Posts

Predictive Scheduling Laws

Predictive Scheduling laws are driven by the public policy of providing workers with predictability and consistency in their work schedules. Currently, local-level ordinances cover “formula retail workers”, a group viewed to be especially vulnerable to sudden changes in work schedules. The definition of a formula retailer varies based on the jurisdiction, but it’s helpful to think of them in terms of “chain stores” that have several locations, offer a standardized set of products or services, and have standard branding elements.

What Do Predictive Scheduling Laws Do?

Here are a few scenarios that predictive scheduling ordinances try to prevent:

Susan Nightclass
Susan works at a formula retail establishment–it’s a fast food franchise. She also takes night classes beginning at 6:00 PM on weekdays. This works well for Susan because she works morning and lunch shifts. However, sometimes her manager asks her to cover evening shifts when other employees are sick, quit, or otherwise unavailable. This makes it difficult or impossible for her to attend classes, but she chooses to work the extra shift for fear of drawing the ire of her manager and losing hours.

Joe Childcare
Joe works at a big name coffee shop. He likes the job because he can work early morning shifts and get off in time to pick up his children for school. This is a great arrangement for his family, as it doesn’t require planning and financing childcare. However, oftentimes, Joe’s manager will ask him to work an afternoon shift to cover another worker’s absence or exit. In these instances, Joe and his wife must scramble to find childcare–and the money to pay for it.

Patty Part-time
Patty works at a chain restaurant. She waitresses a 4 hour lunch shift, which works great because she spends her mornings working on her freelance writing gig. Unfortunately, freelancing and waitressing don’t quite make ends meet just yet. Patty has repeatedly asked for another shift to bring her up to full-time, but her employer prefers to hire additional part-time workers to avoid the cost of required full-time benefits.

The Emergence of Predictive Scheduling Laws

In November 2014, the city of San Francisco passed two ordinances into law: Hours and Retention Protections for Formula Retail Employees; and Fair Scheduling and Treatment of Formula Retail Employees. In general, the ordinances require the following of employers:

  • Before hiring new employees, offer additional work hours to qualified part-time employees who have performed similar work;
  • Provide new employees with a “good faith” written estimate of the number of scheduled shifts per month and the days and hours of those shifts;
  • Provide employees with their work schedules 2 weeks in advance, and provide “predictability pay” if schedules change with less than seven days’ advance notice;
  • Provide pay for on-call shifts when the employee is not called into work, subject to exceptions;
  • Provide part-time employees with the same starting hourly wage, access to time off, and eligibility for promotions as full-time employees who perform at the same level; and
  • Provide for continued employment of all employees for a period of 90 days if the covered retail establishment changes ownership, subject to certain conditions.

The Expansion of Predictive Scheduling Laws

Since the passage of San Francisco’s predictive scheduling ordinances, San Jose, Seattle, and New York City have passed similar laws of their own. Oregon became the first state to enact such legislation with passage of the Fair Workweek Act in 2017, and it’s likely that other states, like New York, will follow suit.

Movement at the federal level has been more timid. H.R. 3071 (114th) Schedules That Work Act was introduced in the summer of 2015 but never made it out of committee. However the bill was reintroduced as H.R. 2942 (115th) in the summer of 2017, and it appears that the legislation may have new life as its policy case gains momentum across the country.

Predictive or Restrictive?

Of course, not everyone is onboard with predictive scheduling. Many employers refer to the legislation as “restrictive scheduling” because it restricts their ability to efficiently manage their workforce. They argue that employees choose to work at formula retail establishments because of the flexibility it offers. Employees not only know about variable scheduling in advance, they consider it an important factor in their employment decisions.

In addition to arguments of decreased efficiency and opportunity, employers also believe that the legislation unnecessarily complicates the relationship between managers and employees. They see predictive scheduling as disrupting the balance of employers and employees in both the near term and long term. Implementing new scheduling policies will likely be fraught with miscommunications and challenges initially, while the cost to manage the new policy (time and resources) will have to be offset by cutting back in other areas, likely employee perks.

In response to the pushback from businesses, several states have enacted or are currently considering “preemption bills” that prohibit local jurisdictions from enacting new predictive scheduling ordinances and other employment laws. Proponents of these bills are seeking to maintain a business friendly climate within the state by providing consistency in employment law across local jurisdictions.

Beyond the Law

Interestingly, predictive scheduling may not need new state or federal legislation to quickly expand. It’s no secret that the labor market has tightened over the past few years. Competition for talent has increased to the point where employers must be more creative in recruiting new employees. If predictive scheduling is important to job seekers, then many businesses may consider voluntarily incorporating its elements into their company policies as a way of attracting talent. Similarly, employers with multiple locations that are subject to different local ordinances may decide to implement predictive scheduling at all locations in order to simplify compliance and reduce liability.

What You Need to Know About Connecticut Ban the Box Legislation

Out with the old and in with the new…New Year that is.  2017 is rapidly approaching and will bring many changes to us and our country.  Personal resolutions for positive change and the inauguration of a new President are two “New Year 2017” life changing events that immediately pop into mind.  For individuals with a conviction history who seek employment in Connecticut, January 1, 2017 is not just the beginning of another year; it offers new life changing opportunities for those individuals to fulfill their Connecticut employment goals through reduced barriers to employment with the passage of “Ban the Box” legislation.

What is Ban the Box?

Ban the Box AKA “Fair Chance Policy” aims to reduce recidivism rates and future incarcerations of prior offenders by helping remove potential barriers to employment.  The policy will help individuals with criminal records “have a fair chance” to be actively considered for employment opportunities despite having blemished records when they are applying for jobs in their attempt to attain employment.

Ban the Box Connecticut Legislation

Connecticut became the newest state to join the Ban the Box movement when Governor Dannel Malloy signed H.B. No. 5237 (Public Act No. 16-83) which will become effective January 1, 2017. This act prohibits covered public and private sector employers from asking questions regarding arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an employment application. Connecticut employers can still ask about convictions, but conviction related questions must occur later at a designated point in the hiring process.  Certain exemptions exist regarding this law so please consult your company’s legal team for more information on the exemptions and qualification criteria.

States Leading the Ban the Box Movement

Currently Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Illinois, New Jersey, and Oregon have statewide public and private sector policies implemented which prohibit employers from asking about applicants’ criminal histories.  Vermont passed Ban the Box legislation on May 3, 2016; however, it does not become effective until July 1, 2017.  Numerous cities and municipalities have localized Ban the Box legislation enacted that may affect certain types of employment in specific geographic regions.  Ban the Box legislation is not just a trend as the list of local and state governments introducing versions of this type of legislation keeps increasing.  To keep abreast of states and cities who enact Ban the Box legislation, visit the National Employment Law Project (NELP).

How This Affects Employers

Employers need to be aware of the legislation that exists and what legislation is pending to be prepared for the potential impact on their organizations. If your organization currently has hiring practices in multiple states and cities, or posts job listings nationally, it is important to be cognizant of the locales’ legal expectations and determine if you need to alter verbiage on your employment application(s) and/or change specific steps in your hiring practices to be compliant with Ban the Box legislation.  Please note: The ExactHire team is not legal counsel, and we do not offer legal advice so any questions regarding your company’s eligibility for exemption with the Ban the Box legislation and/or proper verbiage for your company’s employment application(s) should be discussed with your company’s legal counsel. To learn specifically how Connecticut’s H.B. No. 5237 (Public Act No. 16-83) affects your organization’s hiring practices, please contact your company’s legal team.

ExactHire Clients

At ExactHire, we take pride in doing our best to ensure our clients’ satisfaction is the highest possible. We do whatever we can to resolve clients’ current needs and identify potential needs. After you speak with your legal counsel, and if you and your legal team decide changes need to be made to your employment application(s) to comply with legislation, the ExactHire team will work with you to create a new application with the verbiage you specify for compliance. Also, please know that one of the benefits of using ExactHire’s HireCentric software as your applicant tracking system is that you can create multiple employment applications, each specific to your needs. If you are an existing client looking for more information about updating your current employment application(s) and/or creating additional employment applications, please email support@exacthire.com, and let us know your needs.

Learn More About ExactHire Solutions

If you are not yet an ExactHire client, for more information about HireCentric ATS, please visit our resources page or contact us today.

 

Are Employers Required To Provide Time Off To Vote?

The U.S. Presidential Election is heating up–honestly, it’s a firestorm already. Tuesday, November 8, 2016 is the culmination of 18 months of primary and general election campaigning. And as with every election, the candidates, political parties, and special interest groups will all be pushing for strong voter turnout as that date nears.

Free, fair, and regular elections are essential for a democracy. To the extent that citizens exercise their right to vote, our democracy will come closer to the ideal of a government governing with the consent of the governed. So while, as a nation of citizens, we will never unanimously agree on who should be elected to government, it’s imperative that barriers to voting be removed wherever possible.

Employers are in a unique position to facilitate voting by their employees. Although polls are open a few hours before and after typical work hours, it’s not always easy for people to make it to the polls. Long commutes, childcare, and “the unexpected” can all become obstacles to voting before and after work. By providing employees with time off to vote during the work day, employers can expand options for employees and build a stronger work culture.

Employer Law On Voting Leave, A Mixed Bag

Currently, there are no federal laws requiring employers to provide time off to vote. However, the majority of states do have laws around employee voting leave. As you can imagine, these laws vary greatly. Here are examples of how state laws can differ:

States Where Employers Are Required To Provide Time Off

  • Some must provide paid time off, but not all
  • Some specify the amount of hours an employer must provide
  • Some require employees to prove an inability to vote outside work hours
  • Some require employees to give notice to employer
  • Some require employees to provide evidence that they did in fact vote
  • Some punish non-compliant employers and/or supervisors with fines
  • All prohibit employers from disciplining, rewarding, or terminating an employee for voting or not voting or for voting a particular way

States Where Employers Are Not Required To Provide Time Off

  • No requirement to provide leave, but voting law prohibits discipline, reward, or termination of an employee for voting or not voting or voting a particular way

Obviously, if you’re an employer who is wrestling with whether or not to offer employees time off for voting, you’ll want to check on the voting laws specific to your state (here’s where you can do that). However! Legal requirements should be the first, but least of your considerations. Employers must also take into account the benefits–outside of avoiding legal fines–of offering voting leave, and the drawbacks–outside of lost productivity–of offering it.

Time Off To Vote?

As mentioned, the right to choose our leaders in free and fair elections is fundamental to our democracy, a right that millions across the world do not enjoy. To not exercise that right by choice is a personal prerogative, but to be hindered by an employer in exercising it–directly or indirectly–can be demotivating and stressful for an individual. “So what?” Says the indifferent, cynical employer.

Well, let’s compare a couple scenarios. Scenario A is what might happen when an employer fails to offer time off to employees for voting. Scenario B is what might happen when they do offer it, and perhaps even encourage it.

Scenario A

Your Employee’s Friend (did vote): Hey Becky, how’s it going? Did you rock the vote yesterday?

Your Employee (didn’t vote, but wanted to): Ehh no. I know I’m awful, Gina. But I was rushed this morning with the kids and I had to work late. Traffic was horrible. And they don’t let you off work to vote. I just couldn’t get away.

Your Employee’s Friend: Damn Becky. That’s crap that they don’t let you leave to vote.

Your Employee: I know, right? I’m going to go overshare about it on Facebook and in the comment section of the local newspaper…maybe Glassdoor if I have time.

Scenario B

Your Employee’s Friend (did vote): Hey Becky, how’s it going? Did you rock the vote yesterday?

Your Employee (left work for an hour to vote):  Hell yeah I rocked it, Gina! We have a voting day party at work. They bring in American flag cupcakes and a cardboard cutout of Uncle Sam. We all leave to vote for an hour in shifts. At the end of the day we set off fireworks in the parking lot.

Your Employee’s Friend: Oh. My. God. Becky. Your voting turnout must be so big! What about employees who don’t want to vote or can’t? Can they participate?

Your Employee: Sure! They can use the time to do whatever they want. Our owner just asks that everyone sticks to the time limit.

Your Employee’s Friend: Your company is awesome! I wish my work was that cool…

Your Employee: Damn Gina! You know we are hiring in HR? You should apply for the job. You’d be a great fit!

Do The Right Thing

While I may have overdramatized the above scenarios–and indulged in one too many oblique references to the early 90’s–the outcomes are not far-fetched. Regardless of what state laws require, employers who proactively provide time off to vote and embrace it as an important part of company culture will strengthen their employer brand in two ways.

First, employee morale will increase thanks to the generous policy and creative celebration. Second, job seekers –especially those likely to be referred by current employees– will be attracted to a fun, unique work culture.

Too often, employers look at the the lost hours or productivity that may come with granting time off to vote. However, if they would take a step back and look at voting leave as an opportunity to bring employees together in a way that is so much bigger than work, then they could very well end up with increased productivity, along with a stronger employer brand.

Plus, in most cases, it’s the right thing to do.


Please note:  The ExactHire team is not legal counsel, and we do not offer legal advice, so any questions regarding your company’s legal requirements to provide voting leave should be discussed with your company’s legal counsel.

Image credit: voting by JustinGrimes (contact)