Call: 410-522-1020

News and Resources
COVID-19

Are Your Employees Ready to Go Back to “Normal”?

Across the country, government mask mandates are being lifted, students are attending schools without masks, and people are beginning to resume activities that were curtailed when the Omicron variant was spreading like wildfire only a few short weeks ago.  Many employers are watching these trends carefully as they make plans to resume, expand, or modify their in-person work policies and practices.  Many employers are asking the same questions… Should vaccination mandates remain?  What about mask requirements?  Should remote work be curtailed? Recent polls suggest that, while government mandates have scaled back, the majority of Americans still are not ready to go back to “normal”, pre-pandemic activities without restrictions.  A recent Axios-Ipsos poll, published on March 1, suggests that a majority of American workers support keeping precautions in place.  In fact, a slight majority still supported businesses requiring individuals to show proof of vaccination before entry.   How Employers Can Handle the Return to “Normal” 1. Include Employees in the Decision-Making Process For employers looking to navigate these issues, these studies suggest that bringing employees back to the office and removing mask and vaccination requirements is likely to be unpopular with most employees right now.  As we discussed in a recent article, most employees, whose jobs permit it, want to see remote work become a permanent fixture of their work life.  Before removing mask or vaccination requirements, employers should solicit feedback from their employees as to whether they are comfortable with the company making such a move, particularly if it is coupled with a mandatory return to in-person work.  Engaging your employees on this issue is likely to have benefits beyond ensuring that they feel safe at work.  Studies show that a critical way to build employee morale and loyalty is to include them in decision-making processes at work.  Allowing your employees to have a say in how the return to “normal” process is managed makes them feel like valued members of a team, rather than cogs in a machine. 2. Be Flexible to Future Changes Finally, keep in mind that any decision does not have to be permanent.  The Axios-Ipsos poll also reflects that public sentiment continues to shift as case counts and hospitalizations decrease.  What might feel like an unacceptable health and safety risk to employees today might not feel like a risk in two weeks’ time.  Employers should keep this in mind and build flexibility into any policies that they revise or implement related to easing precautions surrounding COVID-19. If you have questions about how to revise or update your company’s mask or vaccination policies, please contact one of our attorneys at (410) 522-1020 to set up an appointment to discuss how your policies can be structured to meet your company’s goals.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Mar 7 No Comments
COVID-19

Is Hybrid Remote Work the New Normal?

When the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020, no one could have predicted the ongoing transformation it would have on our home and work lives. This transformation is particularly obvious in how we talk about remote work and how many companies have adapted to, and in some cases embraced, remote work.  Once a perk offered by a few tech-savvy companies, remote work became a necessity for many employers beginning in March 2020. While it had its hiccups to start overtime, more and more executives and managers became accustomed to remote work and remote management. As a result, a PwC survey taken in late 2021, reflected that 83% of employers felt that remote work had been successful for their companies. As the pandemic moves to an endemic stage, more and more employers are looking to implement permanent options for remote work. For many, this has taken on added importance as many employees are now looking to work for companies that offer remote work, at least on a part-time basis. Remote Work Considerations for Employers Employers implementing remote work must be careful not to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach. Some job duties and positions simply may not be a good fit for remote work and some employees may perform better in an in-person environment. Moreover, even for individuals who are primarily able to work from home, there are studies that show that in-person work and meetings help build a sense of collaboration, assist with employee training, and help build bonds within the company that creates loyalty. Those same studies suggest that employers who want to be successful with remote work evaluate their positions and determine how much of an employee’s time is spent on “collaborative” functions and how much is spent on independent, “working” functions. Employers can then schedule employees for in-person and remote work based on how much of their time is spent performing “collaborative” tasks that are better performed in person, and “working” tasks that can be successfully performed remotely. Based on these studies, most experts recommend “hybrid” work from home policies where employees split their time between working from home and the office. Hybrid Work Considerations for Employers Hybrid work from home arrangements are beneficial for employers because they allow for some of the traditional, in-person interactions that allow supervisors to evaluate and discipline employees effectively. Having at least some regular, in-person work hours ensures that employees are available and responsive to communications from co-workers and managers and may prevent improper moonlighting. Finally, requiring in-person work ensures that employees stay local. Many employers have experienced situations where remote workers relocate to another state and then are shocked to learn that they are suddenly subject to another state’s laws, including its local employment and sales tax laws.            At Luchansky Law, we routinely assist employers with all facets of the implementation of policies and procedures governing remote work. If your business would like assistance in implementing a transition to a permanent remote work structure, give us a call at (410) 522-1020 to schedule a consultation.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Feb 16 No Comments
Employee Lawsuits

Recent Circuit Court Split Creates Confusion About Mealtime Pay

How do three Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals hear separate but factually identical cases, yet come to three distinct holdings? That is what happened recently when one set of facts with different plaintiffs was litigated in the Ninth, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits. The result? A split in the circuits regarding when employers must pay for employees’ mealtime. Akal Security, Inc. contracted with ICE to provide security officers for the deportation of detainees. The Air Security Officers (ASOs) were responsible for maintaining the safety and tending to the needs of deportees. On the “empty return leg,” the ASOs were mostly free to do whatever they wanted. Although Akal concedes that the empty return legs were compensable work, their policy was to automatically deduct a one-hour meal break from any return flight longer than 90 minutes. Over the past three years, several ASOs sued Akal in different federal district courts, claiming this policy violated the FLSA. The cases were appealed to three different federal circuits and, although the facts in each case were identical, each court applied a different test and issued different rulings. Under the FLSA, “bona fide meal periods are not worktime.” However, in the three cases brought by Akal employees, the circuits disagreed on the standard to be applied to determine whether mealtime is a “bona fide meal period.” The Ninth Circuit, in Alonzo v. Akal Security Incorporated, 807 Fed. Appx. 718 (9th Cir. 2020), held that Akal’s policy did not violate the FLSA because the ASOs were completely removed from duty and thus, the deducted mealtime was a bona fide, non-compensable meal period. The Fifth Circuit, in Dean v. Akal Security, Incorporated, 3 F.4th 137 (5th Cir. 2021), came to the same conclusion but applied a different standard. The court agreed that Akal’s policy did not violate the FLSA, but not because it satisfied the higher, “completely removed from duty” standard. Rather, the Fifth Circuit held that the proper test to identify a bona fide meal period is the more employer-friendly “predominant benefit” test. Applying that test, because the ASOs received the predominant benefit of the meal period, it was not considered compensable working time. Most recently, the Eleventh Circuit in Gelber v. Akal Security, Inc., 14 F.4th 1279 (11th Cir. 2021), agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the standard for a bona meal period is the higher “completely removed from duty” standard.  However, even though it applied the same test, it held that Akal’s policy did violate the FLSA. The Eleventh Circuit reasoned that Akal could not satisfy its burden of proof that the ASOs were completely removed from duty simply by demonstrating that the ASOs were able to remain idle during that time because Akal had conceded that other idle time of the Empty Return Leg was indeed compensable. The court found it inconsistent of Akal to count other idle time as compensable work while also arguing that the idle time for a meal period satisfied the “completely removed from duty” test. Accordingly, the court held that Akal failed to meet its burden of showing that its employees were completely removed from duty during mealtime and that Akal’s failure to count the meal period as working time violated the FLSA. To summarize, while the Eleventh and Ninth Circuits agree that the proper test is the “completely removed from duty” test, they came to different conclusions on whether the ASOs’ idle time satisfied the test. The Ninth Circuit held that it did because ultimately the ASOs were idle and completely removed from duty. The Eleventh Circuit held that it did not because even though the ASOs were idle, Akal had conceded that idleness and free time were compensable, therefore idleness and free time could not factor into the “completely removed from duty” analysis. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit will apply the more lenient “predominant benefit” test, and since the ASOs were the predominant beneficiary of the mealtime, it qualifies as a bona-fide, non-compensable meal period. Following these decisions, whether an employer can deduct meal period pay, and what standard applies, will depend on the circuit where the employees work.  The Fifth Circuit’s standard obviously favors employers while the Eleventh Circuit’s standard and rigid application of the “completely removed from duty” test favors employees.  The Ninth Circuit, meanwhile, has staked out something of a middle ground between the two. While the facts of the Akal cases are somewhat unique, the standards applied by these courts affect all meal period compensation issues. The confusion surrounding meal period pay created by the circuit split is unlikely to be resolved unless the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue. If you want to have your employment practices reviewed to ensure that your pay practices, including compensation for meal periods, contact the attorneys at Luchansky Law at (410) 522-1020 or at www.luchanskylaw.com

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Jan 26 No Comments
Mental Health

How Employers Can Help Ease Mental Health Issues Due to the Pandemic

As the pandemic creeps on into year three, many are noticing a significant deterioration in their mental health—either through an exacerbation of their existing mental health conditions or simply from exhaustion. Fortunately, all is not lost! There are several strategies that employers may implement to assist their employees through this difficult time, and some are systems that the employer already has in place but are underutilized. The first strategy is to remind employees of existing programs that the employer offers, such as employee assistance programs (“EAP”). Many employees report that they have not sought any mental health treatment due to concerns about cost. These employees may be unaware of EAP that their employer may offer. EAP will help the employee find a mental health professional who also accepts the employee’s health insurance, at no cost to the employee. Additionally, an EAP may cover the costs of the first few treatment sessions with a provider, and for someone going through an acute episode, this may be all they need. If services are required beyond the initial sessions covered by EAP, the employee’s health insurance would then take over. Employers should periodically remind employees that any EAP is free, confidential, and dovetails with their existing health insurance to ensure continuity of care, if necessary. Employers should also remind the employees of its “open door policy” with respect to questions about the EAP. The second strategy is to highlight any mental health coverage or other insurance benefits (such as a prescription plans) that the employer offers. Many health insurance plans cover mental health treatment. However, certain plans require a referral to avoid out of pocket costs. A common refrain from employees is that they are unsure what items are covered through their employer sponsored health insurance, and therefore are hesitant to use their benefits for mental health treatment. To address this knowledge gap, the HR department for the employer can host periodic discussions or town hall meetings regarding benefit programs. Having these transparent meetings can alleviate confusion and makes employees more likely to utilize the benefits that the employer provides. Here, too, reminding the employees of the “open door policy” encouraging them to come forward with questions about benefits as they relate to mental health services can be helpful. The third strategy is to be creative. There is no “one size fits all” approach to mental health. Employers should encourage their employees to voice their concerns about their mental health and how it may be affecting their performance or the office culture. During these feedback sessions, brainstorm with the employees about solutions. Possible solutions include an audit of work assignments and redistribution or hiring additional staff to relieve overwhelmed employees, adjusting schedules, setting office “quiet hours,” one-on-ones, or a presentation by a mental health professional regarding coping strategies for certain types of stress. The focus here should be to collaborate with the employees and generate solutions that will work for both the business and its employees. As an added bonus, this approach can double as the required interactive process required by the ADA. There are many ways employers can assist their employees with their mental health. At Luchansky Law, we routinely assist employers with strategies and policies that address mental health. If you or your business would like to discuss additional strategies to assist your employees or would like a review of your existing policies, please contact us at (410) 522-1020 to schedule a consultation.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Jan 24 No Comments
Employee Lawsuits

Deflection is Not the Best Defense to a Wage and Hour Claim

Ideally, employers that are faced with valid overtime or minimum wage claims should focus on working with their attorney to accurately evaluate their exposure and identify the most efficient way to resolve the claim. While this advice seems self-evident, too often employers do not heed it. Instead, frustrated by the cost of defending the claim and potentially settling it, and stung by the fact that the employees are ungrateful for all of the money they have been paid, employers often focus on the shortcomings of the claiming employee(s) and on the many reasons why those employees do not deserve to be paid anything more than what they have already received.  That is an ill-advised approach and should be avoided. Deflecting is Short-Sighted First, it distracts the employer from focusing on gathering and communicating the facts, data, and documents that their attorney actually needs to evaluate the claim and provide advice as to how to proceed. Second, it clouds the employer’s judgment when it is time to make the decision as to whether to settle the claim, turning what is usually a business decision into a personal one.  Third, it does not help the employer’s case. Rarely does an employee’s consent to how they are paid, or the employee’s legal status, performance, attitude, or personal conduct have any effect on their right to pursue a wage and hour claim or the potential success of such claims. One example that arises—often in cases against employers in the service industries such as restaurant owners, cleaning companies, and construction contractors—is the employer’s focus on employees’ immigration status or their unwillingness to fill out an I-9 or W-4. Not only will these facts not prevent the employee from recovering, but they actually expose the employer to liability for violations of federal and state law.  Any attempt to use the employee’s status against them, and any implication that the employer will report the employee to state or federal authorities, will be viewed as retaliation against the employee and will likely increase the employers’ potential lability. Most Excuses are Not Legally Justified Similarly, “My employee requested that I pay him by the day,” “My employee agreed to accept more money per hour and not receive overtime pay,” or, “My worker asked me to classify him as a 1099 independent contractor instead of an employee,” will not absolve an employer from the consequences of failing to maintain records and pay employees as required by law.  Ultimately, the governing state and local statutes and regulations place the responsibility for verifying the legal status of employees and compliance with applicable deduction, withholding, and record-keeping squarely on employers and their claims that they violated those laws as a favor to their employees will not protect them.  Citing employees’ substandard performance as a basis for an offset against unpaid wages owed in a wage and hour case is likewise a non-starter. Even if employees showed up to work drunk, did not meet productivity expectations or workmanship standards, or were guilty of other misconduct while on the job, they must be paid for the time they worked. The time to discipline or terminate an underperforming employee is when the conduct is occurring.  It is too late to attempt to “clawback” wages for non-productive time on the job after a wage and hour claim is filed and wage laws strictly limit the circumstances under which an employer may make a deduction from wages. In a perfect world, employers would carefully comply with all statutes and regulations as they pertain to employee documentation, record-keeping, and compensation. However, in the real world, when an employer faces a legitimate wage and hour claim, they should avoid the urge to finger point or blame-shift. Instead, they should focus on the legitimate defenses available, the efficient resolution of the claim, and implementing the fixes needed to avoid future claims. If you have received a wage and hour demand letter or lawsuit, or if you want to have your employment practices reviewed to limit the possibility, please contact us at (410) 522-1020 to schedule a consultation.

Read More »
Joseph Wolf Jan 20 No Comments
COVID-19

UPDATE: COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates — OSHA’s Mandate Struck Down

On September 9, 2021, President Biden directed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to develop a rule to increase the number of workers who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.  Consistent with that direction, OSHA developed an Emergency Temporary Standard which would apply to employers with more than 100 employees.  On November 4, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard, (the “ETS”), requiring that all employees of employers with 100 or more employees either be vaccinated or be tested on a weekly basis and to have a negative test before coming to work.  The ETS was immediately challenged in court and, after a series of rulings blocking and then unblocking the ETS, on January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court finally weighed in, striking down the ETS.  What does the Supreme Court’s decision mean? First, for those employers with more then 100 employees who have not implemented a vaccination and/or testing mandate for their employees, the Supreme Court’s ruling allows them to continue to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to implement such a policy without worrying about fines and/or penalties from OSHA.  For those employers concerned about losing employees as a result of a mandate, concerned about the administrative time and expense connected with enforcing such a mandate, or with philosophical or political objections to such a mandate, the Supreme Court’s decision will be welcome news. Second, the Supreme Court’s decision did not render any private or public employer’s vaccination mandate unenforceable or illegal.  If an employer chooses to require vaccination, with or without a testing option, they are still permitted to do so.  Many employers voluntarily implemented vaccination mandates using the ETS as a justification—if they do not rescind their policies, they may remain in effect. Finally, the Supreme Court did not strike down the vaccination mandate for employers receiving Medicaid or Medicare funds.  In a separate decision, the Supreme Court upheld that requirement.  As a result, if an employer is required to have an employee vaccination policy pursuant to another Executive Order, federal agency requirement, state law or regulation, or local law or regulation, that requirement would still be in effect. If you have questions about how the Supreme Court’s decision affects your business or whether your business should implement a vaccination policy regardless, please contact us at (410) 522-1020 to set up an appointment to discuss how your policies can be structured to meet your company’s goals.  

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Jan 17 No Comments
COVID-19

Two-Timing Employees in the Work-from-Home Environment

Juggling two or more part-time jobs, or “moonlighting”, has always been the norm for many people struggling to make ends meet. This is especially true in the gig economy, with many people working on several platforms at once. However, recently, with the rise of the work-from-home trend, some full-time employees found a way to double their income without increasing their hours. Working from home with little supervision and no nosy colleagues looking over their shoulders, these employees discovered the capability to manage a second job all the while on the clock for their first job. They simply have another computer or laptop running at their workstation, and switch back and forth between the two jobs. Some seek employment by a second company, others run their own business on the side.  For the purposes of this article, we’ll refer to this setup as “two-timing” As much as some employees may view two-timing as ethically ambiguous, employees may not actually be breaking any laws or even violating their employment agreements unless proper policies are in place. Employers are obviously not going to appreciate two-timing employees, but for some employees, the benefit of increasing their income outweighs the risk of being discovered and falling into disfavor with their employers. However, employers have good reason to be wary of employees working several jobs concurrently. The Consequences of Two-Timing While it sounds like a flawless plan for employees, this “two-timing” scheme risks serious consequences. First, if one or both employers find out that you are working two jobs at the same time, they may fire you for cause, since no law protects the right of employees to engage in two occupations at the same time.  Second, the room for everyday errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person or from the wrong domain, or scheduling conflicting meetings, is significantly greater when managing two distinct jobs. Importantly, however, when both jobs are in the same industry, there is the heightened risk of disclosing confidential client information or trade secrets to a competitor or violating the common-law duty of loyalty to one employer. This risk is greater when employees are running their own business in the same industry as they may be tempted to poach clients or trade secrets to promote their own business. How Employers Can Prevent Two-Timing First, and foremost, is communication. Have a conversation with your employees about what the expectations are. Two-timing employees often live by the motto that secrets are best kept when not spoken of. By communicating and maintaining an open dialogue, employers can gain insight into the employee’s habits and practices, all the while enforcing company policy on time management. Second, reinforce company policy. Employers can include in employee contracts and in policy handbooks provisions related to both moonlighting and two-timing.  If it does not already, your employee agreements and an employee handbook should explicitly prohibit employees from engaging in other, for-profit employment while working on behalf of the company. Similarly, you should ensure that your non-compete and non-disclosure provisions are drafted correctly to apply both during and after the termination of employment. Finally, there is corporate loyalty. Much like the “The Great Resignation,” two-timing often stems from the corporate culture and employees not caring about their work. By taking measures to engage employees, such as stocks, bonuses, or even simply celebrating team accomplishments, employers can increase brand loyalty and keep employees invested in their jobs. If you are interested in having your company’s policies or contracts reviewed, or if you are an employee interested in discussing your rights, give us a call at (410) 522-1020 to schedule a consultation with one of our experienced employment attorneys.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Dec 20 No Comments
Employer's Toolbox

When to Consider the Four-Day Workweek

In the midst of unprecedented numbers of job departures being dubbed “The Great Resignation,” many employers are seeking creative ways to retain or attract new talent. One hot topic in the discourse? The four-day workweek. Common for years among those in the healthcare profession, the four-day workweek is being discussed by employers in other sectors. If your business is considering transitioning to a four-day workweek, here are a few things to consider. First, and foremost, clarity of messaging as to what is meant by a “four-day workweek” is key. Examples of important questions to ask during this process would be “Will your business be closed on one weekday every week?” and “Will your employees work 40 hours, 32, or some other number in those four days?” Clarity of message from the outset can assist both the employer and its employees operating from the same page to smooth the transition. Additionally, the employer should meet with the employees to discuss how existing performance metrics can be maintained with the shorter workweek. Next, consider the effect this change will have on customers. Two of the most important metrics for any business are productivity and customer service; hours of operation can impact both. When considering the hours of operation for your business, carefully weigh whether a staggered schedule of your employees to ensure that there is adequate coverage Monday through Friday might be a better approach versus closing the business one day each week. However, if your business has a particular day where customer traffic is low, perhaps it would be best to close on that day each week. Another important consideration for any four-day work week, especially those that expect the employees to work 10-hour days instead of 8, is the applicable wage and hour laws. Some states require overtime pay after a daily threshold of 8 hours is crossed, in addition to the well-known 40 hours per week one. Consult with either HR or an employment attorney to ensure compliance with all applicable wage and hour laws. A less common, but still very important consideration: unions. Many collective bargaining agreements specify the workweek, and a unilateral alteration to the traditional Monday through Friday workweek by the employer may not be allowed. Any employer subject to a collective bargaining agreement that is considering a switch to a four-day workweek needs to do so in partnership with the employee union.  Finally, try it out! As with any substantive change in your business, a trial run is well advised. This will allow the employer to obtain real data to gauge where modifications of policies, staffing, and workload distribution may be necessary. It will also allow for actual data regarding customer service and productivity to determine whether any other course corrections are necessary. At Luchansky Law, we routinely assist employers with all facets of the implementation of policies and procedures, including those for a four-day workweek. If your business would like assistance in implementing a transition to a four-day workweek, give us a call at (410) 522-1020 to set up an appointment with one of our attorneys.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Dec 20 No Comments
COVID-19

EEOC Issues Updated Guidance on COVID-19 Retaliation

According to EEOC statistics, the most common basis for charges of discrimination filed with the agency is retaliation. Issues related to COVID-19, such as the ongoing need for sick leave, vaccine hesitancy, religious exemption requests from vaccine mandates, and long-COVID have added new retaliation concerns for employers. The EEOC’s most recent guidance provides some helpful items employers should be mindful of to prevent claims that they have violated federal anti-discrimination law. Federal anti-discrimination statutes, such as Title VII and the ADA, contain provisions that make retaliation against someone for engaging in “protected activity” unlawful. Relative to the COVID-19 pandemic, employers need to be wary of concerns that implicate the anti-retaliation provisions of these statutes. For example, a COVID-19 related retaliation concern would be an employee who complains to HR or the EEOC about disclosure of their COVID-19 diagnosis (which could be considered confidential medical information under the ADA). Another example would be an employee who reports disparaging or harassing comments about their religious objections to being vaccinated (Title VII) to management. In either case, so long as the employee’s complaint is in good faith, the employee has engaged in “protected activity” by lodging their complaint and any action taken in reprisal for their complaint is unlawful. “Reprisal” is defined broadly and includes any adverse action which would deter a reasonable person from exercising their rights under the various federal anti-discrimination statutes. Examples of reprisal can include lowered performance evaluations, denying promotions, elimination of job duties, suspension, and termination. The EEOC guidance notes that acts that do not have a tangible effect on the employment of the individual may be unlawful if they are taken to discourage the employee from participating in the EEO process. The employee’s continued participation in the EEO process is not dispositive of whether the employer unlawfully retaliated against the employee. If the action was taken to punish the employee for their complaint or discourage them from continuing in the EEO process, there may be a basis for a retaliation claim. Fortunately, the EEOC’s most recent guidance reaffirms an employee does not become immune from discipline simply because they have engaged in protected activity. An employer may still discipline its employees for failure to follow its policies and procedures, poor performance, or misconduct, the same as it may for any other employee. However, employers should exercise caution when implementing disciplinary action against an employee who has engaged in protected activity. Employers must ensure that the disciplinary action is not disproportionate to that which has been given to employees who have not engaged in protected activity and is consistent with its established policies. Otherwise, the disciplinary action may be found to be an unlawful reprisal, even if the underlying conduct otherwise justified discipline. We here at Luchansky Law are constantly monitoring EEOC guidance and federal anti-discrimination laws. If you and your business would like assistance with navigating these laws, whether generally, or with respect to COVID-19, give us a call at (410) 522-1020 to set up an appointment with one of our attorneys.

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Dec 13 No Comments
COVID-19

How to Hire and Retain Employees During the Great Resignation

For months, employers have been hearing about the Great Resignation, the term coined for the large number of employees suddenly retiring, quitting, or changing career paths. The Department of Labor has now released numbers for October 2021 showing just how large an impact that the Great Resignation has had.  In October 2021, 4.2 million employees left their jobs, which represents 2.8% of the total workforce. This number is near the record 4.4 million employees who left their jobs in September. As a result, estimates suggest that the economy has roughly 5 million more open positions than people seeking to fill them. For employers, understanding why your employees are leaving is critical to retaining as many as possible and, when that is not possible, recruiting new employees to replace them. Considerations for Retaining Employees The number of job openings has created a shift in the balance of power between employers and employees. Employees who feel that they are being treated unfairly or that competitors are providing better compensation, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment are likely to find another opening in the current environment. Employers need to be proactive to ensure that their top talent is not poached by competitors, as studies have shown that making counteroffers to departing employees is, at best, a short-term fix that merely delays the employee’s eventual departure. To ensure this does not occur, employers should review their compensation systems, benefits, and employee handbooks to ensure that what they are offering is competitive to what other employers are offering. Similarly, if you or a competitor are offering sign-on bonuses, consider whether you should also implement retention bonuses tied to continued employment to ensure that employees are not tempted to look elsewhere. Considerations for Hiring Employees If you are looking to hire, there are a couple of critical actions employers should take to ensure that you are accessing the widest pool of candidates possible. One of the first things an employer should do, before posting a job, is ensure that the stated requirements of the position are necessary for success. Is a college degree an absolute necessity? How many years of industry experience are truly needed? Are drug tests or background checks excluding candidates? Even the language used in the job advertisement can limit the responses a company receives, as studies have shown that using certain gendered terms can cause potential male or female candidates not to apply. By advertising to the largest possible pool of applicants, employers are more likely to fill vacancies. The effects of the Great Resignation are not likely to abate any time soon—the employers who thrive will only do so by ensuring that they are retaining and attracting the best possible employees.  If you have questions about ways your business can prevent or address the effects of the Great Resignation, please contact Luchansky Law at (410) 522-1020 to set up an appointment with one of our attorneys to discuss how your policies can be structured to meet your company’s goals.  

Read More »
Luchansky Law Team Dec 9 No Comments

Recent Posts

Categories

Tag Cloud

Tags
Schedule a confidential consultation.
Click Here

Let's talk.

Call us at 410-522-1020 or fill out the form below to receive a confidential initial consultation.

Name
Untitled