The Geek Gap
Bridging the Business & Technology Divide

Bill Pfleging and Minda Zetlin have what they call a “mixed marriage.” With his established background in computer technology and as a Web consultant, he calls himself a “geek.” Minda, on the other hand, has 20 years’ experience writing about business, management and workplace issues and says she is a “suit.” They are the co-authors of The Geek Gap: Why Business and Technology Professionals Don't Understand Each Other and Why They Need Each Other to Survive (Prometheus Books, 2006).

A manufacturing firm's top management decided the company could increase efficiency and save money if it switched its equipment maintenance monitoring from a manual process to an automated one. So a team of the company’s best technology experts was assigned the task of reviewing the software available for this important task, and select the one that would be best.

The IT team spent 18 months evaluating software from several different providers, testing them for dependability and working with the software companies’ support staff. When they were confident they'd found the best option, they began preparing a presentation for top management.

That's when they got a surprise. The team’s firm announced it had merged with another manufacturing company—a company that also provided software for monitoring maintenance! The technology team had, in fact, already reviewed and rejected the merged company’s software product; but the merger meant the company would now have free access to the new company’s software. Management therefore decreed it was the maintenance software the company would use. No one had informed the technologists about these merger negotiations during their year and a half of research.

Unfortunately, the other company's software just wasn't up to the job. It was hard to use and could be confusing. Worse, technical support was lacking; during their evaluation, the team sometimes waited days for answers to their questions. The technologists tried to explain these concerns to the business managers, but could never seem to get their point across.

The team knew the company couldn't afford to take chances with maintenance because workers could be hurt if equipment wasn’t properly serviced. They tried for several months to get the second-best software working well enough to depend on, but in the end, they had to scrap the whole idea and go back to manual maintenance.

The company had paid the technology team for more than a year of work that wound up being wasted. The team members were deeply resentful, and within three months all had left for other employers. This left the manufacturer with the further expense of hiring and training replacements. The technologists blamed the company’s business management for everything that went wrong, while the managers blamed the technology team.

But the real culprit was what we call the Geek Gap—the communications breakdown and culture clash between business people (or “suits”) and technology people (“geeks”) that plague virtually all organizations. Like the one described above, most failed projects can be traced to the Geek Gap. According to research by the Standish Group, failed projects (defined as those that are never completed, are severely over budget or deadline or fail to meet expectations) cost American businesses more than $68 billion a year. Indeed more than half of all IT projects in the U.S. are failures by these criteria.

HR can dramatically improve these odds by helping geeks and suits better understand each other - and bridging the Geek Gap.

Problem solvers v. people influencers
To begin with, it helps to understand a fundamental difference in how geeks and suits approach their jobs. For technologists, the core skill is solving problems. They look at a piece of code that isn't doing what it's supposed to, figure out why not, and find a way to make it work. For most suits, the most important skill is influencing people. Much of their success depends on their ability to sell products to customers, ideas or concepts to their bosses, and getting their teammates and those who report to them enthusiastic about the approach they've chosen or the goals they've set.

This basic difference influences everything from the way geeks and suits dress, the words they use, and even their career aspirations and it’s important for HR professionals to be aware of them. For instance, business-focused employees may strive to look their best in proper business attire, while geeks often think the effort spent choosing the right clothes could be better spent on getting a network connected. Likewise technologists often scoff at, say, changing the word “problem” to “challenge,” while their business colleagues might consider such language an effective way to help their teammates focus on the positive.

How HR can help
We've identified three key elements of the Geek Gap: Geeks and suits don't communicate effectively; they tend not to trust each other; and they often have little respect for each others’ abilities or the complexities of each others’ jobs. Of these three problems, the last one—lack of mutual respect—is the most destructive and the most important to address. Suits complain that geeks don’t stick to deadlines, and usually don’t realize that because most technology projects proceed by trial and error, setting precise deadlines may be unrealistic. Technology people, on the other hand, may believe it takes little specialized knowledge to run a successful business - all you need to do is offer a good product at a fair price, thus failing to realize that skills such as marketing and financial planning are vital to their employers’ survival.

Anything you can do to get geeks and suits talking to each other, and especially learning about each others' jobs, will help your organization overcome the Geek Gap and can have dramatic results on productivity. With that in mind, we've assembled 10 tips–five things HR can do, and five things to avoid—to bridge the gap between geeks and suits in any organization.

What to do
1. Get geeks and suits on the same project.
Cross-functional project teams have gained popularity, and deservedly so. Putting geeks and suits together on the same team, tackling the same problem, is a recipe for getting them talking and understanding each other’s priorities. Business people should remain involved during the entire process, not just at the very beginning to tell the technology folks what they want, and at the end when the process is completed. There will be business decisions to be made along the way and business management needs to be on the team.
IT people often lament, “Just tell me exactly what you want, and I’ll build it.” But they too need to be involved in figuring out what a project should do, because they may be able to contribute ideas about features and functionality that the business people may not have considered.

2. Or bring them together to do something else.
Don't have a suitable project in the works for the cross-functional team treatment? Some companies have had success bringing geeks and suits together on ancillary committees, such as a group to plan social events or community work. Anything that brings people from opposite sides of the business/technology divide together, and gets them working on a shared goal, will help to bridge the Geek Gap.

3. Have them work in each other's areas.
Both geeks and suits can learn a lot—and boost their careers—if they have the opportunity to work in each other's areas for a while. This can be tricky, especially in smaller organizations, but if your company is large enough to allow for moving jobs back and forth, getting a geek working in a non-technical area, such as marketing, can expose that person to the complexity of getting a product or service to customers. Putting business managers to work in a technological department can be more of a challenge, but if they can handle a supervisory position for a few months, they’ll return to their previous post much more able to effectively manage technology.

4. Encourage suits to study technology and geeks to study business.
Education, of course, is a boon to nearly every career. And it can be especially helpful in bridging the Geek Gap to have your IT managers take some basic business courses so that they understand the general concepts that underlie management decisions. And vice versa: suits who take computer courses gain a greater understanding of how technology works, and what it can and can’t do. Even a beginning programming course can give them a sense of what their techie colleagues are doing every day.

5. Have them teach each other.
One of the most fun - and least expensive - ways to make sure geeks learn about business and suits learn about technology is to encourage them to teach each other. At one company we know, there are monthly brown-bag lunch meetings, and at each, one employee gives a presentation on a specific topic where he or she is expert. Sometimes it's an industry topic, and the meeting is led by one of its business-focused employees. Sometimes the meeting discusses a new technological advance, and is led by one of the company's geeks. In each case, the speakers sharpen their presentation skills, and learn about how best to communicate with their counterparts.

What not to do
1. Don't turn technologists' colleagues into “customers.”
There's a move afoot in many companies to foster what management thinks of as healthy competition among departments. And some are taking this a step further by turning their technology departments into a business-within-a-business—charging internal “customers” for services and hardware.

Though it may solve the ongoing concern that the benefits of adopting new technology do not always justify the expense, it comes with a cost because it forces geeks and suits to treat each other like outsiders in their own organizations. What’s more, it discourages IT leaders from being involved in the organization’s overall strategic planning. If your company does choose a business-within-a-business model for its technology department, it is even more important to find ways to bring geeks and suits together to foster communication and trust (see above).

2. Don't segregate technologists.
In many companies, technology people are given their own work area, particularly since their dress codes and work hours may be different from those in the rest of the organization. Again, this can be tempting, but you're losing an opportunity to bring geeks and suits together by the simple proximity of their work spaces. If technologists are just down the hall, it may come naturally to their business colleagues to wander by and “bounce an idea” off them.

3. Don't hide geeks from customers.
Do your company's engineers or other technical expert go along with your sales reps when they call on customers? If their work is an important aspect of whatever your company sells, they should.

Many organizations deliberately keep their geeks out of the limelight because they seem, well, geeky, and because (not being considered people influencers) they might be inept at saying or doing the right things to show your product in its best light. This may appear to be a drawback, yet the benefits of having your customers ask questions and voice concerns directly to the people who created the technology they’re using is worth it. Your engineers will also learn which issues are most important to your customers, and may help them come up with new ideas for added services and benefits to make your product even better.

4. Don't have a single liaison between business and technology areas.
Many companies designate one employee as a liaison between their technology department and other business areas. Sometimes the title for this job is business analyst—usually a well-rounded generalist who has a good grasp of your organization’s business issues, but also has a solid understanding of its technology. Most importantly, it's someone who can talk to both suits and geeks in their own terms.

Having a liaison is great, but where some companies get into trouble is by taking what seems like the next logical step and making this person the only conduit for information to and from the technology department. First of all, you're likely to wind up with a bottleneck if every communication has to wait for the liaison to be available. And, as a wise technology leader once told us, “Two hands with fingers intertwined is a much stronger structure than two pyramids with only one point of contact.” You're better off having as much interaction and dialogue between geeks and suits throughout all departments and at all levels.

5. Let geeks in on the overall financial picture.
In the absence of information, geeks tend to assume that their employers are making a huge profit and have plenty of money to spend. One of the quickest ways to cure them of this illusion is to provide as much detail as you can about revenues, expenses and how much things cost.

Likewise, sharing your company's goals, projections and long-term outlook with technology people will help them understand your strategy. Most technologists define themselves more by what they do rather than where they work—“I’m a database analyst,” rather than “I work in a hospital.” Keeping them away from inside information about the company’s finances, or deals that may be in the works, only encourages this tendency.

The more information you share with them, the more you’ll gain the benefit of their insight as to how technology will fit into your long-term strategy. And, more importantly, they’ll stop thinking of themselves as hired guns who know code, and start thinking of themselves as full-fledged members of your organization.

Edward J. Eybsen is a Senior Vice President for Bolton & Company, insurance brokers and employee benefits consultants. Bolton & Company is a preferred partner of Employers Group. Ed’s primary focus at Bolton is the design and implementation of medical, dental, vision, life and long-term disability programs.

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“PPA”) was enacted recently and some insurance practitioners believe it makes some of the most sweeping revisions to employee benefits since the enactment of ERISA. Nearly one-half of PPA’s 991 pages deals with defined contribution plans, fiduciary concerns, and odds and ends related to IRA’s and deferred compensation arrangements. This article outlines key provisions you should consider as you assess PPA’s impact on your company’s retirement plans.

EGTRRA provisions permanent
The best news of all: The Act makes permanent a number of retirement plan changes that were added to the tax laws in 2001 (under the Economic Growth and Tax Reconciliation act) but were set to sunset after 2010. The new law preserves the advantages of higher compensation limits, higher employee deferral limits, higher employer contribution limits, Roth 401(k) contributions, “catch-up” contributions for older workers and more flexible plan rules. For those plan sponsors that delayed adopting some of the provisions in light of uncertainties by the expiration date, a longer-term retirement plan strategy can now be implemented.

Plan sponsor protection on investments
• Participant investment advice: Prohibited transaction rules generally prevent a fiduciary affiliated with investment funds offered under a 401(k) plan from giving investment advice to participants. Effective in 2007, a “fiduciary advisor” may now provide personal advice to participants under one of two circumstances: (1) the advisor’s compensation is level; or (2) the advice is provided solely through a computer model (in which case the compensation received does not need to be level). In both cases, an independent “expert” auditor must conduct an annual compliance audit and provide the plan sponsor with a written report.

• Default funds: PPA provides protection for fiduciaries for “default” investments when participants fail to provide investment directions. The DOL is to issue regulations within 6 months that will further define the default investment guidelines. On September 27, 2006, the DOL issued “proposed” regulations on this subject introducing the term, “qualified default investment alternative” (QDIA) and discussing the Participant Notice requirement and the permissible types of investment products and asks for public comments.

• Mapping investment funds: PPA extends ERISA Section 404(c) relief for plan sponsors and fiduciaries to situations in which accounts are reallocated, or “mapped” automatically to different investments as part of a “qualified change in investment options” (i.e., the removal of an investment option or the change of 401(k) vendor), assuming the plan offers a replacement fund with reasonable similar risk and rate of return characteristics. Further guidance may be needed for situations in which no obvious similar funds are available or desired.

• Blackout periods: ERISA Section 404(c) protection will be available during a blackout period (i.e., the period when participant investment changes, loans and distributions are on hold during the change to a new 401(k) vendor) if the fiduciary meets the ERISA guidelines that apply. The DOL is directed to issue regulations to provide guidance.

Automatic enrollment
• General: PPA provides incentives for plans to adopt automatic enrollment provisions beginning in 2008. Most importantly, PPA eliminates any conflicts with state laws (like California) that require participant consent before wage withholding can occur. With advance notice of the automatic contribution arrangement to all affected participants, the plan may allow for employee contributions to be made automatically at a specified percentage of compensation, unless the participant elects (1) a different contribution rate or (2) not to contribute.

Participants are allowed a penalty free withdrawal of their deferral and earnings within the first 90 days of withholding wages and the plan sponsor is relieved of fiduciary liability for default investments. The return of excess contributions to highly compensated employees can be within six months after the end of the plan year and the proceeds are taxed in the year received without the otherwise applicable employer-paid 10% excise tax.

• New safe-harbor: PPA introduced a new alternate “safe-harbor” auto enrollment that exempts the plan from discrimination testing if the plan requires “increasing” or “escalating” automatic deferrals of at least 3% in the first year, 4% in the second year, 5% in the third year, 6% thereafter and not more than 10%, and provides a certain level of match (100% match on the first 1% and 50% match on the next 5% totaling 3.5%) or a 3% employer contribution to all eligible whether deferring or not. Full vesting on employer contributions is required after 2 years of service.

Other participant enhancements
• Non-spouse rollovers to IRAs: Until PPA, only spousal beneficiaries were allowed to roll over distributions from qualified plans to IRAs. This created a tax planning nightmare for non-spouse beneficiaries. Non-spouse beneficiaries often were forced to receive taxable death benefits at a faster rate than desired. Effective in 2007, non-spouse designated beneficiaries are allowed to make rollovers to IRAs. This now allows minimum required distributions to be stretched out over a longer period of time.

• Rollover to Roth IRAs: Taxpayers will be permitted to make direct rollovers from qualified plans to Roth IRAs after 2007; if the current Roth IRA conversion rules are satisfied (“modified adjusted gross income” is not more than $100,000). Current law only permits distributions from traditional IRAs to be rolled over to a Roth IRA.

• 401(k) financial hardship and beneficiaries: Participants (or spouses or dependents) and now any “beneficiary” under the plan (including domestic partners) who experience a financial hardship or an unforeseeable emergency may receive a distribution from the plan to satisfy that need.

• Faster vesting: PPA extends the 3 year cliff (0, 0, 100%) and six year graded (0, 20, 40, 60, 80,100%) vesting schedules to all employer contributions made after 2006.

• Active duty withdrawals: Reserves called to active duty can now take taxable, however, 10% penalty–free withdrawals from their deferral account. The withdrawals may be repaid (on an after-tax basis) within two years of return from duty.

• Quarterly participant statements required: In 2007, participants who self direct their account are required to receive quarterly benefit statements about their accounts including their rights to diversify and the importance of maintaining a diversified portfolio. The PPA requires the Department of Labor to issue a model benefit statement.

• Diversification of employer securities: Participants have the right to diversify account balances that are invested in employer securities; immediately with regard to employee contributions and after 3 years of service with regard to employer contributions.

• Annuity option and consent: Plans offering distribution in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity must now offer an option with a 75% survivor annuity. Plans typically only offer a 50% and 100% survivor annuity and will have to add this new option. The consent period for spouses to agree to waive the right to an annuity payout in favor of a lump sum has been extended from 90 to 180 days.

Please note that effective dates vary by provision and changes may be approved and implemented as the effective dates arrive. Plan documents then incorporate provisions retroactively at a later date. Amendments to conform plan documents do not need to be completed until the end of the 2009 plan year.

Most Common Misconceptions about PDL

By Mark Nelson, J.D., Helpline Consultant

In last month’s article, I addressed some of the more common misconceptions about the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California’s Family Rights Act (CFRA), reserving a discussion of California’s law on pregnancy disability leave (PDL) for this article.

Please note that this month’s installment addresses PDL only. Employers subject to FMLA and CFRA may refer back to last month’s article and will, of course, note that FMLA remains relevant for a PDL discussion to the extent that FMLA (which protects leaves for pregnancy disability as well as for baby bonding) may run concurrently with PDL (which protects pregnancy disability only).

By contrast, CFRA specifically includes baby bonding but excludes pregnancy disabilities, which means – in practical terms – that an employee must be released from PDL before CFRA baby bonding may even start to run. Phrased differently, PDL and then CFRA must run one-before-the-other while FMLA may start the moment the employee goes out and remain in effect until it expires twelve weeks later, regardless of whether the employee is still out on PDL or has been released and is now bonding with her newborn under CFRA. In addition, please note that PDL covers any California employer with five or more full- or part-time employees.

The most common PDL misconceptions

PDL is not available to employees until they’ve been with the company at least a year.
FMLA and CFRA require that employees have at least 12 months of service with the company and have worked more than 1,250 hours in the 12 months preceding the leave, but there is no such comparable requirement for PDL. In other words, under PDL, an employee who must be off work due to pregnancy disability is eligible to do so from her first day of employment.

An employee’s PDL entitlements renew annually.
Again, this assumption mixes leave laws. Under FMLA and CFRA, an employee is entitled to no more than twelve weeks of leave in a twelve-month cycle. By contrast, the four months of job-protected leave under PDL trigger each time the employee becomes pregnant, not every 12 months. In some situations (e.g., miscarriage), an employee may become pregnant again within 12 months, in which case the employee starts from scratch with her PDL leave entitlements.

An employee may elect to take four months of PDL, even if she is not disabled due to pregnancy the entire time.
An employee is entitled to take up to four months, but only for the duration of her disability. An employee who has not been placed out on disability by her doctor may not cite her four months PDL protections as the basis for her right to be out – just because she prefers to be off work. In other words, her doctor - not her - says when she must be off work.

Remember, however, that if the company offers additional benefits, like personal leave, careful consideration must be given to those policies to ensure she is treated no less favorably than any other employee off work due to reasons not attributable to pregnancy disability. To do so may lead to claims of pregnancy discrimination, which constitutes actionable sex discrimination under both state and federal law.

PDL requires that an employer continue health care coverage during an employee’s pregnancy disability leave.
PDL alone makes no mention of any obligatory health care continuation obligation, unlike FMLA. In other words, there is nothing in the law or regulations that require employers cover employees who must go out solely on PDL.

That said, employers would be very unwise to COBRA a pregnant employee without ensuring consistency with every other employee out on an unpaid disability leave for non-pregnancy related reasons. As stated above, employees on pregnancy disability must be treated no less favorably or the company runs the risk of pregnancy discrimination. For this reason alone, many employers delay the decision to COBRA employees out on PDL, consistent with what their health insurance provider permits.

As soon as an employee has her child, her PDL protections cease.
An employee’s PDL protections cease when the doctor releases her from PDL, not the moment she has the child. Doctors generally follow the Employment Development Department’s policy of extending State Disability Insurance benefits to the employee for six weeks after the delivery or eight weeks when the baby is delivered by Cesarean. Absent postpartum issues that require the employee remain out longer under PDL, an employer can generally use the delivery date to forecast an employee’s return.

Does your Security Guard Need a “Guard Card”?

By Dagmar Muthamia. Helpline Consultant

A recent story we sent to Employers Group members (included as one of the weekly emailed employment law briefings) was about an apartment complex owner who was sued for having hired a security guard who shot a tenant. The owner did not conduct a background check that would have shown that the guard had served a prison sentence for voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, tenants had reported that the guard carried guns, used drugs and physically threatened them.

There are many things that the owner failed to do in this case beginning with not doing a background check. The apartment owner would have been better off hiring a guard registered with the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) even though when this incident occurred in 2003 there was no regulation of in-house security guards. That has since changed, but many employers are not aware of the registration process and training requirements that may apply to security guard companies or to directly hired guards.

Private patrol operators and security guards
Companies providing security guards must be run by licensed private patrol operators. BSIS, which is a part of California’s Department of Consumer Affairs, administers the law regulating security guards. The private patrol operator license is required for owners, partners, corporate officers and qualified managers. License applications require the submission of fingerprints for background checks, photographs of the individuals to be licensed, certificates of experience, and proof of insurance. The minimum experience is one year of at least 2,000 hours as a patrolman, guard, watchman or the equivalent. In addition the individuals must pass a written exam.

All security guards working for private patrol operators must have a valid security guard registration, which is often called a “guard card.” Security guards must be at least 18 years old, submit fingerprints used for a criminal history background check through the California Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and complete a 40-hour course of required training.

Once BSIS has received the application and criminal history clearances, the security guard’s name will appear on the BSIS web site. A screen-print from the web site may be made and used as an interim security guard registration and the guard can be placed on assignment. The validity of the registration can be checked at http://www.dca.ca.gov/bsis/lookup.htm or http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/wllquery$.startup.

Security guard training
Effective July 1, 2004 the training requirement was increased from three hours to 40 hours. The 40-hour training breaks down as follows:

The 32 hours of training that must be completed within the first six months of service includes mandatory courses in public relations, observation, documentation, communication and liability. It also includes elective courses such as company policies, evacuation procedures, access control, first aid/CPR, handling difficult people, workplace violence, crowd control, radio procedures and parking/traffic control.

Other permits
Additional requirements and permits are required if security personnel carry firearms or batons on duty and/or use tear gas. BSIS can issue permits to carry firearms but does not authorize anyone to carry concealed weapons. Concealed Weapons Permits are issued by local authorities

To apply for a firearm permit, the guard must be a U.S. citizen or have permanent legal alien status and pass a course in the carrying and use of firearms. The course consists of eight hours classroom training and six hours range practice. It covers moral and legal aspects, firearms nomenclature, weapon handling and shooting fundamentals, emergency procedures and range training. It must be given by a BSIS-certified firearms training instructor at a BSIS-certified training facility. Written and range exams are administered at the end of the course

To obtain a permit to carry tear gas on duty, a two-hour training course approved by BSIS must be completed. To carry a baton on duty, you must be a registered security guard and complete an eight-hour training course from a certified instructor.

Proprietary private security officers
SB 194, which was signed into law on October 7, 2005, added Section 7574 to the Business and Professions Code regulating proprietary or “in-house” security guards. People who were hired as security officers on or after January 1, 2006, had to apply on or after July 1, 2006. People who were hired as security officers before January 1, 2006, must apply on or after January 1, 2007.

A proprietary private security officer is defined as an unarmed individual who is employed exclusively by any one employer, whose primary duty is to provide security services for his or her employer, whose services are not contracted to any other entity or person, and who meets both of the following criteria:

(1) He/she is required to wear a distinctive uniform clearly identifying him/her as a security officer.

(2) He/she is likely to interact with the public while performing his/her duties. There are some exceptions. For example, the law does not apply to a charitable philanthropic society or association incorporated in California.

Although training is not required, proprietary private security officer candidates, employers of proprietary private security officers may find that appropriate job-specific training can provide significant benefits, including, increased awareness, shortened response times, overall improved security effectiveness and correspondingly improved customer satisfaction.

Employers who need more information are encouraged to contact Noreene DeKoning at (916) 575-7054 or Rolando Taeza at (916) 575-7055. Rolando Taeza was contacted for this article. He stressed that registration is very valuable in terms of reducing liability. For instance, submitting fingerprints to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a background check is much better than the records search done by background checking companies.

Plant Closures and Mass Layoff Requirements

By Kimberly Nwamanna, Helpline Consultant

Once the decision has been made to close a facility, relocate groups of employees or that there will be a mass layoff, you as an employer, may have obligations to act upon under the California WARN act. On January 1, 2003, California specific Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) requirements became law.

These Labor Code provisions expand upon requirements in the federal WARN legislation that was effective February 4, 1989. Employers in California must comply with both the federal and state laws and be aware of the differences between the two. Below are the general provisions of the federal and California WARN laws sited 20 CFR §§ 639 and California Labor Code Section 1400 respectively.

Are you a covered employer?
• In California WARN applies to a “covered establishment” with 75 or more employees full or part-time. As under the federal WARN, employees must have been employed for at least 6 months of the 12 months preceding the date of required notice in order to be counted. [California Labor Code Section 1400]
• The federal WARN law applies to employers with 100 or more full-time employees who must have been employed for at least six months of the 12 months preceding the date of required notice in order to be counted. (29 USC 2101 and 20 CFR 639)

What is a triggering event under the WARN act?
A triggering event under California and federal WARN is a plant closing or a layoff significant enough to require employers to give advance notice to employees and local government.

What is considered an employment loss?
Loss of work for more than six months, termination, or reduction of more than 50 percent in work hours that will last for six months or more.

Who is affected in the workforce?
• Nonunion employees impacted by a plant closing or mass layoff. Temporary, not part-time employees are counted as the affected workforce. Employees who have been temporarily laid off or on leave who have a reasonable expectation of recall are also counted as employees.
• Temporary employees, contract workers of other employers, self-employed individuals, workers at foreign sites, business partners, and consultants are not entitled to WARN notice. However, some of these workers count when determining the threshold for WARN coverage.

What are my obligations if I am going to relocate my employees?
• Federal and California laws will generally apply to relocations of workers. California covers a broader range of situations. Relocation is defined as the removal of all or substantially all of the industrial or commercial operations in a covered establishment to a location 100 miles away.
• A relocation is not considered an employment loss if you offer, prior to plant closing or layoff, to transfer the workers to a different location within a reasonable commuting distance and a break in employment does not exceed six months; or, the employer offers to transfer the employee to any other site of employment regardless of distance with no more than a six-month break in employment, and the employee accepts within 30 days of the offer or of the closing or layoff, whichever is later.

Can I order a mass layoff or plant closing at anytime?
Employers may not order a mass layoff or plant closing until the end of 60-day advance notice period.

Am I required to give notice for a plant closing or layoff?
• Within California you are required to give notice of plant closing, layoff or relocation of 50 or more employees within a 30-day period regardless of percentage of work force.
• Federal law requires you to give notice of plant closings involving 50 or more employees during a 30-day period. Layoffs within a 30-day period involving 50 to 499 full-time employees constituting at least 33% of the full-time workforce at a single site of employment. Layoffs of 500 of more are covered regardless of percentage of workforce.

Must I give notice if we are only closings one plant for the summer?
• Advance notice is required of the closing of one or more facilities or operating units within an employment site if the shutdown will cause an employment loss of 50 or more employees during any 30-day period.
• Mass layoff. A mass layoff under WARN is an employment loss at a single site during any 30-day period affecting 50 or more employees and at least one-third of workers at the site.
• State as well as federal law can mandate notification of plant closings or layoffs. Check your state requirements.

What are my general Notice Requirements?
• An employer must give a plant closing, layoff or relocation notice within 60 days of an anticipated separation in California.
• Federal law requires that an employer must provide written notice 60 days prior to a plant closing or mass layoff. Although the minimum requirement is 60 days, the Department of Labor encourages employers to give notice in all circumstances. 20 CFR 639.1(e)

How do I notify employees?
• In California, to notify employees, any reasonable method of delivery designed to ensure receipt of notice at least 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff is acceptable (e.g., first class mail, personal delivery with optional signed receipt). If plant closing or layoff is postponed after notice has been given, the employer must send out new notices. If the postponement is more than 60 days, the employer must send out new notices meeting all of the WARN requirements. If the postponement is less than 60 days, the notice must be sent as soon as possible with information giving the rescheduled date of termination.

Must I notify anyone else?
• In addition to the notifications required under federal WARN, in California notice must also be given to the Local Workforce Investment Board, and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation or mass layoff occurs.
• You are required under federal law to notify affected employees or their representative, the state dislocated worker unit (the Employment Development Department, Workforce Investment Division in California), and the chief elected official of local government within which such closing or layoff is to occur.

What should the notice include or state?
• Notices must be written in an easy-to-understand manner. It is encouraged to send notices in the native language of affected workers.
• All notices must provide the (1) name and address of the affected site; (2) the name and telephone number of a company official who can provide further information; (3) a statement indicating the type and duration of the planned action—temporary or permanent layoff or plant closing; (4) and the expected date of the first termination, or a two-week period in which terminations will take place.
• Additional information in notices to nonunion employees must include any bumping rights that exist; and the expected date of the individual’s termination, unless a two-week period already is specified in the notice.

What happens if I fail to provide notice?
• California Warn violations incur possible civil penalty of $500 a day for each day of violation. Employees may receive back pay to be paid at employee’s final rate or 3 year average rate of compensation, whichever is higher. In addition, employer is liable for cost of any medical expenses incurred by employees that would have been covered under an employee benefit plan. The employer is liable for period of violation up to 60 days or one-half the number of days the employee was employed whichever period is smaller. (California Labor Code Section 1403)
• Violation of the federal provisions is subject to a civil penalty of up to $500 a day for each day of violation. An employer is also liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days, but no more than half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer. [29 USC; 2104 (a)].

This overview of the general provisions of the federal and California WARN provisions does not elaborate on complex events that may trigger employer obligations to provide notification under the Act. Refer to the Californian government EDD website for further details on the WARN act at www.edd.ca.gov/eddwarn.htm, contact a WARN Act Coordinator at (916) 654-8008, and consult with an attorney.

By Jeffrey Hull, Directory of Learning Services

Will your company be in compliance in 2007? On November 14, 2006 the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC) adopted final regulations regarding mandatory sexual harassment training under AB 1825. The regulations stipulate that any employer with 50 or more employees provide at least two hours of “classroom or other effective interactive training and education regarding sexual harassment to all supervisory employees” at least every two years.

How often and how is it measured?
The two-year requirement is measured by using either a “training year” approach where the company trains affected employees every other year or by utilizing an “individual tracking” approach where each individual is trained within two years of their last training date. Companies are also allowed to use a combination of these methods.

What types of training are okay?
They key terms are “effective and interactive.” Regardless of whether a company uses classroom training, online training or a Webinar, each individual trainee must remain engaged in the subject by including, at a minimum, questions that assess learning, skill-building activities and hypothetical scenarios.

• Classroom training typically meets the interactive requirement, but the training must be delivered by a qualified instructor, which is defined as someone with a formal education and training or substantial experience leading in-person training programs. Internally-delivered training programs may not meet this requirement. Additionally, at least two hours of training must be provided; however, it can be delivered in as little as four 30-minute sessions.

• Online training meets the effective and interactive requirements by insuring that trainees cannot complete the program in less than two hours and has the built-in functionality of allowing trainees to submit questions and receive responses within two business days. Online training should also include bookmarking features enabling trainees to pause their training.

• Webinar-based training must meet the highest of all standards. Employers must document how each trainee “actively participated in the training’s interactive content, discussion questions, hypothetical scenarios, quizzes or tests, and activities.” Further, Webinars must allow questions to be asked and answered and the employer must know that the webinar is being delivered by a qualified instructor. Two hours of training must be provided; however, it can be delivered in as little as four 30-minute sessions. (Note: Because of this high threshold, Employers Group does not advocate the use of Webinars for AB 1825.)

Who is qualified to instruct and answer questions?
A qualified trainer is someone either through formal education and training or substantial experience can lead classroom training. Many individuals will meet this requirement; however, for the individual to be qualified to answer questions or give feedback pertaining to the training he or she must also be a “subject matter expert.” Subject matter experts must have a legal education coupled with practical experience. It appears that companies using non-subject matter experts as instructors must make arrangements for a “subject matter expert” to be available to answer questions and/or give feedback to participants within two days of the training.

What documentation is required?
The company should retain information on who received training, who delivered the training, when the training program was provided, who was the subject matter expert, and what materials were utilized. Records must be retained for a minimum of two years. It is also recommended that the company adopt processes and time frame to ensure new hires receive training on time and on what approach the company will use to document the bi-annual training.

Who should be trained?
Any person who supervises or leads a California-based employee should be trained under the regulations; however, the regulations stipulate that only California supervisors must be trained. If someone is put into a position where they are in a supervisory position, they should receive training within six months.

Should newly hired supervisors be trained?
The regulations stipulate that they do not need to be trained if they received training that was effective and interactive at their previous employer; however, since the current employer does not know the effectiveness of their previous training and they are responsible for proving effectiveness, it is highly encouraged that the new supervisor be trained with the new employer within six months.

Should all employees be trained?
Regulations stipulate that only supervisory employees need to be trained; however, Employers Group recommends that organizations adopt policies whereby every employee receives harassment prevention training and/or acknowledge receipt of the organization’s anti-harassment policy. For an article entitled “7 Compelling Reasons Why California Employers Must Provide Harassment/Discrimination Training To All Employees”, written by Employers Group’s Employment Counsel, please email
training@employersgroup.com.

What employers are affected?
An employer who engages 50 or more employees or contractors within any 20 consecutive weeks is deemed to be a qualified employer. If a company reaches the qualifying status, they must provide the mandated training within six months of when they qualified for meeting the requirement.

CA Courts Clash over Workers’ Comp Benefits

By Jim Kuns, J.D., Senior Helpline Consultant

Regardless of recent changes to California law, the California Court of Appeals (6th District) supports the long established method of calculating a 100% Workers’ Compensation (WC) disability benefit where the employee had already received a permanent partial disability, see Davis v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board et al (2006). The court disagreed with other Appeals Court decisions on the subject, and continued to recognize a formula originally endorsed by the California Supreme Court in 1976. Now, the California Supreme Court will be hearing the same issue in two other WC cases.

In the Davis case, Fortunata Mary Davis injured her back at work and it left her 100% permanently disabled. She also had a prior work-related injury where she was awarded permanent partial disability of 35%. In determining the award dollar amount, a WC Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) arrived at $65,662.50. He deducted (apportioned) the 35% disability from the overall disability of 100% and awarded Davis compensation for permanent partial disability of 65%. The WCJ used the formula which was approved by the California Supreme Court in Fuentes v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1976).

When permissible factors are used to reduce permanent disability the employee's overall disability award is apportioned. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) uses apportionment to isolate former injury awards from the employee’s current injury. The burden is on the employer to show that apportionment is appropriate in any given case.

Davis argued that the WCJ should have used a different more recent formula sanctioned by the appellate court in E & J Gallo Winery v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dykes) (2005)(Fifth District). If that formula would have been used, Davis would be awarded $420,649.21 over her life expectancy. That calculation would be derived by giving her the full benefit allowed for 100% disability, less credit to her employer for the dollar value of her prior award.

In 2004, California WC law was significantly changed as a result of Senate Bill 899. So, the main question before the court in the Davis case was whether the Legislature, in its 2004 overhaul of the Workers’ Compensation statutes, intended to change the formula used to calculate a permanent disability award when the employee's overall disability is subject to apportionment.

In the earlier Funetes case, the Supreme Court looked at three possible formulas for deciding the proper award to be made. The one the Court chose starts by looking at the employee’s overall percentage of disability. In that case the total disability was 58%. Then the Court subtracted the non-compensable percent of permanent disability, which was 24.25%, leaving a net compensable permanent disability of 33.75% The Court chose the formula based on its interpretation of former Labor Code Section 4750. The language of that section expressly prohibited an employee from receiving compensation for a later injury “in excess of the compensation allowed for such injury when considered by itself,” and the employer’s liability was limited to “that portion due to the later injury as though no prior disability or impairment had existed.” Therefore, the employee’s level of disability, considered by itself, without reference to the preexisting disability, came to a total of 33.75%.

Fuentes determined that even though California law requires Workers’ Compensation statutes to be liberally construed in favor of injured employees, that policy can’t be followed where the intent of the Legislature was clearly expressed. The legislative intent of former section 4750 was to encourage employers to hire or retain persons with physical disabilities. The lawmakers decided that employers might not hire handicapped individuals if, upon subsequent injury, an employer had to pay an employee for a total disability that included a previous injury.

SB 899 (2004) made significant changes to the existing Workers’ Compensation system in California. It repealed some former labor code sections 4750, 4750.5, and 4663 and added sections 4663 and 4664. The changes were intended to “repeal and recast” existing law with respect to apportionment of permanent disability.

Former law only permitted apportionment in three instances. Now, the new section 4663, subdivision (a) says: “Apportionment of permanent disability shall be based on causation.” The court said, a doctor makes an apportionment decision by “…finding what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by the direct result of [industrial] injury… and what approximate percentage of the permanent disability was caused by other factors both before and subsequent to the industrial injury, including prior industrial injuries…The employer is liable only for the percentage of permanent disability directly caused by the [industrial] injury.”
The Davis court noted, “Like the old law, sections 4663 and 4664 contain no express instruction about how to calculate the apportioned award. We conclude, however, that such an instruction is implied by the plain language of section 4664.”

Section 4664, subdivision (a) says an employer is only be liable for the “…percentage of permanent disability” directly caused by the work-related injury. “Percentage of permanent disability” is the same phrase used in section 4658 to describe the level of permanent disability to determine the number of benefit weeks may be paid. The court noted past precedent stating a legal principle that, “Where the same word [or phrase] is used in more than one place in a legislative enactment, we presume the same meaning was intended in each instance …Thus, we presume that when the Legislature stated that an employer’s liability is limited to a ‘percentage of permanent disability’ the Legislature was referring to the measure used to calculate the weekly benefit under section 4658. The court determined that the only formula that complies with the current law is the one put forward in the Fuentes case.

The California Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the WC apportionment formula in two cases - Brodie v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., and Welcher v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.

(Note: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed California Senate Bill 815. Part of that legislation sought to amend Section 4658 as it relates to the percentage of disability to total disability and how it was to be determined.)

Avian Flu Update
What Businesses Need to Know

By Leslie Hollis, Vice President, Consulting Services

Back in July, I reported on the “crisis du jour,” the Avian Influenza, also known as the H5N1 virus or Bird Flu. For the past six months, I have continued to track developments with this potential pandemic. While news reports appear to have died down, in light of the war in Iraq and the Democratic majority being voted in to control Washington, make no mistake that this disease is alive and well.

A recent update found through the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) indicates that birds, specifically ducks, have been infected and are now shedding (transmitting) more virus for longer periods of time without showing any physical symptoms of illness. This may, as the report indicates, be the milder form of the virus in contrast to its more lethal counterpart. New reports are indicating the virus is also being detected in felines (household cats in the Netherlands) as well as pigs in China. Clearly it is apparent that this virus continues to evolve and can adapt so that any and all susceptible mammals can be infected.

To review, humans are more likely to be exposed to the H5N1 virus known as the Avian Influenza strain, if they have had direct contact with infected poultry, or surfaces and objects contaminated by their droppings (i.e., persons exposed during slaughter, de-feathering, butchering and preparation of poultry for cooking). There is no evidence that properly cooked poultry or poultry products have been a source of infection. Clearly the migratory bird population plays a major role in the spread of this virus, which is thought to have began in Asia and spread to a few parts of Europe.

The death toll from this virus continues to rise. At last report, 154 deaths have been reported in various countries throughout Asia. This is a 20% increase over the report in July of this year. The good news is that only 258 cases have been reported. It appears that the two forms of the disease are quite different and are sparing the lives of some of their victims.

Government strategy
The federal government has recently released a National Strategy for Pandemic Flu Implementation Plan that includes both international and domestic efforts. Excerpts from this report speak about stockpiling and use of influenza vaccines for both humans as well as animals. It addresses transportation and securing borders should an outbreak occur, in addition to specific types of cargo transports being prohibited. This 29 page action plan appears to be, by my laymen’s standards, as thorough a piece of work as one can expect from the government. So, it is imperative that businesses and individuals take precautions and become proactive in preparing for such a pandemic.

What businesses should do
One of the first things businesses need to adopt, as well as consistently enforce, is a sick-leave policy that requires employees presenting with flu-like symptoms to remain home. Since some of the Avian Influenza symptoms present much like other types of flus, it is difficult to differentiate between the two viruses.

Especially for employees who have been traveling internationally, it is imperative that they arm themselves with anti-viral medications prior to traveling, especially throughout Asia and parts of Europe. More importantly, such traveling employees should not be immediately assimilated back into the work environment upon their return, in case of exposure. Since the incubation period has been proven to be plus or minus 48 hours, it is a safe bet that returning travelers should remain at home for at least two to three days post arrival into the States - if for no other reason as a precautionary measure and to protect your other employees and the business overall. Schools are also adopting the sick policy where teachers are required to go home or to send students home who are presenting flu-like symptoms.

Another piece of good advice is to stay away from others as much as possible with any virus, even the common cold, which can lower one’s immunity and make one more susceptible to the H5N1 virus should it be introduced into the work environment from a returning international traveler.

Businesses are still encouraged to anticipate how to function with a significant portion of their workforce is absent due to illness or caring for ill family members.

I can say with some level of confidence that what we can expect if the spread of the virus proliferates in the United States is:

(1) Susceptibility to the pandemic virus will be universal.

(2) Efficient and sustained person-to-person transmission will signal an imminent pandemic. (As previously presented, this has only been proven in one family case in Indonesia.)

(3) Rates of absenteeism will depend largely on the severity of the pandemic.
Certain public health measures will likely increase the rates of absenteeism.

(4) Children usually shed (transfer) the greatest amount of the virus and therefore are likely to be the greatest risk for transmission.

As HR Professionals, you must remain vigilant in understanding the path this disease is likely to travel so that you can assist in the preparation of protecting your business and its most valuable asset, the employees. Stay tuned for additional updates and suggestions as to how you can stay ahead of the curve and proactively ready yourself for the possibility of such a pandemic.

(Editor’s Note: Information from the CDC can be found at www.cdc.gov/business.com. For information about EG’s disaster planning services, contact Leslie Hollis directly at lhollis@employersgroup.com.)

Supervisors and Younger Workers

Morrie Shechtman is a change management consultant who has taught at distinguished universities throughout the United States, advised CEOs and political figures, and now runs a management consulting company, Fifth Wave Leadership—which is also the title of his book on the new path for achieving success.

It goes without saying that for organizations to succeed in today’s business climate, workplace productivity has to be stepped up to a higher level than ever before. Most strategies for driving such increases usually focus on business processes, technological efficiencies, and acute financial management. I believe an equally effective strategy involves another focus: the issue of relationship management within organizations.

Draining and underdeveloped workplace relationships clearly erode productivity and undermine morale. And ironically, the relationships that employees grumble and complain about the most are often the ones least addressed by leadership. One of these is the relationship between middle-aged supervisors and young, entry level workers – which, if addressed, offers a multitude of opportunities for increased productivity.

The problem
The gap between managers/supervisors who have been historically trained and rewarded for “supervising” employees, and a much younger entry level workforce that is increasingly unreceptive at best, and hostile at worst, to being “supervised” is profound and destructive.
The gap is manifested by complaints from managers/supervisors that today’s younger workforce is unreliable, undependable, and generally difficult to deal with. What we hear most often from supervisors is the lament that they feel like babysitters, not managers. From the workers’ side, we hear that supervisors are mean, uncaring, and act like petty dictators. What they often add is that they feel like the people they work for don’t treat them like human beings.

The result is relationships that are tolerated by both parties, or in less favorable environments, involve subtle sabotage and a range of passive-aggressive behaviors. Employers should not settle for any of this.

The causes
With some exceptions, there are a number of cultural factors that have created the dysfunctional aspects of this supervisor-worker relationship.

Many “old style” managers and supervisors working were raised, trained, and rewarded for doing what they were told to do, not questioning their “orders,” and focusing their work on task accomplishment. They had, and still have an intrinsic respect for authority and are baffled and turned off by people who don’t. More significantly, though, early in their lives (with much reinforcement later in life), they were taught that how they felt about what they were told to do was of little or no importance in the big scheme of work and life.

A lot of young entry level workers could just as well come from another galaxy. They have very little intrinsic respect for authority (it has to be earned, which irritates a lot of their supervisors); they rile against being “ordered” to do something; and they want to be related to as more than a cog in the machinery. Though they rarely articulate it this way, what they want is to have their feelings acknowledged. And what they are looking for is a highly reciprocal relationship on a person-to-person level. Their supervisors don’t quite know what to make of this, since their paradigm for work (and often personal) relationships is a one-way, single-channel interaction dictated by the party invested with control and authority.

The young, entry level worker has been raised in a culture much more attentive to feelings and self-information than their supervisor and much more sensitive and reactive to mechanical, impersonal interactions. They have also experienced significant delays in development and maturation caused by either controlling or chaotic families (both of which undermine self-esteem, self-initiation, and self-responsibility), or the confluence of education, affluence, and technology; or both factors. The result is that all developmental stages are pushed back by about 10 years. Accordingly, adolescence now occurs between 20 and 30 years old, not between 12 and 19. This delay simply exacerbates the irritation factor between the younger worker and the older manager.

The solution
Both parties, in order to work together more effectively, need to understand the difference between personal parity and professional parity. In highly productive, growth-oriented organizations, there is complete personal parity. That is, regardless of functional role or responsibility, all employees have equal value as people.

Of equal importance, in these environments there is absolutely no professional equivalence, meaning that there is no illusion (or delusion) about who is more important to the success and growth of the company. People who take more risks and create greater opportunities for expansion are of greater value, should get paid more, and are deserving of more privileges and perks. All parties need to have this articulated and strongly supported by the organization’s leadership.

In addition, supervisors desperately need training in listening skills and need to understand the subtleties of a seemingly pedestrian behavior. Simply training in the
four levels of listening would go a long way to creating better communication. These levels are:
(1) Hearing the words,
(2) Hearing the words and partial feelings,
(3) Hearing words, accepting feelings,
(4) Hearing words, accepting feelings, making plans to deal with issues.

Finally, from the worker’s perspective, an explanation of the difference between “structure” and “control,” could produce amazing results. “Structure” is simply a patterned, predictable vehicle for getting predetermined results. Without it, nothing productive happens. “Control” is a device for dictating how one feels about choices they make and behaviors they exhibit. “Structure” invites cooperation and collaboration; “Control,” on the other hand, creates power struggles and the need for retribution.

The opportunities for closing the gap between supervisors and younger workers are readily available and well within the reach of any organization. What it takes to implement them is a commitment, on the part of HR professionals and other leaders, to create and sustain a learning culture in their workplace. Opening up a dialog in a neutral setting, perhaps in a training atmosphere, would go a long way toward closing the gap.

Do you know why your Employees are Leaving? Guess Again!

By Juan Garcia, Director of Research

After reviewing employee benefits offered by 115 companies, and employees’ scores on employee satisfaction surveys, data suggests that about one-third of companies may be overspending money on employee programs that ultimately have no effect in increasing employee satisfaction levels.

The study, which is based on data compiled in 2006 as part of Employers Group’s Best Workplaces program, revealed an even more startling statistic: Employee satisfaction scores from half of the companies who the survey determined were offering lower-than-average employee-friendly benefit packages were just as high as the scores from employees of companies that offered richer benefit packages!

Although the divide between employee satisfaction and employer-sponsored benefits has been well studied and documented, as evident from the data collected via our Best Workplaces program, many companies continue to introduce and offer benefit plans without understanding whether the program will untimely be effective in increasing employee satisfaction.

At best, in periods of high unemployment this disconnection can have mild consequences. In 2007, however, with a historically low unemployment level looming, this disconnection can cause severe repercussions in a company’s ability to retain their top performers. Why? Because a favorable labor market increases the chances of employees leaving their job, especially affected are those who have been determined to be top performers.

Consider recent statistics from studies on employee satisfaction and employee relation. According to data compiled by the Conference Board, 26% of employees were dissatisfied with the way they were managed; and 17% felt undervalued by their employer. In fact, the data reported that there’s a huge divide between employees’ who believe they are doing right and how they are recognized for their contributions. Almost half of the employees who said they believe their company knows they are doing a good job, but also stated that they do not feel they are given feedback as to how their work contributes to the success of the organization. If the consequences of an employee’s discontent only affected turnover figures, the damage might be manageable; but the implications could go much further and may possibly affect a company’s financial stability.

According to studies published by the Conference Board: 35% of employees who were identified as feeling “detached” from the company did not have enough confidence in the financial stability of the company to invest their own money. Perhaps even more disconcerting is that if an employee is feeling this detachment, then the company’s customer is likely to feel the same. A study by Marketing Management states, “The degree of loyalty your customers have toward you typically mirrors the level of commitment and loyalty you have developed among your employees.”

Finally, there is the issue of retention and employees “feeling” unwanted. It’s generally known that although employees might trade jobs for better pay, their cause for leaving might not be salary at all but a myriad of other reasons—often more to do with mistrust of the company, feeling unappreciated, not respected or not recognized for the time and effort they’ve put into their work.
There is plenty of research showing that increased employee commitment and trust in leadership can positively impact the company's bottom line, so more companies feel the need to reduce the disconnection between perceived job performance and job satisfaction by seeking ways to better understand how their employees feel about their jobs.

Employee Satisfaction Surveys on the rise
Given the direct impact between business success and the understanding of employees’ sentiments, it’s no surprise that the use of employee opinion surveys (EOS) continues to increase, from an estimated 20% of U.S. organizations in the 1980s to more than 50% as reflected in the data collected in our 2006 Best Workplaces program. Organizations are learning that an EOS is an excellent means to constantly access and maintain employee contentment and job quality. The surveys provide immediate online, real-time results and speed up the process for addressing issues and practices that could be hindering employee loyalty and commitment. Management is more apt to identify and prioritize issues for action, monitor the effectiveness of change initiatives, and establish performance objectives for managers.

Of course, management input and support of the process is vital. If the EOS program lacks management commitment, employees may view the process as a public relations exercise designed to project a “caring” management style rather than a process for identifying and acting on employee concerns.

Conducting a survey
A survey is a valuable way for any organization to gauge the “emotional temperature” of its employees. It may be conducted at anytime as long as the purpose and objective are clearly defined and under¬stood by both management and employees. By taking this proactive approach, businesses send their employees the message that positive internal conditions are important - which ultimately leads to customer retention, lower turnover, and more focused HR programs. If you would like more information on EOS solutions, contact surveys@employersgroup.com.