In Trump era, HR should get ahead of potential conflicts: Experts

Termination of B.C. manager highlights challenges of political differences

The Teahouse restaurant in Vancouver, where a manager was fired. Credit: Google Street View

The termination of a British Columbia manager for requesting that a restaurant patron remove his hat — which sported a slogan supporting U.S. President Donald Trump — has ignited debate around politics and the workplace.

“Nothing is black and white in the field of people,” said MaryAnn Kempe, spokesperson for CPHR Canada and past president of CPHR Manitoba. “From a people engagement perspective, going to the corporal punishment of termination should always typically be your last action.”

But with the topic of politics growing more divisive by the day, it would be wise for human resource professionals to get ahead of the issue, if they haven’t already, she said.

“We see the political divide happening in the United States — it’s very apparent,” said Kempe. “It’s on every news channel. It’s every night; you can’t get away from it.”

“So, how do we create cultures that allow for differences of opinion, differences of perspective, differences of religion? You don’t always have to agree, but you’ve got to bring some respect.”

Defending free speech

In terminating employee Darin Hodge, the Teahouse restaurants parent company said it did not support intolerance of any kind, according to media reports.

“It is because of these principles that we cannot discriminate against someone based on their support for the current administration in the United States or any other bona fide political party,” said Eva Gates, vice-president of operations for Sequoia Company of Restaurants in Vancouver.

The company’s actions in this case are understandable, according to Brian Kreissl, a human resources product development manager at Thomson Reuters in Toronto (publisher of Canadian HR Reporter).

“When you’re in a customer service kind of scenario, you’ve got to take the public as they are,” he said. “You have to be respectful and tolerant of differences of opinion — and I think that that does include political opinions.”

“As long as the person isn’t actually saying anything that’s hateful or racist… banning the person or not allowing them to be served might be a little bit much unless the entire organization has a political orientation,” said Kreissl. “If it’s just a general commercial organization, I think we have to be careful about that sort of thing.”

Going back to the first principles of the employer-employee relationship is helpful in this case, said Stuart Rudner, employment lawyer at Rudner Law in Toronto.

“As an employee, you can’t pick and choose which customers or clients you’re going to serve, the same way you can’t pick and choose which colleagues you’re going to work with.”

To decline working with colleagues or serving clients because of skin colour, religious preferences or sexual orientation is unacceptable under human rights legislation, said Rudner.

“From an employment perspective, it’s equally unacceptable to say, ‘I’m not going to serve this person because I don’t like their politics,’” he said, noting that would qualify as a fundamental breach of their duties as an employee.

“Unless there is some reason to fear for their safety or some other concern, you can’t refuse to serve a (customer) because of their political views and if you do, that should lead toA discipline.”

It doesn’t matter if the customer is your ex-girlfriend or a Trump supporter, said Rudner.

“It helps to go back to first principles… You are, as an employee, required to do your job, and you can’t pick and choose when and with who you do it.”

Click here to read the full article.....

Article written by: Marcel Vander Weir

Article posted in: HR Reporter Canada OCT 22, 2018

Article spotted by: Kathryn Benson and posted by Louise Burden

Should New CEOs Have HR Expertise?

Here’s why your company’s next top leader might come from the HR department. 

CEO's most-important responsibilities typically include maximizing employee performance, setting values to define the organization's culture, overseeing the company's return on investment, and making sure the talent pipeline is full of needed expertise for years to come.

Maybe that's why some of the most-profitable companies—Dunkin' Donuts, Xerox and General Motors— have former HR executives as their CEOs.

Yet, the typical route to the C-suite doesn't often lead from HR, originating instead from sales, finance or marketing.

However, some experts argue, that should change. The path to the CEO suite should run through HR, they say, especially now that organizations are realizing that sweeping societal, economic, technological and demographic changes are heralding a new era in management that centers on the people who are doing the work—and how they are treated.

Businesses "are no longer assessed based only on traditional metrics such as financial performance, or even the quality of their products or services," Deloitte's 2018 Global Human Capital Trends report pointed out. "Rather, organizations today are increasingly judged [based] on their relationships with their workers, their customers and their communities as well as their impact on society at large—transforming them from business enterprises into social enterprises."

And in a world where an employee's actions can nearly ruin a company's brand—think Starbucks managers tossing out black customers, Uber not initially addressing sexual harassment, NBC allowing harassment to go on for years—HR and people issues are paramount to business success.

Who better to address them at the CEO level than those skilled in human capital management?

From CHRO to CEO

In their new book, Talent Wins: The New Playbook for Putting People First (Harvard Business Review Press, 2018), Ram Charan and co-authors Dominic Barton and Dennis Carey advocate for a dramatic remake of the HR role so that chief human resource officers (CHROs) working with CEOs and chief financial officers (CFOs) can manage human capital with the same zeal executives apply to financial capital.

"Leaders at talent-driven companies are as focused on talent as they are on strategy and finance," the authors wrote. "They make talent considerations an integral part of every major strategic decision. They ensure that their own focus on talent is woven into the fabric of the entire company. And they are comfortable leading flattened organizations—often centered around the work of small, empowered teams—built to unleash the talent that will drive outsize value."

But does that mean those organizations should have chief executives with backgrounds in HR?

"Absolutely," said Gaylyn Sher-Jan, chief people officer and vice president of enterprise services for Insitu, a Boeing company in Portland, Ore. "HR leaders are perfect for the chief executive role."

Sher-Jan, who has worked closely with CEOs for decades, said, "The roles of CHRO and CEO are intertwined. The successful transformations of HR leaders into true business partners has enabled a new succession plan to the CEO role."

She added that "chief people officers and CHROs are ready to take on the business functions, customers and internal operations now that they've had a seat at the table. Their ability to handle and navigate the tough issues of culture, ethics and values puts them in a unique position for leadership."

They're certainly qualified for it.

According to data from the Los Angeles-based Korn Ferry Institute, chief human resource officers "are among the most qualified in the C-suite when measured against CEO competencies."

Writing for Korn Ferry, Alan Guarino, vice chairman in their consultancy board services practice, stated that "in a study of executive assessment data, researchers analyzed 360-degree assessments of thousands of leaders in six C-suite functions" and found that "the traits of CHROs matched up closely with those of CEOs."

Brent Filson, founder of the consultancy The Filson Leadership Group Inc. in Williamston, Mass., agreed that HR leaders are "prime candidates for the CEO position." He argued that they bring a trait other company executives may not have yet developed: people-centered leadership. "Most CEOs neglect a vital dynamic … I call it a 'leadership strategy,' " said Filson, author of 23 business books and a former consultant for General Electric who worked closely with former GE CEO Jack Welch.

"Without a concomitant leadership strategy, a business strategy seldom measures up," Filson said. That leadership strategy should include the "heartfelt commitment of the people who must carry out the strategy. And because a leadership strategy is animated not simply by the skills CFOs, COOs and sales and marketing leaders can bring—but by the people-centered know-how HR must acquire and apply—HR leaders will be prime candidates for CEO positions."

[SHRM members-only online discussion platform: SHRM Connect]

What's in the CEO Job Description?

To be sure, installing a new CEO with HR experience as part of a knee-jerk response to people management failings could be a poor decision.

"The idea of placing HR executives into the C-Suite because employees are perceived as valuable assets is a reaction to a culture of abuse, inequality and bias promulgated by intense media coverage of high-profile events," said Victor Vogel, a former HR executive and organizational change consultant in Brighton, Mich. Having worked in HR for more than 30 years, Vogel added, "when I see someone say there is a need for more HR executives in CEO roles, it creates a lot of questions in my mind as to whether that person is the best CEO candidate or is a company reacting to publicity."

He and other experts agree CEOs should have a broader understanding of the entire business, and many in HR may not.

"Before corporate boards get anxious over Uber, an anomaly in American industry, they should first use what HR would consider sound hiring principles," he said. "First, what is the role of the CEO? What are the primary criteria an individual must possess to assume that role? What factors are affecting the organization? What is the culture of the organization? If hiring internally, would the HR executive have proven experience in the primary skill sets for a CEO role?"

Christopher Collins, an associate professor of human resource management and director of the Cornell Center for Advanced Human Resource Studies in the Industrial and Labor Relations School at Cornell University, went a step further. He said it may be construed as a conflict of interest for a CHRO to consider a promotion directly into a CEO role. "I actually think if HR leaders aspire to be the CEO and put themselves in the running, often they can't do big portions of their jobs," which includes advising the CEO on talent and other people management issues.

"I don't know that I could coach a peer on the senior leadership team if they think I'm their rival for the CEO seat," Collins said. "I worry about the CHRO role as the path to the CEO because it really prevents CHROs from" guiding CEOs.

Collins added that it's not an issue if a CEO candidate has left HR to gain other experience before lobbying for the CEO position. And, he added, no matter where an executive works, whether it's in finance, marketing, sales or operations, "all of them need to become better at understanding the people part, because [people will always be critical] to competitive advantage."

Click here to read the full article.....

Article Published in: SHRM- May 10,2018

Article Written by: Aliah D. Wright

Article Spotted by: Louise Burden 

Leaders and HR need to step up their game to prevent sexual harassment

"Quite frankly, there can't be anyone who rationally believes that harassment is okay!"

In Gandalf Group's recent C-Suite Survey, 94 per cent of respondents said that sexual harassment was not an issue in their workplace.

Notably, 95 per cent of these C-Suite executives in the survey were male. Even in the age of the #MeToo movement – particularly in small organizations that aren't in the spotlight – CEOs often don't want to hear about a sexual harassment issue, particularly if it has to do with a top performer behaving badly. All too often, they turn a blind eye to the situation and find any excuse not to deal with it.

The fact that such an overwhelming percentage of top-ranking executives don't believe it is an issue speaks volumes. Over the course of my career as a human resources professional, I can attest to plenty of situations when a C-Suite executive has refused to believe or act on sexual harassment claims. In one example, I took on a project with a mid-sized firm. When I started the project, the president's executive assistant warned me not to go into a meeting alone with the vice-president of sales. When I asked why this was tolerated, I was told that it was because he was responsible for 50 per cent of the sales revenue. He wasn't going anywhere.

Depending on how senior or how successful the alleged perpetrator is, or how much the company relies on that person, the CEO will either say they don't believe the complaint or aren't prepared to do anything about it. The HR professional then has to go back to the employee and deliver that message.

It's a difficult spot to be in. Employees think the role of HR is to be their advocate and become angry when HR can't resolve issues for them. With so many recent sexual-assault allegations making headlines, many have accused HR of not taking a strong enough position to advocate for the victim. Instead, they are seen as protecting the company and its image – or worse, as having no power to do anything. 

In truth, HR's role is to facilitate a work environment in which both the employer and the employee are satisfied and engaged. Much like a mediator, an HR leader does not simply advocate for the employee or the company; he or she is also focused on making informed recommendations for the greater good that benefit both sides. And that role can become extremely challenging whenever those two outcomes are at odds with one another, or when it's the boss himself who is perpetrating the harassment. 

Policies only go so far

The Gandalf study also found that leadership is one of the most important factors in preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Indeed, while probably every company can point to its long list of policies on appropriate conduct and other issues, the reality is that all the policies in the world will not impact harassment. A piece of paper does not alter behaviour on its own. It is the leadership behind the policies, and the fortitude to enforce them, that moves the needle.

The CEO and HR leader each have important roles to play, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual harassment. They need an open and honest relationship with each other that enables frank discussion. Such relationships don't happen overnight or without effort, and both need to work at building trust. This relationship should be forged early on and should consider all employee-related matters, preferably before having to deal with a sexual harassment (or any other) complaint.

When these types of issues are raised, a CEO has these responsibilities:

• Listen to the HR leader. HR knows what is going on in the company. They hear things and understand the employees better than the CEO.
• Take it seriously. Don’t dismiss the allegations without exploring them. Make it a priority to find the truth.
• Disallow enabling. To say “he was just joking” is not a valid excuse. There is no justification for this type of behaviour.

For their part, HR must present issues credibly and demonstrate good judgment and critical thinking. What they need to do:

• Address the CEO in terms they understand. Listen to the CEO and the specific concerns raised. Ignoring or dismissing these concerns will result in losing credibility with him or her.
• Present the facts. Don’t bring up suppositions or gossip, and make no assumptions. Treat this with the seriousness it deserves.
• Recommend a plan of action. Anticipate what the CEO’s concerns and objections will be, and address them in your recommendation using a balanced approach.

Both CEOs and HR leaders must avoid drawing any conclusions before getting the full picture. They also need to be aware that their own personal relationships are impacted by how they handle such incidents – both internally with employees and externally with stakeholders.  

And don't make the mistake of thinking there will be no consequences. There will be. 

Click here to read more.....

Article written by:  Janet Candido (a special to the Globe and Mail)

Article published by: The Globe and Mail March 6 and updated March 8

Article spotted by: Louise Burden

What are you legally allowed to do to offset the minimum wage hike?

The recent changes in employment law brought about by the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act have left some employers scratching their heads – most noticeably over the minimum wage hike.

We spoke to Thomas Gorsky, lawyer at Sherrard Kuzz, who talked us through what employers are legally allowed to do to offset the recent increase. 

“Regarding the restaurant industry, you are permitted to reallocate tips to managers,” he explained.  “Introducing tip pooling arrangements could be a way of offsetting the minimum wage hike. For example, if managers are being paid minimum wage now there will be a lot of pressure for them to see an incremental bump – to separate them from more junior members of staff.”

However, whilst this works for a sector which deals in gratuity, the same can’t be said for employers in less customer-facing roles.

“In jobs which don’t allow for tips, there are limited options,” explained Gorsky. “The only real option is to increase prices or cut costs elsewhere. The reality is, if you have to pay someone a certain amount per hour and you don’t currently have benefits, there’s no real saving you can offset it with.

“However, if you are providing perks, you could lawfully remove them. But, bear in mind, you have to give advance notice in order to avoid any legal claims.

“If you give someone six months advance notice that their benefits plan will be removed then, at least for employees who have employment contracts with protective termination clauses, there’s very little they can do to object. But if you don’t have those types of clauses, then you can still obtain protection by giving advance notice.  How long will depend on what an employee’s notice entitlement is.”

With the increase in minimum wage, many smaller businesses may find themselves facing difficult times ahead. But are you legally allowed to fire an employee because of the increased costs of the wage hike?

“Any employer is always entitled to terminate an employee’s employment, so long as they comply with that employee’s termination entitlement,” explained Gorsky.

“For example, you could terminate an employee simply because you don’t agree with their job philosophy. You don’t need to prove you have cause for termination, however if you are laying somebody off because you cannot afford to pay their wage, that doesn’t relieve you of the obligation to give notice - or pay in lieu of that notice.”

Click here to view the full article.....

Article written by : Emily Douglas 

Article published by: Human Resource Director Canada -March 5, 2018 

Article spotted by: Louise  Burden

Ready or Not, Here It Comes! 2018 Brings New Labor & Employment Laws for the U.S.

As we prepare to turn the calendar to 2018, U.S. employers look ahead to the next wave of labor and employment regulations. On January 1, 2018, and throughout the coming year, employers across the nation will confront a host of new or amended federal, state, and/or local laws. This article summarizes impending obligations that may flow from these law changes in the chart below and also highlights some anticipated activity.

Ongoing Federal Activity

At this time last year, employers faced uncertainty about how the Trump administration and Congress might alter federal labor, employment and benefits obligations. Although change to federal workplace policy has not come as quickly as many expected, the pace of change is likely to accelerate as nominations and appointments to critical positions are filled. Indeed, action on the nominations to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and Department of Labor (DOL) signals that expected changes in workplace policy will be forthcoming in the year ahead.1

With that in mind, employers should pay particular attention in 2018 to several potential developments at the federal level, including possible additional changes in immigration law and enforcement.2 Health care policy, including the viability of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also remains in flux. After Republicans failed to “repeal and replace” the ACA through the legislative process, the White House issued an executive order to try to reform the nation’s healthcare system through regulatory channels.3 Meanwhile, efforts to revamp the tax code are well underway in Congress, some aspects of which would have a significant impact on benefits and executive compensation, but are far from settled.

Employers saw some changes in 2017 on several key labor and employment issues, and 2018 is likely to bring further federal legislative and/or administrative developments in these areas. For example, in 2018 the DOL is expected to revisit the now-scuttled update to FLSA overtime regulations. The agency's Wage and Hour Division will likely engage in further rulemaking to decide what the new salary level should be for overtime purposes. In June, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta announced the withdrawal of two controversial Wage and Hour Administrator's Interpretations on independent contractors and joint employment.

Relatedly, in Congress, House Republicans passed a bill in 2017, entitled the Save Local Business Act (H.R. 3441), that would amend two labor and employment statutes to clarify when an entity can be deemed a “joint employer.”4 The bill moves now to the Senate, where its fate is less certain. In the face of an increasingly complex maze of state and local paid leave laws, lawmakers in Congress are proposing a novel approach to paid leave and workplace flexibility. In an effort to promote workplace flexibility and streamline employer paid leave obligations nationwide, Representative Mimi Walters (R-CA) House introduced the Workflex in the 21st Century Act (HR 4219). This bill would create a voluntary program whereby employers that choose to offer their employees a minimum number of compensable leave days per year and institute a flexible work arrangement would be exempt from the current patchwork of local and state paid leave laws.5 This legislation could clarify and simplify compliance burdens on employers across the nation.

Ongoing State and Local Activity

Of course, they say that “all politics is local,” and 2017 did not disprove that theory. Given the lingering gridlock in Congress, the most significant labor and employment developments taking effect in 2018 arose at the state and municipal levels. As the chart below demonstrates, municipalities have paved the way for new regulation on a variety of topics, including protected or paid time off, pregnancy accommodations, background checks, and equal pay.

Many new state and local laws enacted in 2017 have already taken effect. The chart below focuses only on those laws that are set to take effect in the new year and beyond. Readers interested in keeping abreast of legislative activity at the state and local levels should follow State of the States, our monthly report featuring notable bills and trends percolating in the statehouses and city halls nationwide.6

Laws Taking Effect in 2018

As the year winds down, employers should prepare for changes scheduled to take effect in 2018. The chart below briefly recaps laws and regulations that will become operative sometime in 2018. (We’ve included a few late bloomers from 2017 as well, and a sneak peek at 2019.) Although local and industry-specific laws may be listed, these samples are included primarily to highlight compliance challenges employers face. In addition, not all state and local minimum wage laws are included in this article. A complete discussion of minimum wage rate changes for 2018 can be found in a separate Littler Insight, The Minimum Wage in 2018: A Rates-Only Update. Because the below list does not cover every possibly applicable federal, state, and local law, employers may find it helpful to discuss with knowledgeable counsel which local, state, and/or federal laws will apply in 2018.

Click here to read more and to see the chart which briefly recaps laws and regulations that will become operative sometime in 2018.

Article Spotted By: Alison Peters

Article Written By: Ilyse Schuman, Michael J. Lotito and Betsy Cammarata  

Article Originally Published November 13, 2017 on Littler Insight

Collecting Transgender-Inclusive Gender Data in Workplace and Other Surveys

The New York times recently reported that Californians who don’t identify themselves as male or female will soon be able to get a gender-neutral birth certificate. The new law, S.B. 179, which goes into effect in 2018, "provides nonbinary and intersex people with the ability to request a new birth certificate with a third, nonbinary category."

California is the first state to offer this option.

Photo by Dmitri Popov on Unsplash

For reporting purposes, employers tend to "over-ask" for demographic data such as age, gender and ethnicity. Particularly when asked for something related to work, the question of gender with seemingly simple "female" and "male" options can pose a challenge for transgender people, particularly those that are in the process of or are considering gender transition genders. Some may be concerned about how that data may be used or compared to personal records, or they may feel limited by the "female" or "male" options. When evaluating whether to ask employees about gender on non-essential forms, employers should consider:

• What is the business rationale for asking about gender on the particular form?
• How does asking for the data relate to your organization's overall diversity strategy?
• How will that data be used, protected and reported? What legal restrictions might there be on collection or storage of demographic data, in the U.S. or globally?

If the data is not essential, consider removing the question, make sure the question is clearly optional (particularly for online forms) or allow people to self-identify by asking an open-ended question.

Click here to read more about LGBTQ Employee Self-Identification Programs

What One Company Learned from Forcing Employees to Use Their Vacation Time

Have you ever felt burned out at work after a vacation? I’m not talking about being exhausted from fighting with your family at Walt Disney World all week. I’m talking about how you knew, the whole time walking around Epcot, that a world of work was waiting for you upon your return.

Our vacation systems are completely broken. They don’t work.

The classic corporate vacation system goes something like this: You get a set number of vacation days a year (often only two to three weeks), you fill out some 1996-era form to apply for time off, you get your boss’s signature, and then you file it with a team assistant or log it in some terrible database. It’s an administrative headache. Then most people have to frantically cram extra work into the week(s) before they leave for vacation in order to actually extract themselves from the office. By the time we finally turn on our out-of-office messages, we’re beyond stressed, and we know that we’ll have an even bigger pile of work waiting for us when we return. What a nightmare.

For most of us, it’s hard to actually use vacation time to recharge. So it’s no wonder that absenteeism remains a massive problem for most companies, with payrolls dotted with sick leaves, disability leaves, and stress leaves. In the UK, the Department for Work and Pensions says that absenteeism costs the country’s economy more than £100 billion per year. A white paper published by the Workforce Institute and produced by Circadian, a workforce solutions company, calls absenteeism a bottom-line killer that costs employers $3,600 per hourly employee and $2,650 per salaried employee per year. It doesn’t help that, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the United States is the only country out of 21 wealthy countries that doesn’t require employers to offer paid vacation time. (Check out this world map on Wikipedia to see where your country stacks up.)

Would it help if we got more paid vacation? Not necessarily. According to a study from the U.S. Travel Association and GfK, a market research firm, just over 40% of Americans plan not to use all their paid time off anyway.

So what’s the progressive approach?

Click here to learn more...

Article Written by: Neil Pasricha & Shashank Nigam
Article Published On: Harvard Business Review, August 11, 2017
Article Spotted by: Alison Peters

What Are You Doing To Prevent Harassment In Your Workplace?

Sexual harassment remains a growing concern among HR professionals—particularly in the tech field.

At HR Options we practice what we teach. We are a team of professionals with women and men in positions of authority; supporting and encouraging a healthy workplace environment free from harassment of all kinds. HR Options strongly believes that companies can—and should—empower and work with Human Resources to set the tone for a positive company culture, and be proactive in addressing harassment concerns for all employees.

As we watched NBC’s Megyn Kelly interview six women from Silicon Valley who are standing up to fight against the tech industry’s “bro culture”—one that intimidates, harasses and then tries to silence women who speak up against harassment—we were discouraged and frustrated that this behavior is still so common. HR Options continues to reach out to our partners to provide guidance, best practices, and support to combat this abusive workplace culture.

Fear of retaliation.

In the wake of ex-Uber employee Susan Fowler’s now infamous blog post, where she revealed that her Uber team manager propositioned her for sex, more women are speaking out about this issue.

But the issue, and the process to prevent and resolve sexual harassment in the workplace, is complicated by the people who are supposed to support employees: human resources.

According to Fowler, when she went to Uber’s HR department to let them know about the harassment, she alleges that they wouldn’t look into the matter because this was the manager’s “first offense.” And Fowler further maintains that HR told her that he was a “high performer” so they wouldn’t feel comfortable giving her manager more than a warning, as this was probably just an “innocent mistake” on his part.

Of the women Kelly spoke with in her report about sexual harassment in the tech field, all six revealed that they were harassed in the workplace. They didn’t feel comfortable talking about it previously due to fear of retaliation—of losing their job, losing funding for their business, gaining a reputation in the tech industry of being someone who’s just whining.

And when they did talk about it to colleagues they were told to suck it up, things happen. What did they expect?

All for reporting and standing up to unwanted sexual advances by someone, usually a male, in a position of power.

The women described their experiences to Kelly, using words like panic. Shock. Shame. "It’s devastating...it can really take an emotional toll,” they admit. “I wish I didn’t have to talk about it, but a I also feel like—if I don’t say something, who will?”

What would you do if this happened to you? Or a coworker? A friend?

HR Options can help you prevent harassment in your workplace.

HR Options new online Harassment Prevention Training Class, designed specifically for employers to comply with California AB 1825, is an engaging, interactive training designed by our expert HR consultants and reviewed by top employment law firms. Learn how to recognize harassment in the workplace, and how to respond to harassment complaints by your employees. Don’t wait until one of your employees has been harassed to take action. Be proactive. Take steps now.

Click here here for more information and to enroll.

Kelly's parting advice is something that shouldn’t need to be stated aloud. But we’re repeating it anyway:

“If you’re in a position of power over someone, don’t hit on them. Period. And if you’re a woman facing sexual harassment, remember there is safety in numbers. Reach out to other women. The odds are you are not alone.”

Written by Alison Peters

Lead Project Manager, HR Options

Bill 148 Fair Workplaces Changes: Wages

Part 2 

Last week I posted about Bill 148. In this post I will discuss some specifics of the proposed changes related to pay. The Bill proposes several changes that will affect how much employees get paid.

Minimum Wage

Perhaps the most wide sweeping change will be the proposed increases to Ontario’s minimum wage. General minimum wage is currently $11.40 per hour and there are different minimum wages for different classes of workers, such as students and servers. Bill 148 proposes increasing the general minimum wage to $14.00 per hour on January 1, 2018, and then to $15.00 on January 1, 2019, followed by annual increases at the rate of inflation.

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Pay rates will also change based on the equal pay for equal work provision of the Bill. These will affect pay for those in more precarious employment positions such as temporary, casual and seasonal employees if they are doing the same job as full-time employees. The same thing goes for employees from temporary help agencies performing the same job as permanent employees at the agencies’ client company.

Practically this means that employees will be able to request a review of their wages if they believe they are being paid differently than full-time or permanent employees. Employers will be required to respond to requests for pay review either with a pay adjustment, or an explanation for the difference. Pay differences will be acceptable if they are based on relevant factors such as seniority, or if pay is determined by another metric such as quantity of production. Reducing the rates of regular employees to bring everyone in line will not be a legal way to comply with this proposed section.

Overtime Pay

This change will apply where an employer has one employee with two different jobs, and where the rates of pay for the two jobs are different. The hours worked in both jobs will be counted towards total weekly hours with respect to the overtime threshold. So for example, let’s say Barb is a pizza delivery person, and also sometimes works in the kitchen. She gets paid a different rate for each job. If Barb works 30 hours in the kitchen and 20 hours delivering pizza she will be entitled to overtime pay for any hour above the threshold, based on the combined hours in both of her jobs. She will be entitled to pay at one and one-half times the regular rate for the work performed during the overtime hours. This change could mean more money going towards wages for small businesses who have employees wearing many hats.

Scheduling

The new scheduling provisions call for minimum pay for shifts under three hours, minimum pay for being on call, and the right to three hours of pay if a shift is cut short or canceled without 48 hours notice. In all of these situations employers will be required to pay the employee for a minimum of three hours, even if they were on call and not called in, were called in for less than three hours, were scheduled for a shift of less than three hours, or had their shift cut short.

Notice Pay for Temporary Help Agency Workers

Employers who hire temps for assignments of three months or more will be required to provide them with one week’s notice or pay in lieu if the assignment is terminated before the end of the estimated term. There is an allowance for mitigation, where notice will not be required if the employee if offered another assignment, lasting at least one week.

Click Here to read more....

Article Spotted by: Louise Burden

Article Written by : Lisa Stem July 13, 2017 / Photo Credit : Fabian Blank

Article Published in : Employer Resources, Employer Standards, HR - Spring Law