Is your small business reasonably accommodating the needs of its new and expectant mothers?  You may have heard the horror story of a new mom who returned from maternity leave, only to have her employer criticize everything from the frequency she pumped her breast milk to the number of weeks she pumped.  When the employer decreed the new mom had to stop pumping when her baby turned a year old, the new mom refused and was fired.  How can you prevent this unfortunate—and avoidable—dilemma from happening in your workplace?

The answer may lie in the health care reform law.  One revision to the Fair Labor Standards Act requires employers to provide unpaid, “reasonable break time” and a place, other than a restroom, that is “shielded from view and free from intrusion” to allow new moms to pump breast milk.  This provision covers all workers subject to overtime-pay requirements and lasts up to one year after the baby is born.  It also provides reasonable workplace policies beyond maternity leave to help new mothers balance career and family.

Remember, except for the 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave mandated by federal law, many new mothers either can’t afford to take more time off or aren’t permitted to by their employers. Reasonably accommodating nursing mothers meets them in the middle by allowing them to work without giving up breastfeeding.  Not to mention, mom-friendly HR policies are sure to increase employee morale and retention after maternity leave!

In local news, eyes are focused on Costa Mesa, California, a city neighboring GHRO’s headquarter city of Irvine.  The City of Costa Mesa faces a budgetary dilemma: a dilemma it plans to solve through outsourcing many city services.  On the list to be outsourced are in-house information technology, maintenance services, employee benefits administration, and payroll staff, among others.  In six months, these employees will be looking for jobs.  It’s tough news and a tough lesson about how outsourcing has long kept the government afloat.

According to an article in Federal Computer Week, outside contractors have proved a long-indispensible government resource.  Outsourcing allows the government to perform work beyond its typical staffing, equipment, or monetary resources. It also creates a more efficient government through reduced costs and increased productivity.  In a time of budgetary concerns, outsourcing may be the only way the public sector, and even small private-sector businesses, can maintain necessary service levels.

Cost-savings occurs, in part, because contractors cost less than permanent employees.  Last year, USA Today reported that government employees received roughly $28,000 in annual benefits—over $12,000 more than their private-sector counterparts.  Data has also shown that pay rates in state and local government increase faster than private-sector rates.  Total compensation at all levels of government tends to be higher.

But lower pricing isn’t the only benefit of outsourcing services.  Outsourcing to private companies often results in new, fresh ideas beyond the government status quo.  Outsourcing is a great resource for small, private businesses, too!  It allows businesses to receive services they may not otherwise have been able to maintain or afford.  For instance, outsourcing human resources tasks to GHRO allows businesses to meet their HR needs, from hiring, payroll, employee benefits, to the latest in HR regulations and trends, at a fraction of the cost of maintaining an in-house HR department.  It is low-cost efficiency at its best.

How can HR outsourcing benefit you?  Contact GHRO today for a free quote!

Last month’s blog about the employer-employee Facebook saga scored one for employees, but the latest installment gives the edge to employers.  A recent case heard in a Georgia federal appeals court ruled that employees can be fired over their social-networking photos.

Tiffany Marshall, a Savannah probationary firefighter, lost her job over her Myspace photos.  These images featured Marshall and her coworkers in uniform, as well as several semi-clothed photos of Marshall, including one showing her bare backside.  An anonymous caller alerted Marshall’s supervisors to the photos.  Investigation found that Marshall had violated multiple Savannah Fire Department rules and regulations, particularly the section on displaying “unbecoming conduct” in her private life that discredited the department.  In response to the photos, the department gave Marshall a verbal reprimand and issued a general order reminding employees that department photos could not be used on personal websites without the fire chief’s express permission.

Marshall’s response to the reprimand led to her termination.  After she allegedly became defensive and combative, contending she’d been singled out as a female because male firefighters had not been disciplined for similar photos on their websites, she was fired for insubordination.  Marshall then sued for gender discrimination.  The court, which found no evidence of discrimination or violation of First Amendment free speech rights, dismissed her case.

What does this decision mean for employers?  A solid social media policy may be enforceable in court.  To be effective, the policy should clearly address work-related images and social postings, and disclose the employer’s right to review such media for compliance with employer regulations.  While drafting a policy, employers should remember that the National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ rights to discuss workplace activities.  Bottom line: employees’ social networking posts can’t be silenced, but can be guided by a carefully worded social media policy.

No, it’s not the latest Patricia Cornwell novel—it’s a recent court ruling on an FMLA-related lawsuit.  The ruling held that even employees on FMLA leave are required to give proper notice and to follow their employer’s call-in policies.

In 2008, Jordan To brought suit against his former employer, U.S. Bank, for violating his rights by terminating him during FMLA leave.  After months of military leave, To failed to return to his clerk job as scheduled on August 4, 2008.  He spoke to his U.S. Bank supervisors via conference call and explained he wasn’t feeling well and needed time to recuperate.  To’s supervisors asked for a doctor’s note to return to work, which To provided.  One week later, when To failed to report for work as expected, he spoke to his supervisor and sent another doctor’s note.  A week after that, To not only failed to report for work, but did not notify anyone at U.S. Bank for four days.  On the third day, U.S. Bank sent a termination letter to To, citing job abandonment.  Upon receiving the letter, To claimed a third doctor’s note had been faxed to excuse the current absence—a note U.S. Bank did not receive and a note To could not produce.  Given the status of the missing note, U.S. Bank upheld To’s termination.  To sued.

Is this a case of wrongful termination under FMLA law?

The answer lies in U.S. Bank’s employment policies at the time of To’s absence.  As explained in the “Reporting Absences” provision of its employee handbook, U.S. Bank’s call-in policy stated that absence requests must be reported as soon as the employee becomes aware of such a need—that is, the employee provides reasonable notice.  The policy also stated that all absences must be reported by speaking directly to the employee’s supervisor, not through voicemail or e-mail.  The handbook also contained a “Job Abandonment” provision, which stated that after two consecutive days, an unreported absence would be considered voluntary job abandonment.  Both provisions specifically included FMLA absences under their umbrellas.

Giving To the benefit of the doubt, assume U.S. Bank legitimately failed to receive his faxed doctor’s note.  In that case, the note should have satisfied the “reasonable notice” requirement of U.S. Bank’s absence-reporting policy.  But note or no note, To violated the “call-in” requirement when he failed to directly notify his supervisor.  The FMLA angle of his case had no bearing, because FMLA absence requests are legally expected to follow employer policy on standard absence requests.  Clearly, To did not comply with his employer’s call-in policy.  The court thought so, too—it ruled against To and upheld his termination.

Every business has at least one HPE: a habitually problematic employee.  As an owner or HR manager, your lucky day comes when that employee parts ways with the business—lucky, until another employer calls for your opinion of HPE.  Awkward.

So what now?  Do you tell the employer what you really think about HPE?  Do you gloss over HPE’s 2-hour lunches?  Do you fake static and hang up?  Not only is this situation uncomfortable, but it presents potential legal troubles if improperly handled.

Some businesses solve this problem by routing all reference checks through the HR Department.  There, only basic information is verified, such as dates of employment and job title.  This option will definitely keep your business out of legal hot water, but it may displease managers who want to shout HPE’s negative qualities from the rooftops.  In these cases, advise miffed managers how important it is that the business distributes consistent, carefully worded statements.  Even the most truthful statements, if poorly worded, can be twisted into legal ammunition.

Another way to shield personnel from these uncomfortable inquiries is to deal with HPE proactively.  There are two ways to do this.  First, ask HPE for a signed release allowing the business to give out reference information.  If HPE refuses to sign, explain to reference-seekers that HPE did not consent to release information.  Second, tell HPE at the exit interview that the business won’t be able to provide a positive reference.  That should be enough for HPE to look for support elsewhere.

According to a CNN report, Americans working in a claustrophobia-inducing cubicle have one more thing to complain about: shrinking cubicle size.

The average worker’s office space has dwindled 15 square feet since 1994, down to a cozy 75 square feet in 2010.  And it’s not just the everyday workers who are feeling the squeeze—senior workers’ office space shrunk 19 feet over the same period.  Everyone but executive management, who enjoyed an increase in office space, has to do more work with less space.

Or are they?

What popularized the cubicle in the 1960s was its functional, modular office space without the construction required to build walled offices.  In the past, cubicle size has had to accommodate the latest office technology, such as bulky telephones, typewriters, and desktop computers.  Today, that technology is slender and sleek, such as flat-screen monitors, laptops, iPads, and Blackberries—and more important, that technology is mobile.

Mobile technology replaces the need for workers to be chained to their desks.  Instead, workers can telecommute or work from different places in the office, as in the open-space seating model found at companies such as Facebook and Intel.  This open-space model is becoming more popular thanks to its team-oriented setup and efficient use of work space.  Due to meetings, travel, shifts, or personal leave, not all work space is required at all times, so it makes sense to have fewer and unassigned work stations.

While some employees appreciate this modern, flexible approach to office space, other employees reject the approach’s irregularity, close quarters, and lack of privacy.  Since employees spend half their days at work, it’s important their office environment works for them to foster comfort and productivity.  But just as office spaces come in all shapes and sizes, so do employees, so not every model will suit every employee’s personality or work style.

Does that mean private offices are on the verge of extinction?  Not if SAS, a North Carolina business intelligence software company, is any indication.  For the last two years, the company was named Fortune magazine’s best place to work.  The kicker?  SAS gives almost all its employees private offices.

The recent settlement in the National Labor Relations Board’s wrongful termination complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut heralds positive news for employee free speech on Facebook. The news is decidedly less positive for employers trying to enforce social-networking and computer-use policies.

It’s Valentine’s Day and love is in the air.  If you’re in the office today, you’re likely to see coworkers receiving heart-shaped boxes of chocolates and lavish bouquets of lilies from their loved ones.  But what if such a display of affection occurs between coworkers?

Workplace relationships can pose a wealth of potential problems, from discrimination to sexual harassment.  These issues can be especially complicated for businesses that don’t clearly address workplace relationships in their employee handbooks.  If it’s too late to set policy amidst burgeoning love, supervisors and HR representatives will have to rely on their common sense to handle workplace relationships.  To make that process easier, remember to PREP by being:

Professional: When talking to employees, keep comments business related by addressing productivity, performance, and professional conduct.  Don’t discuss anything personal, and remember that any personal information confided in you should be kept strictly confidential.

Reasonable: Be reasonable about the demands placed on your employees.  They spend a lot of time together, which can naturally foster closeness.  Without a written policy to address workplace relationships, your response can only extend so far.  You can’t ask employees not to date, and even if you could, more problems could be created by enforcing unrealistic rules.

Equitable: As a matter of good HR practice, it’s important to treat all employees (and all workplace relationships) the same.  This applies even if the relationship involves an extramarital affair.

Proactive: After a relationship problem arises, it’s too late to implement a formal company policy, so don’t attempt enforcement beyond what federal, state, or local laws require.  Instead, talk with management about establishing a written policy to address workplace relationships.  A clear policy will be the best way to manage future workplace relationship issues.

With or without a formal policy, when a workplace relationship ends, things could get messy for both the former couple and the HR Department.  What was once welcome personal attention could now be considered unwelcome sexual harassment.  During the relationship, it may have been common for one partner to frequent the other’s desk to chat, but that chat may now make the other partner uncomfortable.  If left unaddressed, this unwanted conduct could easily snowball into a sexual harassment issue.

That’s why it’s best to catch these issues early.  As an HR representative, start by sitting down separately with each employee to clarify what professional behavior means to them and to your business.  Outlining professional standards may be enough to stop the unwanted conduct, but if the behavior continues, these conversations are a good starting point for potential disciplinary action.  Remember, everything should be documented, from the complaint to the sit-down conversations, to create a solid base for future action.  It’s important to take these issues seriously as professional matters and not just private conflicts.

Higher health insurance costs, new 1099 regulations, and now increased payroll taxes?

That’s the latest expectation from President Obama’s proposed budget, set for unveiling next week.  The big news for small businesses: the budget is expected to replenish states’ dwindling unemployment funds by increasing payroll taxes.  This will happen by raising the amount of unemployment-taxable wages to $15,000—more than double the $7,000 which has held steady since 1983.  This plan, which would take effect with other new tax laws in 2014, stands to increase payroll taxes by over $100 billion over the next decade.

But is this plan merely borrowing from Peter to pay Paul, at a time when the Obama administration is trying to improve relations with business groups?  Keep in mind, unemployment insurance is a joint federal-state program.  State governments must pay the first 26 weeks of unemployment benefits and have had to borrow heavily from the feds to meet this requirement.  To bridge last year’s gap, more than 40 states had to increase their unemployment-insurance payroll taxes.  What will happen to the tax rates under the new plan is up to the individual states and is anyone’s guess.  One thing is for certain—it appears rebuilding the unemployment fund will fall squarely on the backs of businesses.

Times are looking up for the once-struggling American auto industry, which means good news—and shared profits—for industry employees.

Last month, Ford Motor Co. paid $5,000 in profit sharing to each of its hourly workers, which was more than its contract with the labor union required.  And though Chrysler Group LLC did not make any money last year, the company still paid $750 to each of its hourly workers to thank them for standing by during recovery efforts.  Following suit, General Motors Co. is poised to pay each of its 45,000 hourly workers at least $3,000 in profit sharing.  This will mark GM’s largest ever payout, crushing 1999’s previous record of $1,775.

GM’s move comes as 2010 saw the company solidly back in the black for the first time since 2004, and just one year after a highly publicized $50 billion government bailout.  In those darker days, GM was forced to restructure by closing domestic factories and slicing more than 20,000 jobs, including much of its white-collar workforce.  Moving into the future, GM executives have expressed interest in compensating hourly workers according to their performance, much like the way salaried workers are compensated.  It should also be noted that salaried workers will not be receiving across-the-board raises.