Life Meets Work Blog

The Healthy Families Act (HFA) has been introduced in the both the House and Senate and would require employers with 15 employees or more to provide seven days of paid sick leave per year.

One concern over the bill centers around the possibility for employee abuse.

Because employees don’t need a doctor’s certificate (unless they are out for three consecutive days) the obvious conclusion is that some employees will abuse the system using their mandated sick leave as extra vacation time.

Similar concerns focus on the bill’s intermittent leave stipulation which reportedly allows employees to take sick leave in the smallest increment available under the employer’s payroll system (six minutes?) without notice.  In theory, that means workers could repeatedly duck out of work situations where coverage is critical, and claim illness without repercussion.

So a big issue is that it opens the door for employee abuse.  And while we’d love to be all Pollyanna and suggest that abuse is so miniscule an issue as to be irrelevant, we’re not that naïve.  Yet, let’s admit most sick leave plans leave the door open for dishonesty.

The response, of course, is paid time off programs which lump sick leave and vacation time together. You get sick a lot – too bad – no vacation for you this year.  Not sure that’s ideal either, but it gets us around the abuse.

The kicker, though, is that the HFA appears to require a stand alone sick leave policy and locks-in existing leave programs. So what does that do to companies offering PTO? One reading suggests companies would be forced to add on an additional seven days.

So theoretically, in a preemptive move to protect itself – “Jane’s” employer could convert her three weeks of PTO (nice, since Jane is rarely sick) to two weeks PTO and one week sick leave.  Bummer for honest Jane.

Still, we’re fans of paid sick leave requirements.  As Kris Dunn over at the HR Capitalist writes,

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don’t offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don’t - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That’s harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way. (bold added)

So yeah, something needs to be done.  But we’re not just coming down on the side of business when we say the HFA doesn’t appear to be the solution.  We’re saying “no” for the sake of employees too.

Workplaces need the flexibility to create leave and benefit programs that work for their industry and culture. Opponents are calling this a “one-size-fits-all” government mandate.  If these interpretations are correct, let’s just point out that one-size-fits-all usually means “fits poorly for most.”

Posted by Jaime

The Washington Post just ran a special piece about caring for elderly parents.

Some statistical highlights:

Men who turn 65 can anticipate 17 more years, and women 20 more.  Two-thirds of these seniors will need some form of long-term care.

Yet….fewer than 5% of the elderly live in institutions. And nursing home use has been falling for 20 years.

How is that possible? Families are stepping up to the plate.

Most of this care comes from women. Seven of every 10 adult children who help frail parents are daughters.

But don’t imagine these women are leaving the workforce in droves.  More than half of adult children who help elderly parents also work full time, and 10 percent part time.

The author writes, “Most caregivers with jobs report sometimes having to arrive late or leave early; smaller proportions take leaves, cut back to part-time schedules or turn down promotions. A few even give up their jobs.”

Employers have to ask themselves several questions then:

• How important are these caregivers (boomers with decades of experience) to the team?
• Is there an ROI in programs that help reduce their stress?
• What am I willing and able to do to keep them on board?

The answers?

• Very
• Yes
• ???

We can anticipate the answer to the first. These boomer caregivers are our knowledge transfer agents—the ones who understand big picture trends and customer relationships the best.

We know the answer to the second.  Mountains of stress management literature tells us unequivocally that sustained stress limits performance, leads to workplace turnover, and increases medical and insurance costs.

But the answer to the third is obviously much harder to arrive at as we must examine our own organizations. Where are we at culturally? Can our managers support these changes? Do we have the technology to change the way we work?

Change is hard. And there is no one-size-fits-all solution for workplace flexibility.

Can you offer flexible start and end times?
Okay, yeah. Easy.

What about work from home options one or two days a week? 
Yeah, I suppose.

What about fulltime telecommuting?
Oh. Hmm.

Would you support an extended family leave?
Sure, if we had to. But just how extended are we talking?

Could you transition these folks into consultant/contractor positions?
Gee…that would have huge implications.

We get it.  These aren’t easy questions to answer.  But they aren’t going to get any easier the longer you wait.  It only gets harder as the need increases and the time frame for implementation shrinks,

In the case of Life Meets Work boomer blogger Eileen Thompson, her company’s retirement policy prevents her from consulting for the company for six months post-retirement and only with executive VP level permission thereafter.

The reality? She’d have a far easier time contributing her “retirement” services to a competitor.

Is that what you want for your senior level staff? Of course not.

Is that what could happen if you don’t question and prepare. Of course, yes.

Posted by Jaime

The unemployment rate hit 9.4 in May, the highest in more than 25 years.  The good news? The pace of layoffs is slowing and has been for four straight months.

But, those numbers don’t tell the whole picture. If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 16.4 percent in May, reports the Associated Press.

And plenty of “fulltime” workers are working plenty less, with the average work week in May falling to 33.1 hours, the lowest since 1964.

For many, those lost hours and lost overtime are a hardship.  This blogger knows one manufacturer in her city where workers decided they couldn’t make ends meet on a 4-day work week, eventually driving management to implement layoffs instead.

Plenty here to dissect. Is team atmosphere lacking at this company? Did they feel confident they could find other jobs or at least enough under the table work to supplement unemployment? Or worse, was this a work ethic issue—i.e. ‘I can’t make ends meet working four days a week, but I’ll manage if I can have free time on unemployment.’ Impossible to say.

But supposedly, these folks are an anomaly. According to one recent study, more than 9 out of 10 employees (94%) would be willing to accept a change or reduction in their schedule, or take a pay cut to avoid layoffs.

The survey, sponsored by Work+Life Fit, was conducted in late March 2009. Here’s a sampling of what employees said they’d be willing to sacrifice:

•    59% would take a furlough (1-2 weeks unpaid leave)
•    47% would work reduced hours with reduced pay
•    41% would be willing to take a pay cut but work the same hours
•    31% would take an unpaid sabbatical

Let’s give a collective nod of appreciation to those companies finding alternatives to layoffs.  And let’s give another thank you to those employees willing (and financially able) to take a hit.

Posted by Jaime

A new book suggests women can have it all, simply by deciding they have enough.  That’s the thesis behind the recently released “Womenomics: Write Your Own Rules for Success,” by Claire Shipman, senior national correspondent for ABC News’ “Good Morning America” and Katty Kay, Washington correspondent and anchor for “BBC World News America.”

The book includes specific strategies to negotiate a flexible work schedule and examples of what happens when companies get past face-time-management and start focusing on results.

The title, however, is unfortunate.  ‘Womenomics’ suggests that these career / life issues are merely women’s issues, read: mothers’ issues.  This an inaccurate representation, shifting a disproportionate responsibility onto women’s shoulders.

Career / life balance is a personal issue that affects men just as much as women.  Moreover, it’s not just a family issue anymore.  This is not just about moms or dads, but also young professionals and creative thinkers who know that productivity is not confined to artificially lit, sterile offices.

This is an issue for anyone who knows that results don’t require regimented 8 hour work days, and that 60-hour work weeks can likewise be detrimental to long-term performance.

This is an issue for everyone who knows that driving 30 minutes to sit in an office and talk on the phone to someone else who drove 30 minutes to sit in an office and talk on the phone is just plain wasteful.

This is an issue for everyone who sits at a desk at 3:30 thinking, ‘I’m beat, but I can’t leave yet. What kind of busy work can I do until 5:00?”

Shipman and Kay admit it’s not just a women’s issue, but clearly they’re approaching the issue from a feminine perspective. (They make gender generalizations like “women tend to be self-deprecating” and “women tend to be perfectionists.”)  Yes, they’re honest and real and relevant to a lot of people.  But perhaps they miss the bigger picture.

Titles like these diminish the issue, assign blame, and give people an excuse to shut it out.  Titles like these are inaccurate and unnecessary.  Titles like these are no way to open minds and lead change.

Posted by Jaime

There’s a cost to taking time off of work.

First the obvious. You don’t get paid when you don’t work. (That’s the general rule, anyway.)

Next, there’s the impact on your social security benefits or pension.

Often, there’s the loss of an incremental salary bump, compounded over future years.

And for too many, there’s an irrevocable impact on a career—an up-or-out philosophy that suggests anyone who isn’t consistently moving forward isn’t destined for the top.

Now two well respected Harvard researchers have quantified the impact of a career hiatus. Surveying Harvard College alumni, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz calculated the financial penalty for someone who takes a 18 months off of work and found…it depends on what you do.

Earnings loss, per degree:

• Medical doctors – 16%
• BA’s – 25%
• Ph.D’s – 29%
• Lawyers – 29%
• MBAs – 41%

Clearly something is going on with those MBA’s.  As the New York Times suggests, the size of financial loss “suggests that time off puts them on a completely different career track.”

Not long ago, well-educated Harvard women were criticized for taking time away from work—“wasting” brains and education that were needed in the marketplace. Yet the study suggests that these women (or men, for that matter) aren’t valued in the workplace. How could they be, when they are so permanently and drastically punished merely for stepping back a bit?

Can we surmise that to be an MBA (characterized as accountants and financial types in the NYT) is simply incompatible with family?

New survey results released by the Society for Human Resource Management says 70+% of American workers work through lunch, work overtime and take work home on the weekends.

And the motivation for logging all these hours doesn’t appear to be the result of some top-down mandate, but rather our own internal sense of what it takes to succeed. Only 21% said they worked extra hours because of pressure from an immediate supervisor, and only 12% attributed it to upper management.

So how do we rate our productivity? That’s what I’d like to hear from this 70% group. Are we generating all sorts of results during these 50+ hour weeks? Do we feel energized and creative at 2:00 after skipping our lunch break? Are we healthy and happy and stress free?

Or, are we marking time at our desks because the employee in the office the longest “must be” the most dedicated (a la George Costanza)? Are we wasting hours away in idle chat or non-productive tasks because we really do need those mental breaks?

Are we ravaging our free time, by dragging out our work day, accomplishing the same amount of work in more time thanks to the sheer inefficiency of exhaustion? And if so, why?

Perhaps, it’s a tragic case of escalation. Silent peer pressure, if you will. And if that’s the case, managers must take the lead and model a better way.

Posted by Jaime

Corporate Voices for Working Families released a new workplace flexibility study last week (the same day Michelle Obama spoke at their forum in D.C.) that once again demonstrates the importance of flexible work in meeting business objectives. The new angle? Flexibility matters for hourly workers too.

From the findings…

• Flex has a positive impact on personnel costs, particularly overtime
• Flex works well for companies that need staffing beyond 9 to 5
• Flex allows companies to tap a wider labor pool
• Flex helps recruitment in a tough labor market
• Flex helps with retention in high turnover positions
• Formal or informal - it doesn’t matter as long as employees can flex

Apologies and all due respect to Corporate Voices (and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation which funded the study), but haven’t we already proven the business case for flex? When are we going to shift from rationale to implementation? What we really need to figure out is how to create change in the least disruptive, least threatening way possible.

We need to focus on TRAINING and HANDS ON SUPPORT for managers. We need to get out from behind our desks and fund a little more hand to hand combat in the workplace. Show our business leaders how to make these changes. Enable them. Empower them. Model and mentor the way.

How about an AmeriCorps style program for workplace flexibility??  Hire flex consultants and seasoned leaders and station them in communities all over the country and charge them with providing one-on-one support for flexible workplaces.

How many workplaces could have been mentored, how many families affected…for the cost of one more study?

Posted by Jaime

Full transcript of Michelle Obama’s May 7 speech at a forum for the Corporate Voices for Working Families in Washington D.C.

The First Lady on balance and workplace flexibility:

So this isn’t just about family balance.  This is about making workplaces stronger and more effective, and keeping and attracting the most qualified people.  This research is critical to empowering employers and is politically — particularly important during our current economic climate.

We need to discuss flexible work hours that give employees greater ability to attend to important family responsibilities like child pick-up, something as simple as that; doctors appointments for those not just with kids, but for people with elderly parents.  We’re finding more and more that families are in that crunch, as well.

She also highlighted the importance of paid sick leave, the difficulties faced by one-wage-earner families, and how hard it is to be a working mom (even if you have a Chief of Staff and personal assistant).

Posted by Jaime

Twenty-one Milwaukee schools and one daycare center are closed this week as school officials react to growing cases of the H1N1 flu (aka swine flu) in the city.  Houston is also facing multiple school closures.

The closures obviously put a burden on families. With officials asking students not to congregate outside of school, one wonders how many parents are throwing caution to the wind and arranging childcare pools this week.

I’ll watch Evan, Susie, Lisa and Sam on Monday if you can take them Tuesday…and so on.

Are the area’s business offices prepared to operate during wide-spread school closures? Again, telecommuting offers one logical response, keeping many business offices operational as schools close and as employee themselves begin to present symptoms.

U.S. business went through a surge in disaster planning following the SARS outbreak in 2003. This recent outbreak is a chance for some companies to test those plans, and a reminder for others to develop contingency strategies.

Disaster planning is certainly not limited to flu pandemics. Telework tools help maintain productivity in the face of snowstorms, floods and other natural disasters.

Posted by Jaime

The federal government is expected to expand teleworking opportunities for federal employees.

John Berry at the Office of Personnel Management has announced plans for an expanded federal telework policy. Reportedly, he has support from President Obama.

The plan would create an advisory group, require agencies to submit telework polices for review, encourage agencies to appoint a ‘telework managing officer,’ and provide training to reduce management resistance.

“I was raised in the D.C. metropolitan area, so I know a little something about the traffic congestion that frustrates commuters and saps them of energy even before they get to the office,” Berry said in a press release.

The new policy is based on provisions in two telework bills introduced in 2009: the Telework Improvements Act (H.R. 1722), introduced by Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Md., and the Telework Enhancement Act (S. 707), introduced by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii.

Timing is right to push the new initiative as many in both business and government look to telecommuting as a way to maintain essential operations during a flu outbreak.

The initiative is also designed to make the federal government a more attractive employer and to support President Obama’s work-life objectives.

Posted by Jaime