NegotiumLex.wnj.com

So, when you read some of this, you are going to be confused.  Why you ask would he reference his blog, in his blog.  Because this is an article I wrote for our newsletter.  But I got a bunch of interest in it, so I thought I would post it here too.  So when you see a link to my blog in a blog post on my blog don’t fret.  The point is you need a social networking policy.  If you don’t have one, drop me a line, I can help.

Now why on earth would I be writing about social networking in the Newsletter instead of on my blog? (see, I told you you would be confused, stay with me) You all know I have a blog right? You know you can find it at http://negotiumlex.wnj.com/right? (of course you do, you are reading it) (How’s that for a shameless plug?) So why? Why not blog or tweet or post an update on Facebook about this topic? After all, that seems more appropriate, doesn’t it? Of course it does. (so I did)But here’s the deal. The people who read blogs or post on Facebook or “tweet” probably are already up to speed on this social networking stuff.  It is the rest of us, the old codgers that don’t tweet regularly who we want to talk to today. (oh boy was I wrong again, you guys are no more up to speed than us old codgers)You know who I am talking about. There is a bunch of you out there (me included, by the way) who hear “tweet” and think of a little yellow cartoon bird and a cat named Sylvester. And even more of you who are asking, “When did “friend” become a verb?” I’ll tell you what my kids tell me: “Dad, get with the times.” 

Why you ask, why do I have to get with the times? Good question. You see, if I don’t get with the times at home my kids think I’m “lame.” Let’s face it, nothing I can do to fix that so why bother. But if you don’t “get with the times” at work, it could cost you. And maybe cost you big. 

First of all, use of sites like Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and others can seriously affect productivity at work. According to one survey simply surfing the Web by employees costs U.S. companies about $63 billion each year and use of social networking sites at work costs U.K. companies about $2.5 billion each year. That’s right, that’s BILLION with a big capital B. Seehttp://mashable.com/2009/10/26/social-media-productivity-cost/. And don’t think the U.S. and U.K. are alone. The Time of India calls social networking sites a plague on “India Inc.” seehttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Social-networking-plagues-India-Inc/articleshow/5429382.cms; and even New Vision, which bills itself as “Uganda’s Leading Web site” says: “. . . the ‘majority’ of corporations ‘effectively lose close to 12.5% of total productivity each day since their employees keep accessing social sites.’”http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/220/705325 (by the way, I found these statistics surfing the web while at work so I had to write this post or I would be part of the problem not part of the solution) 

As if that wasn’t enough, hackers are now using social media sites as an entry into your company’s confidential information.http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/How_to_Hack_a_Corporate_Networkwith_Facebook,201030121.aspx

So what should you do? Have your IT department deny access to these sites to employees while at work? Maybe. That is your call and it will surely cause you some employee relations issues if you do. One thing I am sure of though is you need a social networking policy. A couple of things to keep in mind as you are doing one. You want to make sure employees know they have to protect confidential information. If employees are going to post to social networking sites from work or by identifying you (their employer) they should include a disclaimer. All posts, whether from work or home, should be respectful of coworkers and not violate your EEO or harassment policy; and finally, time on social network sites should not interfere with productivity at work. You might also want to have some rules regarding blogging, especially if employees have blogs as part of their jobs. (oh, and by the way, the FTC just recently issued some guidance on social media and product endorsements too) If you want to know more about social networking policies call me. By the way, did I mention I have a blog? (of course I did and thanks for reading it).

When you see something once you may just write it off as, well, as one of those things.  Twice, maybe a coincidence?  Three time, now we have a trend.   Remember when we talked about the 3^rdCircuit finding that a man who “pushed his buttons with pizzazz” (I told you then, I will tell you again, those were the plaintiff’s words, not mine) could sue for sex discrimination based on his failure to “conform to gender stereotypes”?  And remember how we talked about Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which had previously found this type of claim to be valid for a woman who was not feminine enough?  You don’t remember, well look here http://negotiumlex.wnj.com/?p=50 (I love linking to my own blog). 

Well, here is number three and now we have a trend.  Last week, the Eight Circuit in a case titled Lewis v. Heartland Inns of America, L.L.C. et al. held that Ms. Lewis, who claimed she was fired from her job as a front desk clerk “because of unlawful sex stereotyping” could proceed with her trial.  It seems Ms. Lewis did a pretty good job for the hotel when she started as a part time employee and she was offered a full time job at one of the hotel’s properties.  It also seems that the Director of Operations approved this hiring without ever actually meeting Ms. Lewis.

According to the court: “Lewis’ positive experience at Heartland changed only after Barbara Cullinan saw her working at the Ankeny desk. As the Director of Operations, Cullinan had responsibility for personnel decisions and reported directly to the general partner of Heartland. She had approved the hiring of Lewis for the Ankeny A shift after receiving Stifel’s positive recommendation. After seeing Lewis, however, Cullinan told Stifel that she was not sure Lewis was a “good fit” for the front desk.”  The court went on to note: “Lewis describes her own appearance as “slightly more masculine,” and Stifel has characterized it as “an Ellen DeGeneres kind of look.””  Well this makes sense to me because we all know that Ellen DeGeneres has had no success at all (that’s sarcasm in case you missed it).

The court went on with a bunch of other legal mumbo jumbo about shifting burdens of proof and prima facie cases, cited Price Waterhouse, and some other cases and held that Ms. Lewis was entitled to a trial on her Title VII claim that she was fired for not conforming to sexual stereotypes.

So what does all of this mean?  I don’t hire people without at least looking at them first?  WAIT, I WAS ONLY KIDDING.  How about this, remember, at least for now, sexual orientation is not a protected category under federal (or Michigan) law.  But the line between what is a sexual orientation case and what is a sex discrimination case is getting fuzzier.  So what’s the lesson, the real lesson?  Here is the lesson.  If you want to be sure to stay out of trouble, hire and fire people based on what they do and how they do it and worry a little less about what they look like doing it.

Here we go again. How many times are we going to have to read about this company or that company being sued for violating the FLSA? According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution “AT&T’s overtime suit only latest Company’s exempt rule questioned when set for some 1st-level managers”. According to the article AT&T is faced with . . . are you ready for this . . . “$1 billion” yes that is billion with a “B” in potential damages for allegedly misclassifying some of its employees as exempt when they should have been paid overtime.  You can see the article at http://www.ajc.com/business/at-ts-overtime-suit-278860.html

Lets be clear about something here.  I have not read the complaint, but if you read the article it looks like what AT&T allegedly did was pay some employees a salary when they should have been getting overtime and that’s it.  So this wasn’t a big bad employer making people work off the clock or paying less than minimum wage. 

So, why did the employees sue you ask?  Now we all know why this happens. Some disgruntled employees who have been paid a salary for a bunch of years, who have called in sick on numerous occasions, and who have taken advantage of being called “salaried” for as long as they worked for the company got fired or quit or got in trouble. Some slick class action factory found out and talked those employees into acting as class representatives for another bunch of employees, many of who would probably, if you asked them, rather be salaried than hourly anyway and don’t really want to sue. Now AT&T is faced with defending itself against a law that is outdated despite the recent amendments to the regulations.  And when this is all over, pay damages or not, AT&T will have to make a bunch of people who I’m willing to bet would rather be salaried, hourly instead. And on top of that, the class action lawyers are going to get millions in fees and the people who were allegedly wronged, if this works the way it usually does, will get a couple of hundred (thousand if they are lucky) bucks each.

So I have a suggestion for Congress. They are going to have some time on their hands now that Teddy Kenndy’s Senate seat has been filed by a republican and the chance of getting any health care reform out of the Senate anytime soon has just dropped to somewhere right around “No chance in . . . ” well, you get it. How about we fix this antiquated system to let people elect to be salaried. It really wouldn’t be that hard. Now we are not talking about doing this for all classes of jobs, for example; factory jobs, out, manual labor of any kind, out. We know how to classify these jobs, we do it for minors now. So how do we do this? Well, we start by amending the system so that the employee has to make more money for certain jobs in order to be salaried. For example, the current floor for a salary based employee is $455 per week. That’s $23,660 per year, not much. How about we say if you don’t qualify for the executive or professional exemptions, but you work in an office environment and make say $675 per week (that’s $35,100 per year according to my calculator), you can be exempt.

Now of course we will have to put some restrictions on this so the the big bad employers can’t take advantage of the poor little employees: for example, no deductions, just like for the salary basis now. If you are sick for two days you still get your full salary for the week. Another thing Congress may want to consider is an hour’s cap.  Say, not more than 50 hours per week. After that the employer pays overtime. Finally, how about employee consent. The employee, before they begin working for an employer, would have to consent to being classified as salaried and they would have to do so without coercion. Now how do we do that? How about making the employer post a notice, and having the employee sign a DOL drafted release before they can be paid a salary. Not that hard after all, is it?  I’m sure if the bright people in Washington put their heads together they could come up with something that is better than what we have now. . . . couldn’t they? 

Now, not everyone will think this is a good idea, after all, what are the class action factories going to do? Think of all the fees they won’t get if we make it easier for people to do what they want to do anyway. But then again, you can’t please all of the people all of the time.

So, according to CNN “U.S. job satisfaction hits 22-year low.” CNN says “Fewer than half of U.S. workers are satisfied with their jobs, the lowest level since record-keeping began 22 years ago, said a report released Tuesday. The Conference Board’s survey polled 5,000 households, and found that only 45% were satisfied in their jobs. That’s down from 61.1% in 1987, the first year the survey was conducted.”  CNN goes on to say “Even though one in 10 Americans is out of a job, those who are employed are increasingly dissatisfied.”  See http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/05/news/economy/job_satisfaction_report/

Why is this, I wonder? Well, TV might just have the answer. TV you say? Yes, TV. I was watching some television last night and saw a commercial for a new show that is going to premier on CBS after the Super Bowl. It’s called “Undercover Boss.” Like most “reality” shows these days it looks like this one started in England and has now made its way to the U.S. I was intrigued by the 30 second spot, so I did some searching on the web to see what this thing is all about. According to the “The Wrap”, which bills itself as “Covering Hollywood” . . . “CBS executives believe they’ve got a winner in ‘Undercover Boss,’ a documentary-style show that moved some advertisers and other audience members to tears when it was previewed last May at the network’s upfront presentation.” The Wrap goes on to describe the show as following “CEOs from major companies as they go undercover to see how their companies really work.” Yes, I added the bold.  I’m stunned.  Tears?  Really? A show about executives doing the “dirty work” moved people to tears? Really?  Undercover?  They are kidding right? You can see The Wrap post at http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/super-surprise-cbs-slots-undercover-boss-after-big-game-12049

To say the least, I was intrigued. So I searched some more. The CBS website has some previews of this new show.  http://www.cbs.com/primetime/undercover_boss/ The extended preview, which is about 5 minutes long, shows a CEO of well known company taking off his $2,000 suit, getting into some jeans and a tee shirt, letting his beard grow for a couple of days and then learning how to sort cardboard, clean portable toilets and ride a garbage truck with his employees. In the short preview it seems he is not very good at it. It also seems he does not really know what is going on in his company. One employee rushes to the time clock to keep from getting docked “2 minutes for every minute she is late” and another seems to be doing at least three jobs while being paid for one. By the end of the clip, when the boss reveals his “true identity” to his employees he is handing out promotions and bonuses to these deserving employees.

Other than my normal gag reflex when it comes to reality TV I have nothing against this TV show.  I haven’t even seen a whole episode yet. At least the executives gave it a try. Good for them. And no, I don’t expect the CEO to know what is going on every day with all of his or her employees. But it is a real shame it took a TV show to get these CEOs out to see the operations they are in charge of. No wonder people were crying.

And no matter what else you might thinks of the show, it sure points out a glaring problem with at least some companies in this country.  I mean come on, really, if you are a CEO or any other kind of boss, and I don’t care how big your company is or how many people you employ, and you can walk into one of your plants, stores or hospitals and not have at least one of your employees recognize you immediately, YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR JOB! Now, I don’t care if you haven’t shaved in a couple of days, or if you are wearing jeans and a tee shirt instead of a suit or if you are dressed like BOZO THE CLOWN. Every employee who works for you should at least know your face. I mean really, how does a CEO go “undercover” in his own company. And we wonder why employee job satisfaction is at a 22 year low?

 I know you are busy. So are the people who work for you. Get out of your chair and go see them. They can’t come see you. You can hire someone else to do your paperwork for you. You can’t hire someone else to be you and say hello and acknowledge the people who make your company work.

My last job was for a family-owned company. It was founded by two local guys in a garage. It grew to be a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of employees in the span of a generation. When I worked there people told stories about how they would be sitting in their office working and look up and see one of the founders of the company standing at the door asking them what they were doing. It would be impossible to this day for these men to go “undercover” in their own company and it is equally impossible for their sons, who have now taken over to do so today.  It just couldn’t happen, everyone who works for the company knows who they are and most of the employees have met and talked to them.  And it seemed to me, at least when I was there that most employees liked their jobs.

I’m sure there are a lot of reasons why employees are not satisfied with their jobs. Some of the reasons, let’s face it, in these hard economic times you won’t be able to fix. There is no money for raises or bonuses or benefit plans. So let’s fix what we can. If you are a leader, be a visible one. Talk to your employees, give them a voice, and make the members of your management team do the same. After all, isn’t that a big part of your job if you are an executive? 

You don’t have to wait for a TV show to introduce you to your employees. Go out and do it yourself.

If you are my age or a little older you may remember a series of TV commercials that used the tag line “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” I think the ads were for an oil filter for your car. The message in the ads was that you can spend a little money on a new oil filter now or spend a lot of money on new engine later. Must be a lot of people were deciding to forego oil filters.  Funny how things stick in your mind even after all these years.

Why, may you ask, am I mentioning an ancient TV ad? First of all, because I am ancient. Second, and more importantly, because it seems applicable to something I ran across over the New Year Holiday. You see, I had 4 days at home with my wife and teenage kids. After about three days of me at home my wife and kids had clearly had enough “dad time” to last them the rest of 2010.  So, taking the hint, I retreated to a corner with my computer. Being the modern computer-age guy that I am, I have joined several social networking sites over the last year like Facebook (to keep an eye on my kids), LinkedIn (as a business tool) and Twitter (because I like to say I “tweet”), and I thought I would spend some time looking them over. The one that really drew my attention was LinkedIn, probably because it is the one that I have spent the least time on. So, on LinkedIn, in addition to connecting with business contacts, you can join “Groups”. LinkedIn has a lot of great groups that I bet are very valuable resources. As a matter of fact, I am a member of several of these groups, like one called MSU Alumni Association. These things are great—lots of great discussions with lots of great ideas. There is also a bunch of stuff for our HR friends. Again many great groups, some of which I belong to, with many great discussions about benchmarking and best practices and lots of other HR buzz words. What could be better? Answers a few key strokes away. Ask a question and get access to not one answer, but lots of answers. How great is that?!

Not so fast my friends. I also noticed something that is troubling. Let’s face it, if it wasn’t troubling I wouldn’t be writing about it. Many HR folks were asking legal questions about things like the applicability of the FMLA to certain situations and how the FLSA applied to this employee or what do we do about the ADA with still another employee. And sometimes these HR folks were getting answers from other HR folks and sometimes those answers . . . well, they were just flat wrong.

Some people, I am sure, are asking these questions online because the first thing they think of when they have a question is to ask it on one of these sites. That’s how younger people think. Someone thinks, “Oh, I have a question. Why should I ask the guy down the hall when I can ask 10,000 “friends” at once?”  But some do this simply because they don’t want to spend the money on a lawyer. That however is not the pay me now or pay me later part. You see, the reason you are asking the question makes no difference. It doesn’t really matter if you are asking because you lean that way or because you want to save a couple of bucks. What does matter is the kind of question you are asking. There is nothing wrong with being frugal or asking all 10,000 of your closest friends what they think if you are asking about best practices. So what if you really end up with only the second best practice.

But when you are asking about how the law works, especially how the law works in a specific situation, well that is where my trip down memory lane comes in.  First of all, lawyers are not the ones answering these questions, even the questions about the law. Now I know what you are thinking. . . . that’s because lawyers don’t like to give things away for free. Well, that is only partly true.  After all, I do this blog and you don’t pay for that. But then again, this blog is not “legal advice.” (I even have a disclaimer on the blog saying it isn’t legal advice. Click the “About” tab above and you can see it.) And it is also not true that lawyers aren’t answering these questions because they aren’t in the group. I’m a member of many of these groups.

The real reason we don’t answer these questions is because the law and its application is very fact specific.  You see, we need the whole story before we can give you real advice. And you just can’t get the whole story from a question posted on a social networking site. We are going to have questions too. And the questions matter. But none of the non-lawyers who are answering the questions seem to know that. If you take their advice and it is wrong, you don’t just have the second best solution, you have “liability” which can lead to “damages” which you must defend by paying a lawyer “legal fees.”  All of which are nice legal words that mean you can pay me later.

One other thing to keep in mind. When you talk to your lawyer about the application of the law to a particular situation, that conversation is generally privileged and you don’t have to share it with anyone, not even the person suing you. But when you talk to your lawyer, or anyone else over a social networking site that can be viewed by lots and lots of other people, that is NOT a privileged conversation and you get to share that with lots and lots of people, including the lawyer representing the guy suing you. He is going to like that.

Yes, calling a lawyer does cost money. But you see, paying a lawyer to try to help KEEP YOU OUT OF TROUBLE is a whole bunch cheaper than paying one to GET YOU OUT OF TROUBLE. So, “you can pay me now or you can pay me later.”  It is up to you.

This post has nothing what-so-ever to do with employment law, or labor law or any other kind of law really. It has to do with the new year, and also the old ones. As I get older these milestones in the year become more, well . . . real I guess is the way to put it. And this one, as we move out of the “00s” and into the “tens” gives us, if nothing else, a chance to reflect.

What a decade. Remember how it started? Anyone remember Y2K? We were all planning for Armageddon.  Computers and anything with a computer chip in it would stop working. Civilization as we knew it was going to end. No cars, no toasters, no nothing. Y2K loomed, and then midnight came and went and somehow civilization continued on. Good thing too, because I can’t live without my toaster.

But silly superstition would not, unfortunately, define the decade. We had a disputed presidential election.  Remember that? Our system of selecting a leader was tested as it had never been tested before. No sooner had we gotten through that and along came 9/11 and 19 criminals thought that they could bring us down by committing murder on an unprecedented scale. And it hurt. We went to war and as we have so many times in our history we asked young men and now young women to stand and fight for us, and yes, to die.

And if we hadn’t suffered enough by human hands, nature reminded us how fragile we can be with Katrina. A storm so bad that it very nearly erased an entire American city from the map.

We saw economic crisis and political scandals. We saw tragedy and suffering. And it sometimes seemed like it would never end. What a decade.

Despite all of these lows, we did what we always do; we bounced back and in doing so we reached heights none of us thought possible. The people selected one man and the electoral college selected another and the next day we all got up and went about our business, no tanks on street corners, and no troops quelling riots. Like the outcome or not, as it had for over 200 years, power was transferred to a new leader without bloodshed. Sometimes we forget how rare that can be in this world. We saw the American spirit reemerge when we needed it most. Criminals attacked us and tried to bring us down, but it didn’t work.  It didn’t bring us down.  Instead, we heard stories of men and women overcoming fear and showing amazing bravery. We saw police officers and firefighters running toward the danger instead of away from it. Of simple citizens fighting back over a field in Pennsylvania. Remember the images of flags flying in front of houses the next day? Remember the President striding purposefully out to the pitcher’s mound to throw out the first pitch in Yankee Stadium, mere miles from one of the attacks? Remember the lines at recruiting offices, the lines of young men and women volunteering to serve their country? Katrina hit, and despite all of the failures, we saw people coming to the aid of those in need.  People opening their homes, donating their time and resources, helping however they could.  New Orleans is not all the way back, of that there is no doubt, but it is on the way. And it is on the way because people, not the government, every-day people were willing to help.

And the “00s” had some other things to be proud of too. Things not born of a crisis. Foremost among them I think, no matter your politics, in a country that was, and in many ways still is, dominated by middle aged white men, we elected a black man President of the United States.  We still have a long way to go, but Martin Luther King would, I hope, be proud.

As the decade ends, we are in the middle of another crisis, this time a financial crisis that has brought down corporate giants and shaken our trust in many of the institutions of our society. A crisis that has many of us believing that greed is the order of the day. Many of our friends are without work and there seems to be no end in sight. And yes, we are still at war and young men and women are still dying.

But it is a new year and a new decade. And as we move into the “10s” we should take comfort in one thing.  That this country, and the people that live in it, will find a way to bounce back. And what is going to do it for us is what always has: our creativity, our ability to find a solution where none seemingly exists; our civility, some of you call it “the golden rule”, that despite our sometimes crass exteriors runs through all of us at heart and make us want to help; and our optimism, the realization that no matter how bad it gets, we are blessed to live in a country that allows us, if we work at it, to rise to the top.

Happy New Year, everyone!

We have a guest blogger today.  Kathy Hanenburg.

Kathy is a partner at WNJ who specializes in business immigration, representing clients who hire non-U.S. workers for highly skilled and technical positions, as well as businesses needing to transfer executive and managerial personnel from abroad to the United States. She also counsels human resource professionals on immigration and I-9 compliance issues. Kathy is the Chair of the Firm’s Immigration Law Practice Group.

On November 19, U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (“ICE”) announced that it had served an additional 1,000 audit notices on businesses across the U.S., intended to find and penalize employers who hire undocumented workers.  These audits are in addition to the 650 audits already initiated in fiscal 2009.

The initial audits targeted specific industries, such as manufacturing, agriculture, landscaping and construction.  ICE has indicated that the second round of audits resulted from “investigative leads and intelligence” (i.e., “tips”)  as well as a business’s ties to public safety and national security.

ICE noted that since its new work-site enforcement strategy was implemented on April 30, 2009, it had issued Notices of Intent to Fine totaling more than $15 million, compared with only $2.3 million in all of fiscal 2008.

Fines for hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers fall into three tiers, depending on whether the employer is a “first-time violator”, “second-time violator” or “third or subsequent time violator”.  The current fines for each illegal hiring  are:  First Tier-$375 – 3,200; Second Tier-$3,200 – 6,500; Third Tier-$4,300 – 16,000.

The actual amount of fines assessed will depend on a number of factors, including what percentage of the employer’s work force is determined to be undocumented and the size of the business.

What is he doing?! Why is he writing about sexual harassment, again? Haven’t we beat this mule to death over the years? Come on, there can’t be anything new about sexual harassment, can there? Nobody does this stuff anymore. We all know better.

Oh, if that were only true. TRUTH: Nothing is new in sexual harassment law. FALSE:  Nobody does this stuff anymore. I was flipping through the EEOC’s website this morning to see what is going on. The EEOC website has something new the EEOC calls the “Newsroom.” It is a page on which the EEOC tells us all about all the lawsuits they are filing and all the settlements they have “won.” The current edition of the page lists 20 entries of things going on at the EEOC. Nine of those entries (if my math is correct that’s 45%) involve either sexual harassment suits the EEOC has filed or settlements of sexual harassment suits the EEOC has “won.” So much for learning our lesson.

The most recent entry, dated 11/27/09 tells the tale of a suit filed against a Dunkin Donuts in N.Y. The suit alleges that the manager of this particular Dunkin Donuts “grabbed female employees’ buttocks and breasts, kissed them on the neck, and hugged them against their will.  He told them they were “hot” and told them he preferred virgins. He asked about their sex lives and described in explicit detail the sexual acts he wanted to perform on them, the EEOC said. He warned them not to tell anyone about what he said to them.” Are you kidding me?! The article indicated that some of the women subjected to this behavior were “teenagers”.  Now don’t forget, these are just allegations, not facts, but WOW. Really?!

How can this happen (if it really did happen)? Surely this company has a policy against sexual harassment. Of course they do, or at least I would assume they do. But what happens is we write the policies and put them in the handbook and then we sort of forget them. Can’t do that. You have to train your managers and supervisors. And then you have to train them again. And you have to have them trained by someone who knows what they are talking about. Yes, I know that doing harassment training is a pain and repeating it every year or every other year is even more of a pain. Managers and supervisors are busy and don’t want to attend. It costs money and takes time. Let’s go back to the EEOC website for a second and see how really expensive it is.  Let’s see now:  “Jury Awards $105,000 . . .”;  “. . . to pay $175,000 for Sex Harassment of Man by Female Co-Worker.”; “. . . to pay $200,000 for Sex Discrimination . . .”;  “. . . will pay $255,000 to Settle EEOC sexual harassment lawsuit involving teens.”

A few bucks for some really good training doesn’t seem quite so expensive now does it?  You can see the EEOC website at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/index.cfm

Do you know anyone that actually has a goose for Christmas?  Me either.  Turkey, Ham but Goose?  I don’t think so, not any more.  Probably, in this economic crisis not many people are getting a bonus for Christmas either.  If you are giving a bonus this year there are some things you need to know about how some bonuses might affect how you pay overtime to non-exempt employees.  That’s right, certain bonuses must be included in the computation of the regular rate for non-exempt employees that will effect how much overtime these employees are entitled to receive.  These kinds of bonuses include, Production bonuses, Attendance Bonuses and Cost-of-Living Bonuses.  On the other hand, the regulations implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act also state that certain types of bonuses can be excluded from the regular rate.  So, what are the kinds of bonus payments that can be excluded?  Well, they include Discretionary Bonuses, Gifts and Payments in the nature of gifts on special occasions (like Christmas bonuses), Profit Sharing, Thrift and Savings Plans, Contributions to Welfare Plans, and Percentage of Total Earnings Bonuses.  If the bonus is excluded because it is discretionary it has to be discretionary as to both the fact of the payment and the amount of the payment.  That means that if you have a bonus plan that has predetermined criteria for earning the bonus or for how big the bonus will be it is not discretionary.  If the bonus isn’t excluded, how you have to compute the regular rate for bonuses that must be included is a bit complicated.  So if you are giving a bonus this year, good for you.  Be sure you do it right.