Successful business owners know that much of their success depends on their key employees being more productive and serving as positive-attitude role models. Employers can help workers develop the skills and attitude to be leaders and contribute to the company’s success by providing personal growth opportunities. When employees prove to be high performers, employers can support their drive to be even better employees and individuals in four areas of personal development: education and training, a healthy lifestyle, being fully engaged in their work and reduced job-related stress.

• Employers can make sure employees continue their education and training by providing in-house programs as well as tuition assistance for course work at local colleges and/or technical institutions. These should be clearly presented in the employee handbook. Employers can also help guide employees to government-funded training programs or income tax credits.
• The benefits to the employer and employee of promoting a healthy personal lifestyle should be obvious. Healthy employees perform better, produce more and are much less likely to be absent. Employers can contribute by establishing a relationship with a local gym or fitness center that provides discounts for employees who exercise regularly. Companies can also sponsor healthy outings, such as hikes, runs and kayak trips, etc.
• When employees are more engaged in their work (and employers help make that possible) those companies are generally more profitable. The employer’s contribution to this process is to provide opportunities, in the forms of training or materials, so employees understand better the company’s business model and mission. Employees are then better able to apply their specific skills to the company’s goals, which should lead to greater productivity.
• Employers can also help to reduce stress in the workplace. According to a 2007 public opinion study, seventy-four percent of employees are stressed at work. This, of course, has a major impact on productivity, absenteeism and could even increase confrontation among workers. Employers can address this challenge by making relaxation exercises, such as meditation, stretching and short walks a regular part of the company’s culture and workday. Key employees are better leaders when they are less stressed, share problem-solving solutions with co-workers and help everyone remain calm.

Each of these factors in the personal development of key workers should be delineated in the employee handbook. It’s immediate evidence that the employer values his or her most productive workers and understands how they can have an enormous, positive effect on all employees.

In a free-enterprise economy, businesses of all sizes are bought and sold with regularity; it’s a perfectly natural occurrence in a dynamic business environment. Employees, however, don’t typically view the sale of the company for which they work as anything but “natural.” Their reaction is more likely to be stunned, confused and even angry. That leads to a dilemma that many business owners face, especially small-business owners: When should employees be told that a business is being sold?

According to one business broker, strict confidentiality is the best strategy. If customers, vendors and employees learn about the sale, then it is likely that many of them will assume the company is unstable, and that could easily jeopardize the sale. The broker also said that if employees were told early in the process, then some of them would certainly react by actively looking for new jobs. A number of them would naturally gravitate to the for-sale company’s competitors, and any confidentiality is then breached. The broker added that since only approximately 30% of all businesses for sale change hands, communicating the company’s intention to employees as soon as the decision has been made might not affect the outcome very much.

Many small business owners view their relationships with their employees as similar to a family, so owners often don’t want to cause too much shock if employees come to work one day to discover the “family” is being separated. This is why some owners think it is important to share their selling decision with employees quickly. This can be a positive if employers are well prepared for the announcement meeting. It’s important to tell employees that a new owner often has the capital and motivation to make the business an even bigger success. The data on small-business sales proves that most new owners want to keep employees because they are vital to a smooth transition and continued growth. Business owners can also prepare an announcement letter that thanks employees for their loyalty and lists the many benefits and advantages of a sale for employees.

There is no one strategy for addressing this delicate issue. When employees should be told that the company is being sold depends on the nature of the company’s business, who is buying it and the employer/employee relationship.

As technology continues to leap forward, many employers continue to develop and apply personal e-mail and Internet use policies, as the data from the 2009 American Management Association and the ePolicy Institute survey would seem to suggest. According to the survey, 27% of businesses have implemented personal blog posting policies. Half, or 50%, of companies surveyed do not allow employees to send or receive personal e-mails at the workplace. Slightly more than 25% of businesses have terminated employees for violating company policies on Internet use.

Nancy Flynn, executive director of the institute, stated that only 2% of employers have fired employees because the content of personal social-networking pages were inappropriate or not permitted as stated in company policies. This may mean that employers and their social-networking policies are lagging behind the rapid expansion of social networking; or employees have become wary of what they put on their sites because they are aware of their companies’ longer-standing e-mail and Internet use policies. Flynn also said that there has been a sharp increase in the number of employees dismissed for their misuse of e-mail: 14% during 2001 to 26% for 2009. Considering how much e-mail technology has changed and its increased integration into workplace and private activities, this data should be no surprise.

Employers who have been the most proactive are working closely with their information technology (IT) staff or service and attorneys to formulate appropriate policies. Many of those employers have developed procedures to monitor employees’ e-mail and Internet use, including special software that finds foul or sexually explicit language.

Employers are also scheduling employee meetings to distribute and discuss addendums to employee handbooks that specifically address this issue. A smart strategy is to ask employees to sign a form that states they have read and understand e-mail and Internet use policies. This topic should also be a specific part of any new-employee orientation.

Employers should be aware that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is carefully scrutinizing unpaid intern policies of companies that might be taking advantage of extremely high unemployment among 20 to 24 year olds.

According to Nancy J. Leppink, the acting director of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division, “If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t many circumstances, which allow for unpaid internships and still be in compliance with the law.”

Non-profit organizations can continue to utilize unpaid interns without any fear of breaking the law; however, for-profit companies can be cited and forced to pay significant penalties if their unpaid intern policies don’t comply with a six-step test from the Department’s Wage and Hour Division.

• The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to what a student would learn in a vocational school or academic educational instruction.
• The training is for the benefit of the trainees (rather than the employer).
• Trainees do not displace regular employees, but work under their close observation.
• The employer that provides the training receives no immediate advantage from the activities of the interns, and, on occasion, the employer’s operations may actually be impeded.
• Interns are not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the training period.
• Employers and trainees understand that the trainees are not entitled to wages for their training.

Employers should consider talking with their attorneys about DOL’s new perspective on this issue. It is also a smart strategy to create an internship agreement that includes all these details and make it a section in employee handbooks.

Among the many provisions of the recently passed federal health care reform bill, nursing mothers who are employees are to be given “reasonable” break time and the privacy to express breast milk for their nursing children. That privacy must be other than a bathroom and for as much as a year following the children’s birth.

This provision modifies the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including the previous rule that employees should be compensated for short rest breaks. Nursing mothers can be exempted from that compensation. In addition, employers with less than 50 employees may not be subject to this “nursing mother” provision of health care reform if it causes a hardship in the workplace.

Some state laws protect employees’ health care rights even further, including breastfeeding on the job. Employers are encouraged to determine their exact compliance of federal and state statues.

Based on a recent class action suit, employers could be vulnerable to discrimination charges if they apply criminal background checks inappropriately or too generally. The plaintiff in the suit alleged his employer denied employment or terminated employees, including the plaintiff, with past criminal records, which may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various state laws. The employer, or defendant, in the case fired the plaintiff 17 months after being hired because of a previous vehicular manslaughter conviction.

This suit, and employers’ exposure to similar suits, rests on two specific points: Do employees’ criminal pasts make them unfit or unable to do the jobs for which they are hired? Does the exclusion of candidates for jobs, based on their conviction records, adversely affect members of particular ethnic groups?

In terms of that first question, employers can protect their use of background checks and the conclusions they draw from them if they distinguish arrests from convictions. According to The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records, “arrests alone are not reliable evidence that a person has actually committed a crime.” The EEOC recommends that employers delve deeper into a job candidate’s arrest record to determine the exact circumstances and allow the candidate (or employee) to explain those circumstances from his or her perspective. Only then can an employer understand that the job applicant was arrested for “criminal” behavior and that it may be job-related.

The second point or question relates to actual convictions for crimes committed. The same EEOC commission stated “an employer’s policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of their conviction records has an adverse impact on Blacks and Hispanics in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population.” The commission concluded that Title VII statues make it illegal for employers to deny employment strictly on criminal convictions. It is legal, however, if the employer can justify a “business necessity,” according to three factors:

• Nature and gravity of the offense or offenses.
• Time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence.
• Nature of the job held or sought. Read the rest of this entry

As employers and employees wrestle with the issue of employees’ rights to privacy in a digital workplace and world, the New Jersey Supreme Court has clearly ruled in favor of the employee in a recent case brought before the judges. Although the ruling cannot be applied in other states, many legal experts expect many other states’ supreme courts to agree with the principle if they are presented with similar cases.

In this particular case, client-attorney privilege was the legal issue being disputed. The employer, or plaintiff, used her company-issued laptop to communicate with her attorney, but through her personal, password-protected e-mail account, not her company-assigned account. These e-mails referred to a lawsuit she was considering filing against her employer and were sent just before her resignation from the company. Once the now former employee filed an employment discrimination claim, the employer and its attorney were able to access the files on the company-issued laptop and read the e-mails between the employee and her attorney.

The employer, or defendant, asserted that the company’s computer-use policy clearly stated that any files and communications generated by the company’s computers were the employer’s property, so the client-attorney privilege did not apply. Although the court agreed with that portion of the computer-use policy, it stated that the policy also included an “occasional personal use” clause, which wasn’t so clear. The court stated the employee could interpret that clause to indicate that she expected some right to privacy, especially if her e-mails were sent through her personal, non-company account.

This is an area of employment policy and labor law that is still evolving rapidly; and, frankly, as judges and courts become more computer-savvy, they will establish many precedents that employers must know and understand, and then update their employee handbooks, accordingly. This New Jersey Supreme Court ruling should motivate employers to review electronic communications section of their employee handbooks immediately, and clarify policies that relate directly to this judgment.

It may seem absurd to some that an employee could sue his or her employer about the perfume or other scents a co-worker is wearing, but that is what happened to the City of Detroit.

A city employee went to court because she claimed her rights were violated according to the Americans with Disabilities Act, when her health suffered, having been exposed to various personal scents of other workers.

She asked the city to implement a no-scent policy or other means to accommodate her chemical sensitivity. When it refused, she sued. The city tried to have the suit dismissed, but when denied, it settled with the city worker. Because the case was settled, the court was unable to rule whether chemical sensitivity qualifies as a disability under the Act.

The lesson for employers is to address this issue proactively by listening to such complaints seriously and considering the development of a specific policy. That forward thinking can eliminate the costs of a lawsuit and interruptions or ill feelings in the workplace.

According to a 2009 study only 2.5 million employees (not including the self-employed) considered home their primary place of business during 2008. Include those who worked remotely from other locations, and that number increases to 17.2 million. Some labor experts, however, think that approximately 40% of the total U.S. workforce could work at home at least part-time.

This is a growing trend that must be on employers’ radar because the economic and social benefits are likely to make work-at-home an alternative that employers and employees can’t overlook.

From the employer’s perspective, a work-at-home policy can create happier, less-stressed employees and improve productivity and results. In some instances, companies may need less commercial space, which, in turn, reduces other costs, such as utilities, furniture, etc.

Employees benefit because they commute less days, saving on gasoline, auto maintenance and lunches. They may also be able to eliminate childcare costs and nurse a sick child or recover from a pregnancy easier while remaining productive, especially if their employers cannot provide additional leave time.

Read the rest of this entry

President Obama signed the Hiring Incentives To Restore Employment (HIRE) Act during March 2010. The Act provides employers with incentives to hire and retain new employees.

A qualified employer will be exempt from paying the employer’s share of 2010 social security employment taxes (6.2 percent of the first $106,800 of wages) of any new employee hired after February 3, 2010, and before January 1, 2011. The new employee must have been previously unemployed and does not replace another employee.

Employers can also qualify for a $1,000 income tax credit for every new employee they employ continuously for 52 weeks.