317-585-1688
Addressing Mental Health in the Workplace

Addressing Mental Health in the Workplace

September is National Suicide Prevention Month—an opportunity for employers to learn how they can help workers at all levels of anxiety and depression. Mental health disorders are now among the most burdensome health concerns in the United States and their presence in the workplace is undeniable.

According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nearly 1 in 5 US adults aged 18 or older (18.3% or 44.7 million people) reported a mental illness in 2016. In addition, 71% of adults reported at least one symptom of stress, such as a headache or feeling overwhelmed or anxious.

With roughly 63% of the population engaged in the workforce, overlap is inevitable—making mental health a necessary issue for employers to address. It’s in the best interest of employers to take a proactive role in dealing with this challenge head on.

What Employers Can Do

Reduce Stigma

Talking about mental health in the workplace can feel scary, mostly for fear of offending, being politically incorrect, or sounding uneducated or inexperienced with mental health. However, the less mental health is talked about, the more stigma is created. 

A white paper by The Prudential Insurance Company of America states that the workplace can impact stigma positively simply through open communication and transparency. Employers can encourage education on mental health and asking for help as needed—specifically conveying such asking as a positive thing. A study by Mercer noted that employers must understand mental health, access to care must be available, and proactive measures should be encouraged in seeking treatment and improving productivity.

Include EAP’s in benefit plans

Study after study shows that early intervention is the key component to success. Early intervention can be more likely when employers include in-network Employee Assistance Program (EAP) providers in their health plan. This ensures that care can be continued once EAP sessions are exhausted. Only 29% of the U.S. population diagnosed with depression seeks treatment, and even less follow through. The ability to continue therapy is absolutely vital to treatment and recovery.

Assessment and management

Often times managers assume a performance problem without considering an emerging mental health issue. Proper training is absolutely necessary from an employer standpoint. Managers should learn to consider an employee’s history— especially if behavior is new, unexpected, or emotion-driven. Because depression often manifests itself in declined performance, managers should inquire about well-being before jumping to conclusions. Managers must also be equipped with proper resources, such as an EAP, health and wellness partner, or HR representative. 

Considering potential mental health issues does not mean an employer cannot still properly discipline or terminate employees that are not performing essential job functions, failing to attend work hours, or breaching company rules. This consideration simply allows employers to act in the best interest of both employee and company.

Maintaining consistent contact is important as well, so to help employees through depression and reduce any fear of returning to work. A study on the psychology of “return to work” found that manager and co-worker interactions are essential in making employees feel safe enough to share problems, get help, and comfortably return to work. Remember that asking “Is everything okay?” is a small, but effective first step. 

Work also creates a sense of purpose that can eventually serve to improve mental health. Keeping communication lines open and offering return to work programs can help support employees and provide a productive, successful transition.

An Effective Strategy for Company Health

While individual well-being is a good enough reason alone to address mental health, the benefits can also affect your company’s bottom line. World Health Organization states: “Workplaces that promote mental health and support people with mental disorders are more likely to reduce absenteeism, increase productivity and benefit from associated economic gains.”

Addressing mental health is big, high-level, policy-making work. But addressing mental health can also be small things—card-writing, checking in, simply asking, “How are you doing?” Prioritizing communication, access to care, and proper management training are all part of an integrated health and well-being strategy. 

Have questions? Interested in more specific mental health resources? We at Servant HR love helping business owners create productive and positive work environments. Contact us today.

Federal Overtime Rule Currently in White House Review

Federal Overtime Rule Currently in White House Review

Here we go again!  As of August 12th, the Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed overtime rule affecting the base wage of overtime exemptions was sent to the White House for final review. 

This high-priority Trump Labor Department rule takes a more business-friendly approach than attempted in the Obama administration—expecting to make about 1 million workers newly eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay when working more than 40 hours in a week.

Raising the Threshold

According to The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) the rule would raise the salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA’s) white-collar exemptions to $35,308 ($679 a week) per year from $23,660 ($455 a week). The barred Obama-era rule would have raised the threshold to about $47,500, and worker advocates as well as some Democratic lawmakers are still pushing for that level. However, business groups generally support the Trump administration’s proposed increase.

SHRM states that to be exempt from overtime, employees must be paid a salary of at least the threshold amount and also meet certain “duties” tests. These tests define specific regulations for several exemptions, the most common being those related to executive, administrative and professional work. If they are paid less or do not meet the duties test requirements, employees must be paid 1 1/2 times their regular hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

A Rushed Rule

The DOL sent the final draft to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs only five months after proposing the rule, resulting in more than 116,000 public comments. Urgency from department officials stems from the desire for protection from anticipated legal battles with worker advocates. 

According to a report by Bloomberg Law, the administration wants the rule in place before the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in office. Bloomberg also reported new regulations are in the works for calculating overtime pay rates and limiting wage and hour liability for franchisers and businesses that use staffing labor.

What It Means 

If finalized, the overtime rule would cover more workers than was previously the case.  More than a million currently exempt workers would be reclassified as non-exempt, and pay would increase for those above the new threshold. Unlike prior drafts, the proposal does not call for automatic adjustments to the salary threshold, does not create different salary levels based on the region of the country, and does not make any changes to the duties tests. 

The salary threshold was last increased in 2004. The DOL is using the same economic methodology used to reach that standard, which the department officials say should protect the proposal from litigation.

(To get a more comprehensive timeline, click here to read our March 2019 blog and October 2016 blog, or check out SHRM’s Overtime Rule History timeline here.) 

While You Wait

Time will tell—likely sooner than later. But in the meantime, employers should begin auditing their exempt workforces to determine how many might qualify under the criteria of executive, administrative and professional exemptions. Before re-classification, it is possible that employees currently or potentially exempt due to salary may not pass the primary duties tests. 

Now is also a good time to weigh your options as an employer. If exempt employees currently make salaries significantly lower than the threshold, reclassifying employees to non-exempt and overtime eligible might make sense. 

But, employers can also avoid salary and overtime pay altogether. Hours for newly non-exempt employees may be reduced, part-time or contract workers may be hired to fill gaps, tasks may be re-assigned to other exempt employees, and perks may be dismissed since the exempt/non-exempt distinction is often used to provide benefits. 

If making such significant changes, employers must then weigh the cost of morale. Overall, it makes more sense to reclassify to non-exempt if an employee does not work much beyond forty hours. But for employees who often work over 40, it may be less difficult and less expensive to increase salary to the new threshold, rather than paying consistent overtime.

In general, the pending proposal offers valuable time for fixing current errors and planning for the future. We at Servant HR would love to help plan for yours. If you’re our client, we’re already on it. But if you have questions about the specifics of the proposal, or are wondering how a PEO can help manage these crucial details, please don’t hesitate. Contact us today!

Talking Politics at Work

Talking Politics at Work

On the heels of 4th of July, and with off-cycle election season quickly approaching, you may be finding yourself in a few more political conversations than usual. Talk at weekend BBQ’s, family gatherings—even checkout line chatter seem to land on politics.

But what about the workplace? Hot topics are still buzzing, but how much can employees engage in political conversations at work? If there is a line, what happens if it’s crossed?

Can you actually fire—or be fired—for talking politics at work?

Many assume First Amendment protection, but free speech isn’t so simple. According to writer Stacey Lastoe at The Muse, “There’s free speech, and then there’s free speech in the workplace.”

Private vs. Public

Private and public employers operate by different sets of rules. Private employers can generally set regulations about what is or isn’t appropriate for workplace discussions. There is not an inalienable First Amendment right in a private employer’s workplace.

Examples of private-sector employment areas include financial services, law firms, estate agents, newspapers and hospitality. Examples of public-sector employment areas include government employment, some healthcare, teaching, emergency services, armed forces and civil services.

Because politics are so polarizing, private organizations can easily and justly prohibit political discussions while at work. However, federal law also protects employees’ right to discuss labor issues with each other (i.e. wages and working conditions).

So the line is hazy—as guidelines pertain to specific topics of political conversation. For example, employees are protected if discussing support for a candidate who promotes higher wages. But as soon as the conversation switches to a candidate’s stance on foreign policy, those same protections technically don’t apply.

Variables

So what actually happens if an employee discusses politics in the office? 

Of course the political answer is, it depends. There are a few variables that determine potential consequences:

  • Your state. You might work in a state where the law protects employees from workplace discrimination based on political affiliation or extends other protections that would tend to protect you from being fired for talking about politics. Click here to read the different laws for each state regulating politics in the workplace.
  • NLRA protection. Most employers are covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which makes it unlawful to fire employees for participating in “concerted activity.” (Read our article about concerted activity on social media here.) If employees are discussing how they might improve the terms and conditions of their employment, or the previously mentioned labor issues, NLRA protection is granted.
  • The situation. Bosses have the right to call out employees chatting on the clock. Politics aside, if an employee is not working when they’re supposed to be working, it may be cause for disciplinary action. If discussions are “creating a disruption,” this can also lead to discipline.  

Takeaways for Employers

Be clear and aware. Make sure your organization has everything spelled out—what is expected of employee talk and behavior at work, how employees should use the internet on the job, social media policies, etc. 

Be aware of your state’s laws and work with HR on communication of what is and isn’t allowed. (Need help with HR? That’s our thing! Contact us today and see how our PEO model can lighten your administrative load.)

Takeaways for Employees

Know the rules. Be careful of how you’re using work time and remember that regardless of your political opinion, you’re at risk if you’re posting it during work hours. Remember that even out of the office, you represent your company and behaving professionally is good practice

Being an employee doesn’t require you abandon political causes you care about either! Simply set your social media accounts to private and make sure not to link yourself to your company—make it clear you’re representing only yourself.

Both employers and employees have the responsibility of pursuing shared goals for the good of their company. The good news is, that responsibility can easily be carried out apart from politics. Our best advice? Your #1 issue at work, should be work.

What the New Exempt Salary Threshold Could Mean for Your Business

What the New Exempt Salary Threshold Could Mean for Your Business

In December 2016, compliance with the Obama administration and the Department of Labor’s proposed wage minimum required extreme reclassification. (Read our 2016 blog on this proposal here.) The proposal would have raised minimum exemption wage to a jarring $47,476 from the previous $23,660. Push back from businesses combined with a late term lawsuit kept the proposal pending until Trump took office.

This Just In

As of last week, the Department of Labor has proposed an increase straight down the middle of the historic minimum and attempted Obama-era hike. The current proposed salary-level threshold for white-collar exemptions now sits at $35,308. According to the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM), the proposal, if finalized, could result in the transition of more than one million currently exempt workers to non exempt, as well as many pay increases for employees below the new threshold.

Nonexempt employees (those who do not meet the salary base and do not match FLSA work requirements) must receive a “time and one half” pay rate for any hours worked over forty in a workweek. The FLSA “duties test” defines specific regulations for executive, administrative and professional work that make an employee exempt, in addition to the salary threshold.

Tricky Business

While compliance is mandatory if the proposal is finalized, the specific way of reaching compliance is left to employer decisions.

If exempt employees currently make salaries significantly lower than the threshold, reclassifying employees to non-exempt and overtime eligible might make sense.

But, employers can also avoid salary and overtime pay altogether. Hours for newly non-exempt employees may be reduced, part-time or contract workers may be hired to fill gaps, tasks may be re-assigned to other exempt employees, and perks may be dismissed since the exempt/non-exempt distinction is often used to provide benefits.

Employers must then weigh the cost of morale.

Overall, it makes more sense to reclassify to nonexempt if an employee does not work much beyond forty hours. But for employees who often work over 40, it may be less difficult and less expensive to increase salary to the new threshold, rather than paying consistent overtime.

What Now?

There is still a long way to go before reclassification. Proposals are always small first steps in a lengthy process before finalization.

However, employers do not have to wait for the final rule to review FLSA duty requirements. Jeffrey Ruzal, an attorney with Epstein Becker Green, recommends employers begin auditing their exempt workforces to determine how many might qualify under the criteria of executive, administrative and professional exemptions. Before raging re-classification, it is possible that employees currently or potentially exempt due to salary, may not pass the primary duties tests.

In general, this pending proposal offers valuable time for fixing current errors and planning for the future. We at Servant HR would love to help plan for yours. If you’re our client, we’re already on it. But if you have questions about the specifics of the proposal, or are wondering how a PEO can help manage these crucial details, please don’t hesitate. Contact us today!

Employee vs. Independent Contractor: The latest NLRB approach

Employee vs. Independent Contractor: The latest NLRB approach

A new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision has drawn a blurrier line between employers and independent contractors. Returning to pre-Obama-era policies, the NLRB is now more likely to acknowledge independent contractor relationships.

A wide array of federal, state and local laws govern the relationship between employers and their employees. But often these laws do not apply to those classified as independent contractors.

The distinction between the two is critical, but hazy, as each law has a slightly different way of discerning independent contractors from employees. Courts and agencies add complication as well through differing interpretations of those laws, along with frequently changing standards according to appointed political party.

Back and Forth

Last year the California Supreme Court broadened the definition of “employee” for wage order claims. Obama-era guidance restricted an employer’s ability to classify workers as independent contractors. Now under President Trump, federal agencies are swinging back the other way.

According to Ryan Funk of Faegre Baker Daniels, the new NLRB decision returns to how it viewed independent contractors before Obama-era restrictions. Funk writes, “The main difference between the new test and the Obama-era one is how the agency looks at whether workers have ‘entrepreneurial opportunity.’”

Action vs. Opportunity

The Obama-era decision gave weight only to actual entrepreneurial activity (and even then, only when looking at just one part of a multi-factor test.) This narrow view makes the chance of meeting criteria significantly slim.

The new NLRB decision re-establishes the value of entrepreneurial activity. The principle of “opportunity for entrepreneurial activity” is used to evaluate the overall effect of each of the ten factors in a common-law analysis of an independent contractor relationship.

The decision is employer friendly, as it frees up employers to classify independent contractors and drop the host of governing laws.

Boiling It Down

While employers are freed up through the new decision, the line is still blurry. Those looking for a clear distinction between employee and independent contractor are in for a letdown. According to Funk, “Any legal test with ten factors is bound to boil down to a case-by-case approach.”

Even tests and their factors can vary case-by-case. Over the last thirty years the IRS has used an old revenue ruling twenty-point test, the tax court has used a seven-point test, and the IRS has espoused a three-pronged “control test.” Confusion is certainly understandable.

Therefore, independent contractor relationships should be re-analyzed in light of the new NLRB approach. Based on potential IRS involvement, it’s also important to note that the NLRB is just one voice in a crowd of agencies, so employers should stay up to date as independent contractor tests continue to evolve.

HR and automation: Integrating human and digital resources

HR and automation: Integrating human and digital resources

Since the agricultural revolution of the 18th century, the productivity and efficiency of technology has instilled fear of employment displacement. Everything from surgical automation to grocery store self-checkout has people wondering: Am I going to lose my job to a computer?

The concern is legitimate. According to the 2017 Global Future of Work Survey report from Willis Towers Watson, business leaders expect 17 percent of work will be automated by 2020. While some industries (i.e. manufacturing, military, etc.) have been highly automated for years, other sectors such as retail, finance, banking and insurance are currently reeling from increases in automation. Restaurant kiosks, ATM machines and even automated financial planning platforms are being offered in place of human talent.

Technology’s power to transform economic sectors is nothing new, and its influence is only speeding up. So what does automation mean for HR — a department namely for humans?

HR is not exempt from the impact of automation. According to the Society of Human Resource Management, “Software bots and sophisticated algorithms are making it much easier for recruiters to source and screen job candidates, a function formerly performed solely by very human HR employees.”

Technology provides a more user-driven employee experience and most commonly automates tasks that are tedious and time consuming. We at Servant HR have experienced this on a small scale through the implementation of electronic onboarding. Automation has lessened the paperwork shuffle and provides employees with forms they can fill out on their own laptop, on their own time.

Automation advances undoubtedly improve customer service and eliminate human error. It’s definitely good… but isn’t that kind of bad? For the ones who get paid for the paper shuffle?

It sounds like it, but it’s widely argued that humans still retain an edge. As smart as computers are, the human body itself is a flexible and adaptable work platform. Human workers see the details, weigh implicit factors and can make complex decisions in unique situations. While rote work can become more efficient, according to a KPMG study, jobs that involve networking, project management, sales, conflict resolution, hospitality, creativity and any level of social intelligence are insulated.

But insulated doesn’t mean isolated. The automation revolution is a revolution for a reason—it’s everywhere. Rather than viewing automation as the enemy, Lisa Buckingham, a brand officer at Lincoln Financial Group, encourages today’s businesses to “provide a blend of digital and human services.”

This analysis is based off of companies like Amazon and Lyft, who were born digital. These companies continue to raise consumer expectations across all industries for simple, transparent solutions. Even the most creative and human-centered jobs must embrace the efficiency and simplicity of technology.

Oxford University program directors, Michael Osborne and Carl Frey, have conducted extensive research on the future of employment. Their work also reveals that tasks requiring relationship building and an understanding of human needs in social situations are best-suited for humans.

We think so too. At Servant HR, relationship is our priority. Our people-centered approach to businesses makes our team of experts an irreplaceable asset to our clients, despite the imminence of automation.

Automation is not the enemy. Done right, automation frees up human workers to provide more hospitality, one-on-one interaction and detail-oriented customer service.

And service is what we’re all about.

To learn more about what our personal PEO can do for your business, contact us today!

Call Now Button