Paycheck Fairness Act 2012

Headline “Republicans voted no to equal pay for women: Act goes to Senate June 5^th.” And that's a recent May, 2012 headline. And if you don’t believe me, follow the link to the actual article: www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12275353-the-paycheck-fairness-act-up-for-vote-next-tuesdaytell-your-senator-its-time-women-receive-equal-pay

This isn’t a new topic, or a new bill. Remember, a Paycheck Fairness Act was previously pitched in 2010. It failed 58– 41.

Let’s talk about Gov. Romney for a moment. Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa called on GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the Republican Party to prove they haven't declared war on women and workers by supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act. Romney has refused to take a stand, or respond. Even the Washington Times has been unable to get a response to the five messages they’ve left him. He’s rather silent on the issue, which I feel says it all.

 

 

Gender bias in action? Yes? No? Who knows? All I know is that I agree in paycheck fairness no matter your sex, race, religion, etc. Data suggests that women make .77 on every dollar that men do. Claycord Congressman George Miller stated that women in California earn 84 cents for every dollar a man earns. That means California women have been paid $8,151 less than men by the end of that year. Same experience, skill, education,title, etc. And yet the pay differs.

Since I’m blogging from the great State of Texas, let’s look at Texas statistics.

• In 2010, the typical woman in Texas working full time, year round, was paid only 80 cents to every dollar paid to a man working full time, year round. That's 3 cents narrower than the nationwide wage gap of 77 cents.
• The wage gap persists at all levels of education. In 2010, women in Texas with a high school diploma were paid only 67 cents to every dollar paid to men with a high school diploma. Comparing women and men in Texas with a bachelor's degree, the figure was 69 cents. In fact, the typical Texas woman who has received an associate's degree or completes some college still isn't paid as much as the typical Texas man who only graduated from high school.
• The wage gap exists across occupations. For example, Texas women working full time, year round in 2010 in management, business, and financial occupations were paid only 71 cents to every dollar paid to men in the same occupations, and Texas women working full time, year round in sales and related occupations were paid only 57 cents to every dollar paid to men in the same occupations.

The above statistics provided by National Women’s Law Center. The Importance of Fair Pay for Texas Women. April 2012. www.nwlc.org

The Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, almost 50 year sago. And yet, unfair pay practices still exist. The new Act will hold employers accountable for pay discrepancies between male and female employees while strengthening incentives to prevent pay discrimination. The employer will have to provide a valid explanation as to why a male employee, with the same qualifications/experience, is making more than his female counterpart. The employer must be able to show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and are driven by business necessity.

Everywhere on the Internet, people are chiming in on this sensitive issue. Petitions are being circulated for signature. www.momsrising.org/member_stories/topic/pay-discrimination-stories/?action_id=10534741&akid=.2017705.N-Qc-v&form_name=act&rd=1

Let’s wait and see how this all unfolds. I’ll have an update for you after June 5^th.

The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part II

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) stated, “Employers seeking access to passwords or confidential information on social networks, e-mail accounts, or other protected Internet services is an unreasonable and intolerable invasion of privacy. With few exceptions, employers do not have the need or the right to demand access to applicants' private, password-protected information."

Beyond the privacy issue, let’s look at the potential ability to discriminate against candidates.  In a statement by Rep. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), “Personal information like race, religion, age, and sexual orientation is often accessible on social networking profiles, and by having access to this information employers could discriminate against an applicant who would otherwise be qualified for a job. In an ever expanding world of technology, we need to have clear laws on the books to protect Americans' right to privacy.” 

Under the bill, the employer can’t force an employee to disclose a password even if the employee is using his/her work computer for access.  The PPA reflects the approach (and building on the existing law) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the federal government’s primary anti-hacking tool.  This Act protects the integrity of internet systems against hackers, including protecting online email accounts and Facebook accounts against the stealing of passwords.  (The online servers where private user information is stored are referred to as “protected computers” in the legislation.)

For the employer, it will protect their system.  It preserves the right of the employer to control access to their hardware, as well as Internet software.  The employer can set policies for employer-operated computer systems and hold workers accountable for stealing data.   

The PPA does not limit its protection to a particular type of service.  It is “technology-neutral.”  This will allow the bill to remain flexible and not be supplanted in a few years by new technology and allow the PPA to continually evolve.  It is designed to adapt to new Internet innovations. 

A summary of the Password Protection Act can be found on Senator Richard Blumenthal’s’ website.  The link is provided here:  www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/senators-and-congressmen-introduce-password-protection-act-of-2012

The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part 1

On April 16^th, the Maryland State Senate unanimously passed a bill titled, “Labor and Employment – Username and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions.”  If this bill is signed into law, Maryland will become the first state to prohibit employers from requiring potential candidates to provide passwords to their Facebook accounts.   This bill will also prohibit the disclosure of any username, password or other means of accessing a personal account for all Internet accounts such as Twitter and LinkedIn.

It is becoming a common practice for potential employers to snoop around in the private lives of prospective employees, as well as existing employees.  Employers use the information to determine whether or not the candidate is worth hiring based on their “on-line” behavior.  Current employees are even being fired based on their “on-line” behavior.  For example:

• Andrew Kurtz (pierogi and Pittsburgh Pirates mascot) was fired based on his Facebook critique of the team’s management. 
• Sister Mary Jesus Galan (a nun at the Santo Domingo el Real convent in Toledo) was fired for spending too much time on Facebook. 
• Cheryl James, an Oakwood Hospital employee (Detroit), was fired from her job for posting something on her personal Facebook page.  And, the list goes on.

The Password Protection Act of 2012 has been introduced in both the House and the Senate.   The PPA would make it illegal for an employer to compel or coerce access to any online information (stored anywhere on the Internet), if that information is secured against general public access by the user.   This includes private email accounts, smartphones and photo-sharing websites.  Employers violating the PPA could be subject to financial penalties up to $10,000.00. 

This proposed new legislation was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), with an identical bill introduced in the House Of Representatives by Reps. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Ed Permutter (D-Colo.).    Rep. Ed Permutter previously submitted a Facebook user protection amendment that did not pass the House back in March.

(continued in The Password Protection Act of 2012 - Part II)

Job Descriptions

Each of you have heard me "rant and rave"  about how important job descriptions are.  I recently ran across a great article that outlines some very important reasons why job descriptions are so important.  In the spirit of sharing:

1.  ADA:  If an employee files an ADA lawsuit, courts will review what the organization has identified as the job's "essential functions" to see if the charges have merit.  Absent a written job description, the court may decide for itself which functions are essential.

2.  Titles carry a great deal of weight in the workplace and in court.  Each position's title should match the level of authority and responsibility. Cross-check it against other titles in the organization.  For example, your "administrative assistant" would be doing most of the same tasks as others with that title.  Don't upgrade employees by giving them inflated titles.  You may regret that when they ask for pay raises or refuse to perform tasks that they consider beneath them.  More importantly, inappropriate titles also factor into discrimination charges.  For example, if your "director of distribution" is really a shipping clerk, be prepared to explain why s/he isn't being paid the same as other "directors."

3.  Essential functions/qualifications:  The key part of JD's is an item-by-item list of the job's duties and responsibilities.  It is important to identify which are "essential" job functions are critical to the job's successful performance.  One KEY legal reason?  Employees can file ADA lawsuits only if they can prove they're legally disabled and can still perform the "essential functions" of the job.  If those "essential" duties aren't detailed in the job description, they're left open to a court's random interpretation.

4.  Results Expected:  Duties are half the equation.  Include expectations relating to deadlines, customer service and company success.  Linking responsibilities to company goals helps the employee see how the position fits into the "big picture."

5.  Use Specific and Clear Language:  Instead of a term like "good communication skills," say the person needs "the ability to communicate company policies to non-managerial groups in person and in writing."

6.  Avoid gender-based language, such as "salesman."

 7.  The bottom line:  Never assume employees know what's expected of them.  Put it in writing and make sure they understand.

The Reason You Don't Have A Job . ..

Is You!  Yes, you're the reason you don't have a job.

In a survey by OfficeTeam and CareerBuilder, hiring managers say an average of 44% of the resumes they receive come from unqualified individuals.

People are going to give you a lot of advice as to whether or not you should apply for a job for which you are not qualified.  From a recruiter standpoint - please don't waste my time.    If you're not a match 100% for the required qualifications, I don't want your resume.  Period.

Many people simply apply to every open position.   They blanket the town with their resumes. I have had the same individual apply to both an invoicing clerk position and a Tactical Plans Leader position in the same day.  That tells me you're just randomly applying to any job.  You're not reading the qualifications for the position.  And more importantly, that what the company needs really isn't relevant. 

Realistically people.  When I advertise for a position the advertisement is clearly going to reflect the skills and abilities that will allow that candidate to be successful in the role.  If I need an accounting clerk in a fast-paced environment that requires QuickBooks, they need QuickBooks!  As a company we want an employee to hit the ground running.

Let me give you a couple of tips:

• Carefully review the job posting and ask yourself "am I qualified to do the job?"  Carefully evaluate your ability to do the job.   Don't over-inflate your qualifications. 
• When you submit your resume - ensure your resume emphasizes your experience.  Make sure your resume outlines your skills. Proving me with your title and the name of the company gives me no information. If you leave the relevant experience off of your resume - your resume is going into the "no thank you but thanks for applying" stack.

Respectfully, a recruiter.

Data Breach

In a study by the Ponemon Institute published in February, organizations often do not know if and what kind of data is leaving their networks through non-secure mobile devices.   The study’s results are based on information collected across 14 industry sectors from 49 U.S. companies.  Let’s focus on data breach for just a moment.  For the first time in seven years, both the organizational cost of data breach, and the cost per lost or stolen record, have declined.   The organizational cost has declined from $7.2 million in 2010 to $5.5 million in 2011.  That’s a 24 percent decrease.   The most important category from a cost perspective is that of the so-called “lost business” costs.  This includes abnormal turnover of customers, increased customer acquisition activities, reputation losses, as well as diminished goodwill.  The costs that fall into this category have decreased by 34% compared to 2010.  More than a third of the breaches that Ponemon studied were the result of lost or stolen devices, including laptops or USB thumb drives that contained confidential or sensitive information. 

With employees using personal devices such as Smartphone’s, tablets, laptops, etc., the potential for loss of data increases.  How does an organization manage the risk associated with BYOD? In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court held that employers have the right to access all communications on corporate-issued devices.  However, the court didn’t address a company’s right to access information on an employee’s personal device.  (Cisco Systems announced on March 20^th that they were expanding services to “enable companies to manage and secure private mobile devices used by employees at work,” aiming to benefit from the trend widely known as BYOD or Bring Your Own Device.)

As an employer, should you have a BYOD policy?  To determine the content or need of a policy, thoroughly analyze the following:

The legal regulations you face.  The inherent security concerns for your industry, you ability to manage and oversee the use of these devices, and most importantly, the sensitivity of the information your employees handle.

If you decide to implement a BYOD policy, HR Daily Advisor has some recommendations:

Initiate a “wipe” policy. Require your employees to download software that allows you to remotely access and wipe devices. That provides protection if devices are lost or stolen. Additionally, there are software programs that can sequester work-related information into a software “sandbox,” creating a virtual folder in the personal device.

Require written agreements. Once you locate software that fits your needs, have your employees sign a written agreement that discloses all risks associated with the software (such as information loss) and requires them to download it onto any device that will be used to access work-related information.

Make the privilege exclusive. Allow only certain employees to have the privilege of using personal devices (exclude personnel who frequently handle sensitive data or personally identifiable information). Further, limit the type of information that’s accessible from a personal device (e.g., e-mail).

Make device inspection a part of the exit interview. Have employees consent in writing to have their devices inspected at exit interviews. Also, obtain permission to remotely wipe the device of any terminated employee.

Don’t allow employees to store corporate information on personal devices. Have them sign a written agreement that they will not store any corporate information on their personal devices.

Require employees to produce their devices for inspection. Have them sign a written agreement that they will turn over their personal devices for inspection upon a legitimate request.

Sensitive Information and Security

I don't like to point fingers.  I really don't.  But in this particular situation, I feel that a bit of awareness is needed.

I’m sure you have, at least once in your life, had a drug screen.   We all have.  It's generally a part of any employee's pre-screening process.  During a drug screen a Chain of Custody form is used.  This form reflects the name of the individual being tested as well as their Social Security Number which is used as an identifier. The Chain of Custody Form has been given a status as a legal document for it has the ability to invalidate a specimen that has been tampered with and does not have complete information written on it.  The key words here are “legal document.”  Based on the information reflected on the COC, the form should be monitored to ensure the security of the information provided on the form. 

For the past year, Excel Urgent Care has been our drug screen program vendor.   To protect the integrity of the information reflected on the COC forms, and due to the lack of a secure fax line in my area, Excel has been instructed to mail the employer section of the COC to me.  *I don't like the idea of the COC, with such sensitive information on it, just sitting in a fax box.*

Last week I received a large envelope that contained approximately 35 employer copies of the COC form.  The problem?  Not one of the COC forms in the envelope represented an employee here at Company T.  This sensitive information had been disclosed to a third party, me.   That afternoon  I made a trip to Excel to return the documents and have a brief discussion with the office staff impressing upon them the seriousness of the situation and how critical it is to ensure that this information is protected.    If I’m receiving information on third parties, where, potentially, is my information going?

Yesterday, I received another envelope from Excel Urgent Care.  It was addressed to “Child Protective Service” but mailed to my office address.  The information contained related to a CPS Investigation and a pending divorce.  Not only were the COC forms enclosed, but other sensitive information as well.  The receipt of this information necessitated a second trip to Excel.  However, this time I was able to meet with the manager to express my concern.  She was not aware of the first incident but promised to take the necessary steps to ensure that this type of error did not reoccur.  Without the words being uttered, she understood the potential legal risk associated with the disclosure of this information.

Let's keep our fingers crossed shall we?

In Closing:  Training is critical to ensure that employees protect and treat this sensitive information like a controlled substance.