baby Boomers - Risks and Rewards

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
Researchers are finding that the recent wave of unemployment particularly affects older workers. Many employees who worked in the same types of jobs and positions for decades have been laid off and are now forced to look at changing their careers to reenter the workforce.

Although the unemployment rate for workers over 55 is much lower than the rate for younger workers, studies done by the AARP Public Policy Institute and the Urban Institute show that older workers face more obstacles when looking for a new job. Workers who are age 55 and older are unemployed an average of 56.1 weeks before finding a new position, compared to 35 weeks for younger workers.

Employers are nearly one-third less likely to hire an older worker than a younger applicant. When employers hire older workers, it is often in a new career field that pays less - nearly 40 percent less than the previous jobs held by workers ages 50 to 61 - and the new career field comes with challenges such as the need for training, a younger boss, and a down-sized lifestyle.

The studies also found that the earning potential of workers ages 62 and older decreases by about 46 percent when starting over in a new career.

Experts suggest that older workers stay current with their computer skills and take advantage of on-the-job training. Also, internships are no longer just for college graduates. Many older job seekers find that internships are an effective way for them to break into a new field and can lead to permanent employment. Corilyn Shropshire for the Chicago Tribune, "Older workers face challenges after layoffs," www.chicagocareertech.com (Feb. 16, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

As of November 2011, figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) show that just over 20 percent of the workforce is age 55 or older. With the unemployment numbers still over eight percent, you can be sure that many of those looking for a job are in this older age group.

The protections found in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) apply to both employees and job applicants. Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of his or her age (40 and over) with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including training, firing, promotion, layoffs, compensation, benefits, job assignments and hiring.

Employers must remember that as long as job applicants, no matter their ages, are able to perform the essential functions of a job in a safe, productive and reasonable manner, they should be considered for the job.

One value provided by many older workers is their willingness to work part-time or on a temporary basis. Older workers provide an excellent pool of experienced talent for part-time or project-based work. Full-time older workers also may have more flexibility with work schedules.

Other key benefits of hiring older workers are that they often have more experience, a strong work ethic, and a mature understanding of the workplace. In a new career, they may bring an attitude of enthusiasm, appreciation and loyalty to the workplace that bolsters overall employee morale and productivity.

To entice older applicants, employers should emphasize their anti-discrimination policies, how their managers are trained to provide equal employment opportunities, and detail how training is allocated to all employees regardless of age. Employers, if possible, should promote their records for employing older workers and the success older workers have achieved once employed.

Consider these tips to make sure that your hiring process does not overlook the talents of older workers:
  • Advertise jobs where older employees are likely to view them - with senior associations and senior-related career sites. Make certain that your advertisements are age-neutral, however.
  • Advertise your organization as an equal opportunity employer.
  • Create job postings that promise training, if available.
  • Offer flexible hours.
  • Permit part-time employment and job sharing.
  • Create a recognition program and advertise it to older employees so they know they will receive acknowledgement for a job well done.


This informational piece was published on April 2, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Applicant with a Disability? Do You Know the Risks?

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
A national coffeehouse chain faces a lawsuit filed by a job applicant with a disability. The man alleges discrimination in the employer's hiring practices and claims that he was turned down for a barista job because he has only half of his left arm. The job applicant claims that the store manager told him that he could not perform the job because many of the flavored syrup bottles are stored too high for him to reach.

In the lawsuit, the man claims that he was never given the opportunity to show his ability to perform the job or to request possible reasonable accommodations to perform the job.

The coffeehouse chain asserts in its defense that it employs many workers with disabilities and disputes the man's account of the interview. "One-armed man sues Starbucks for not hiring him," www.sfgate.com (Feb. 21, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination in all aspects of the hiring process including recruitment, the intake of applications, interviews, and final hiring decisions.

In this case, the employer allegedly made a decision not to hire the applicant based on the assumption that the applicant could not perform a necessary job duty; namely, reaching flavored syrup bottles. But the ADA requires employers to disregard a disability if the job applicant can perform the job with or without reasonable accommodations. The requirement means that employers should not make the decision not to hire an applicant without first exploring accommodation options.

An employer may consider allowing an applicant with a disability to provide a list of reasonable accommodations that could enable him or her to perform the job. An employer may also seek an independent evaluation of whether an applicant with a disability can perform the particular job with or without reasonable accommodation.

Many employers do not realize the extent of protections the ADA offers job applicants. The ADA also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations during the application process and interviews. These reasonable accommodations take many forms, such as supplying written materials and applications in accessible formats (large print, Braille, or audiotape); providing readers or sign language interpreters; and/or conducting recruitment, interviews, and job testing at locations accessible to those with disabilities.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces the ADA in employment. Go to the EEOC's Disability Discrimination page to learn more about ways to make your workplace ADA compliant.

Consider these additional suggestions to avoid disability discrimination in the hiring process:
  • Do not ask questions about disabilities on application forms or tests or during any part of the application and interview process.
  • If an applicant requests, orally or in writing, a reasonable accommodation for the interview process, try to accommodate the request.
  • Do not ask questions that are likely to reveal the existence of a disability before making a job offer. Questions and medical examinations are permitted after extending a job offer but before the individual begins work.
  • Do not withdraw the job offer solely because you learn that an applicant has a disability. Seek the advice of an attorney before making any decision to reject an applicant with a disability or retract an offer of employment.
  • Don't make assumptions about a prospective employee's ability to work. Judge each applicant on his or her unique qualifications.


This informational piece was published on April 5, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

The Risks of Hiring Undocumented Employees

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Personal Risk Advisor · 0 Comments
Four women have settled their discrimination lawsuit with a large manufacturing employer.

The women accused the employer of giving preferential treatment to Latinos. They claim the employer did not offer them jobs until after a 2008 workplace raid on undocumented immigrants. One woman alleges that she applied for a position with the employer every three to six months for about six years, and the other plaintiffs made similar allegations.

According to the women's attorney, the employer acted on racial stereotypes that Latinos work harder than blacks and whites and that Latinos put up with working conditions other workers may find objectionable.

According to the lawsuit, undocumented immigrants from Mexico received preferential treatment. Immigration agents did, in fact, detain almost 600 undocumented immigrants during a raid on the employer prior to the lawsuit. Most of the workers were deported and some face identity theft charges. In February 2011, the employer paid $2.5 million after pleading guilty to conspiracy to violate immigration laws.

The lawsuit further alleges that the employer knew it was hiring undocumented immigrants and even instructed some on how to get false identities. In fact, some of the illegal workers were given jobs even after the Social Security Administration informed the employer that their Social Security numbers were not valid. "Mississippi Company Settles Lawsuit Alleging it Favored Latinos," latino.foxnews.com (Feb. 13, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

The source article points to several areas of high risk in hiring undocumented workers. First, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on, among other things, race, color, national origin or ethnicity.

The prohibitions include discrimination against one class in favor of another.

Allowing managers to make employment decisions based on racial stereotypes puts an employer at high risk for discrimination charges.

Second, employers also may incur criminal penalties for engaging in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring unauthorized aliens for a fee. Hiring workers who are not authorized to work under the E-verify process can lead to criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Every new employee must complete a Form I-9 and provide employers with documentation establishing both identity and eligibility to work in the United States. In addition, an employer should know and comply with its state's immigration and employment laws.

Lastly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) estimates that as many as nine million Americans have their identities stolen each year. If the employer in the above-mentioned article did aid workers in identity theft, as accused, it will face criminal punishment as well as civil liability in connection with the thefts.

The E-Verify system is an online federal screening tool that matches employee information to Social Security Administration (SSA) records. According to the Department of Homeland Security, E-Verify is currently the best way for employers to electronically verify the employment eligibility of new hires. The program also improves the accuracy of wage and tax reporting and protects jobs for authorized workers.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Citizenship and Immigration Services provides more information on E-verify for employers, including links to resources.

In order to avoid litigation, here are some helpful hints for using E-Verify:
  • Federal contractors were required to use E-Verify as of September 8, 2009;
  • Employers must post a notice informing employees of their use of E-Verify;
  • E-Verify must be used for new hires only. It cannot be used to verify employment eligibility of current employees;
  • If used, E-Verify must be used for all new hires regardless of national origin or citizenship status and cannot be used selectively;
  • Employers may not use E-Verify to pre-screen applicants; instead, use the system after hire and completion of Form I-9;
  • If an employee receives an information mismatch from his or her Form I-9 and SSA and DHS databases, the employer must promptly provide the employee with information about how to challenge the information mismatch, including a written notice generated by E-Verify.
  • Employers must not take any adverse action against an employee because he or she contests the information mismatch. This includes firing, suspending, withholding pay or training, or otherwise infringing upon his or her employment.


This informational piece was published on April 3, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Requesting Social Network Passwords - Invasion of Privacy or Due Diligence?

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments
Hiring managers have reviewed job applicants' and employees' public profiles since the widespread popularity of social media. But what happens when users set their profiles to private so that only selected people or certain networks can view them? The answer for some employers - ask the job applicant for his or her password or ask the applicant to "friend" the hiring manager so the manager can view the applicant's private posts.

In one example, a security guard at the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services returned to his job after taking a leave for his mother's death. At his reinstatement interview, he was asked for his login and password. According to the agency, it checks employees' and applicants' social network posts for gang affiliations.

Although the man was surprised by the request, he complied. "I needed my job to feed my family. I had to." The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) complained about the practice, and the agency amended its policy. Hiring managers now ask job applicants to log in themselves during interviews. The case has inspired Maryland legislators to propose a law that forbids public agencies from asking for access to private social networks.

Meanwhile, in Illinois, the McLean County sheriff's office is one of several sheriffs' departments that ask applicants to sign into social media sites for screening. The practice has been part of the background check process since 2006. The chief deputy explained that applicants have a right to refuse, but no one has ever done so. When asked what sort of information would jeopardize job seekers, he said that it depends on the situation, but might include inappropriate pictures or relationships with people who are underage or other illegal behavior.

Some organizations, like the sheriff's department in Spotsylvania County, Virginia, ask applicants to "friend" background investigators for jobs at the 911 dispatch center or law enforcement positions. Other employers require new hires to sign non-disparagement agreements that prohibit them from posting negative comments about an employer on social media.

According to E. Chandlee Bryan, a career coach and co-author of the book The Twitter Job Search Guide, individuals seeking employment should always stay aware of what information is on their social media profiles and assume an employer is going to see it. Although Bryan is concerned about employers demanding login credentials, she feels that as long as an employer asks to see a social network profile through a "friend" request, there is no violation.

Giving out one's social media login information violates the social network's terms of service. But experts say that those terms do not have any real legal weight. The Department of Justice (DOJ) considers it a federal crime to enter a social networking site in violation of the terms of service. However, during recent congressional testimony, the DOJ admitted they would not prosecute violations. "Proposed laws would forbid employers from asking for job seekers' social media passwords," www.foxnews.com (Mar. 20, 2012).

Commentary

On March 23, 2012, Erin Egan, Chief Privacy Officer of Facebook, issued a statement regarding employers seeking access to profiles of job applicants. According to Egan:

This practice undermines the privacy expectations and the security of both the user and the user's friends. It also potentially exposes the employer who seeks this access to unanticipated legal liability. . . . We don't think employers should be asking prospective employees to provide their passwords because we don't think it's the right thing to do. But it also may cause problems for the employers that they are not anticipating. For example, if an employer sees on Facebook that someone is a member of a protected group (e.g. over a certain age, etc.) that employer may open themselves up to claims of discrimination if they don't hire that person.

While Facebook and others protest the practice based on privacy concerns and remind employers not to discriminate during the hiring process, employers, nevertheless, have a responsibility to perform due diligence when hiring. Employers have a right and duty to check job applicants' and employees' public posts as part of background checks to make sure they are hiring the right person for the job.

Furthermore, employers should check public postings on social networking sites on a regular basis to make sure that illegal discrimination and harassment does not occur. Just as an employer can incur liability for discrimination in hiring, discriminatory social media posts made by or against its employees may support EEO charges against the employer.

Currently, there is no law prohibiting private employers from asking to view job applicants' social media posts, public or private. The challenges described in the source article were referring to the tougher scrutiny public employers face when their policies and practices are challenged on privacy grounds.

Employers should watch closely in the future for proposed legislation, new laws, and developing case law on this issue. Most importantly, before asking for access, employers should ask for the opinion of an attorney to make sure that such requests are compliant with the law.


This informational piece was published on April 12, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

The Relationship Between Weight and Workers' Compensation Claims - The Real Truth and Solutions

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Claims Corner · 0 Comments
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the obesity rate in U.S. adults and children remained steady in 2009-2010 compared with the 2007-2008 rate. The CDC also reports that approximately 37.5 percent of adults and 17 percent of kids up to age 19 were obese in 2009-2010.

According to health experts, obesity increases the risk of comorbid conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, stroke, coronary heart disease and cancer. These comorbid conditions are complicating workers' compensation cases.

Comorbid conditions make it difficult for treating physicians to help employees achieve maximum medical improvement or permanent-and-stationary status. In addition, research shows that obese employees, compared to healthy-weight workers with similar injuries, are more likely to claim permanent disabilities.

Several studies have documented how obesity adversely affects workers' compensation claims. Duke University conducted one such study in 2007 where researchers found that obese workers filed twice as many workers' compensation claims as non-obese employees. According to the Duke study, medical costs of overweight employees were seven times higher than for those employees who were not obese. Obese workers also missed 13 times more days of work because of their injuries.

NCCI Holdings, Inc., based in Boca Raton, Florida, conducted similar research in 2010. The study revealed that the range of medical treatments, duration and costs was typically greater for overweight employees than for those who were not obese but had similar injuries. NCCI also found that there is greater risk that injuries will create permanent disabilities for an obese injured worker than for other injured workers.

According to Teresa Bartlett of Sedgwick Claims Management Services Inc., in Troy, Michigan, approximately 28 percent of claims that they handle involve workers who are overweight or obese. Bartlett reports that of the top six most expensive claims – musculoskeletal, fractures, strains and sprains – 46 percent of the claimants are obese. These cases present another challenge for employers because the longer an injured employee is away from his or her job, the greater the risk the worker will "decondition" or gain even more weight. This makes it more difficult to help the employee return to work.

According to William Zachry, vice-president for risk management at Safeway, Inc., in Pleasanton, California, obesity has added costs to workers' compensation claims at his organization. He cites, as one example, knee replacement surgeries that may not have been necessary if the injured workers had not been overweight.

Julie A. Fortune, senior vice-president and chief claims officer for Arrowpoint Capital in Charlotte, North Carolina, said that injured workers' social fears, because of their body images, can complicate efforts to assist them through exercise programs that can help them lose weight. Workers' compensation claim experts also cite the risk of an increase in mental health problems and related behaviors, including drug abuse, if claimants are obese. Roberto Ceniceros, "Obesity Problems Weigh on Workers' Comp," www.dietingpills.org (Mar. 8, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

Employees need confidence and commitment to participate in employer-sponsored wellness programs, especially those that concentrate on weight loss. Overweight employees may struggle with self-consciousness or other social fears that prevent them from participating in weight-loss or healthy lifestyle programs.

Employer-sponsored weight-loss programs provide one battleground for the war against obesity, rising health care costs, and workers' compensation claims. When employers can entice workers to take advantage of these programs, they can reduce their health care and insurance costs while helping employees live healthier lifestyles.

Many employers use incentives and penalties, or a "carrot and stick" approach, to involving employees in health and wellness programs. But from an employment practices perspective, the "carrot" approach is the best and safest method to encourage employee participation in weight-loss programs.

Ultimately, employees must make up their own minds to change unhealthy habits. A "carrot-only" approach, such as offering cash payments for completing certain health assessments, offering flextime for employees who want to exercise at lunch or paid-for on-site exercise programs, is more likely to result in whole-hearted participation.

Furthermore, employers should make sure that weight-loss programs are positive and include education on nutrition, physical exercise, mental health and improving self-esteem. These programs encourage participation and increase long-term success.

Even when employers offer an incentive-only wellness program, there are several laws to consider: HIPAA, GINA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and other anti-discrimination laws. Employers must pay special attention to non-disclosure rules for medical information and avoid discrimination or retaliation against employees who cannot participate or who do not wish to participate in wellness programs.

For guidance when adopting wellness programs for your employees, including those for weight loss, consider the following tips:
  • Eliminate the unhealthy foods offered by vendors to your employees via on-site machines. Instead, offer healthier, low fat, low sugar alternatives.
  • Provide incentives for your employees to join and use health clubs.
  • If resources are available, provide physical fitness equipment for your employees to use. Arguably, the cost of providing exercise equipment and a place to shower could pay for itself with a reduction in health care costs.
  • If you have the facilities, offer onsite yoga, Pilates, spin, and other instructed classes. Pay for instructors to come to your facility.
  • Encourage frequent workday stretching and exercise breaks, especially for those employees who use computers or other desk equipment most of the workday.
  • Offer free health screening for your employees, such as cholesterol and diabetes screening. Remember that an employee's health records are private, so do not ask about or for the results.
  • Hold or provide access to classes on nutrition and healthy cooking for your employees.
  • Finally, provide your employees access to seminars promoting healthy lifestyles. The more education your employees have about the personal and professional detriments of obesity, the more likely they will succeed in making positive changes.


This informational piece was published on April 11, 2012.

Finally, your opinion is important to us. Please complete the opinion survey:

 

...
Tags: Untagged

Insuring Against Disability and Loss of Life After Terminations Without Just Cause

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Coverage Insights · 0 Comments

Written exclusively for Chubbworks

The former manager of a restaurant owned by a prominent Food Network chef and her brother has filed a lawsuit against the two owners, alleging an illegal hostile work environment. The white female manager claims that the chef's brother sexually harassed her after she started working at the restaurant in 2005.

The former manager claims that the brother targeted her for unwanted sexual advances soon after his sister appointed her manager of the restaurant. The brother watched pornography in the small office that he shared with the former manager, handed out sexually explicit pictures at an office meeting, and made frequent sexual innuendos.

Coupled with the sexual harassment allegations are complaints that the chef's brother physically intimidated black employees and made racial insults to them. Both owners allegedly used racial slurs. The brother demanded that black workers use a separate entrance from the one white workers used and that they were to use certain restrooms. The former manager also alleges that the brother physically shook a male black worker and challenged other workers to fight on other occasions.

The final straw came when the brother grabbed the former manager's face during a dinner for vendors stating, " I love you," and later screamed at her and spit in her face. The former manager, suffered panic attacks while at work, quit her job. "Paula Deen, brother sued for harassment," www.usatoday.com (Mar. 5, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

This case involves both racial and sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines racial harassment as racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.

Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Under both forms of illegal harassment, an infrequent or casual offensive comment or joke may not rise to the level of actionable discrimination. However, either racial or sexual conduct may provide a basis for a hostile work environment claim when harassment is so frequent or severe that it creates a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Whether the conduct in this case crosses the "frequent or severe" threshold has yet to be decided. However, employers should pay attention to the fact that the manager's race discrimination claims in this case are based on conduct directed at her black co-workers, not at her, a white woman. An employee can sue an employer for a hostile work environment even if the employee is not the direct target of the abusive conduct.

The costs of harassment are high for both victims and employers. Victims often suffer psychologically, physically and emotionally, and this case shows that the damage caused by harassment can spread beyond the direct victims of the harassment to the greater workforce. For the employer, the effects may be far-reaching - damaging workforce morale, loyalty and productivity while allowing a fear-based environment to grow.

Establishing a productive workplace involves strong anti-harassment policies along with a safe and effective way for employees to report harassing behavior.

Here are some guidelines for managers and supervisors dealing with harassment in the workplace:
  • When a person is making a complaint of harassment, make certain that he or she does so without the accused in the room.
  • Consider having a neutral witness, preferably another manager, hear the complaint as well.
  • Report the harassment immediately to human resources, or have the person make his or her complaint to human resources directly.
  • If at all possible, separate the complainant and the accused until the matter is resolved.
  • Make certain that other employees who are not part of or a witness to the complaint stay uninvolved.
  • Be watchful for any signs of retaliation after the complaint is made.
  • Continue to watch for retaliation after the complaint is resolved.
  • Make sure that witnesses and others who cooperate with an investigation of harassment do not experience retaliation, either.


This informational piece was published on April 10, 2012.

...
Tags: Untagged

Serving Up Sexual Harassment at the Workplace - What Determines a Hostile Working Environment

Posted by CFR
CFR
Keeping your up to date on the latest risk & insurance topics
User is currently offline
on Tuesday, 17 April 2012
in Work Comp & Safety Matters · 0 Comments

Written exclusively for Chubbworks

The former manager of a restaurant owned by a prominent Food Network chef and her brother has filed a lawsuit against the two owners, alleging an illegal hostile work environment. The white female manager claims that the chef's brother sexually harassed her after she started working at the restaurant in 2005.

The former manager claims that the brother targeted her for unwanted sexual advances soon after his sister appointed her manager of the restaurant. The brother watched pornography in the small office that he shared with the former manager, handed out sexually explicit pictures at an office meeting, and made frequent sexual innuendos.

Coupled with the sexual harassment allegations are complaints that the chef's brother physically intimidated black employees and made racial insults to them. Both owners allegedly used racial slurs. The brother demanded that black workers use a separate entrance from the one white workers used and that they were to use certain restrooms. The former manager also alleges that the brother physically shook a male black worker and challenged other workers to fight on other occasions.

The final straw came when the brother grabbed the former manager's face during a dinner for vendors stating, " I love you," and later screamed at her and spit in her face. The former manager, suffered panic attacks while at work, quit her job. "Paula Deen, brother sued for harassment," www.usatoday.com (Mar. 5, 2012).

Commentary and Checklist

This case involves both racial and sexual harassment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines racial harassment as racial slurs, offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's race or color, or the display of racially-offensive symbols.

Sexual harassment is unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.

Under both forms of illegal harassment, an infrequent or casual offensive comment or joke may not rise to the level of actionable discrimination. However, either racial or sexual conduct may provide a basis for a hostile work environment claim when harassment is so frequent or severe that it creates a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

Whether the conduct in this case crosses the "frequent or severe" threshold has yet to be decided. However, employers should pay attention to the fact that the manager's race discrimination claims in this case are based on conduct directed at her black co-workers, not at her, a white woman. An employee can sue an employer for a hostile work environment even if the employee is not the direct target of the abusive conduct.

The costs of harassment are high for both victims and employers. Victims often suffer psychologically, physically and emotionally, and this case shows that the damage caused by harassment can spread beyond the direct victims of the harassment to the greater workforce. For the employer, the effects may be far-reaching - damaging workforce morale, loyalty and productivity while allowing a fear-based environment to grow.

Establishing a productive workplace involves strong anti-harassment policies along with a safe and effective way for employees to report harassing behavior.

Here are some guidelines for managers and supervisors dealing with harassment in the workplace:
  • When a person is making a complaint of harassment, make certain that he or she does so without the accused in the room.
  • Consider having a neutral witness, preferably another manager, hear the complaint as well.
  • Report the harassment immediately to human resources, or have the person make his or her complaint to human resources directly.
  • If at all possible, separate the complainant and the accused until the matter is resolved.
  • Make certain that other employees who are not part of or a witness to the complaint stay uninvolved.
  • Be watchful for any signs of retaliation after the complaint is made.
  • Continue to watch for retaliation after the complaint is resolved.
  • Make sure that witnesses and others who cooperate with an investigation of harassment do not experience retaliation, either.


This informational piece was published on April 10, 2012.

...
Tags: Untagged