Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: HR Edition


There are some readers of the blog who specialize in Human Resources (or are casual "fans" of HR related issues).  Not wanting to disappoint, I thought this would be a good time to dedicate a post to HR related issues.  One of the more interesting articles I read this week had to deal with out of date minimum lifting requirements and the potential liability an employer could experience as a result. 

As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.


Employers Beware! Out of Date Lifting Requirements Could Spell Trouble

Ben Ford points out the dangers an employer can face with out of date minimum lifting requirements in their job descriptions.  Not only is an employer cutting off a potentially wide range of applicants, but there are potential discrimination claims that could arise from out of date minimum lifting requirements.  As the article notes, the EEOC warns employers that minimum lifting requirements must be "consistent with business necessity".  Given the start of the new year, make sure to take a look at the minimum lifting requirements and make sure they are accurate.



This is a good reminder from Eric Welter over at the Laconic Law Blog about the Colorado Wage Protection Act of 2014.  Under that Act, employers in the state are prohibited from maintaining "use it or lose it" vacation policies for their employees that would deprive an employee of earned vacation time and/or wages associated with that time.  While only a handful of states have adopted this policy (including California, Montana, and Nebraska), it will be interesting to see if any other states follow suit.



For those states which do not prohibit "use it or lose it" vacation policies as noted above, The HR Bartender suggests that employers could offer the option to employees to donate the unused vacation time.  The article notes that at least one organization allows their employees to donate vacation time to a designated charity, such as the American Heart Association.  I have to say I have heard of donating unused airline miles...but I cannot say I have ever heard of donating unused vacation time.  At the very least, it is an intriguing concept.  While this might not be a realistic idea for all employers and employees, it is at option that some might consider offering.


Answers to Several Important Questions In Regard to Pregnant Employees

The HR Specialist has about 20 answers to a host of questions that employers might have in regard to how to handle pregnant employees.  This article covers everything from whether an employer can bar a woman from returning to work for a predetermined period of time after giving birth all the way to whether an employer can count leave taken due to a pregnancy complication against the twelve weeks of FMLA leave for the birth and care of a child.  I highly recommend employers (and employees too!) give this one a review.



It goes without saying that when the exit interview occurs (if an employer actually conducts one, that is), it is often too late for the employer to get a feel for that employee's mindset and the overall workplace culture.  Stephanie Reyes has a very interesting article based upon that notion and instead suggests that employers remain engaged with employees throughout the time an employee works for the company.  Developing a level of trust and an open line of communication so that the employee feels comfortable addressing any issues with the employer is vital to employee retention.  This one is well worth a read.
 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more