 Early last month on April 9, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released an en banc ruling in Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372[1], holding that an employer cannot use “prior salary alone or in combination with other factors” to justify a wage differential between male and female employees. This decision joins a larger trend across the US where a number of states and cities are rejecting the use of salary history in determining applicant pay. There is a split among circuits on this issue, which makes it ripe for the Supreme Court to step-in and resolve, but it is too early to know if it will—stay tuned!
The Equal Pay Act of 1963[2] prohibits paying men and women differently for the same or substantially similar work, “except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.” Rizo learned that her employer hired male colleagues at a significantly higher rate of pay for similar work. Rizo’s employer admitted paying the male colleagues more than her, but argued the wage differential was a result of their higher prior salaries at the time they were hired and fell under the forth catchall exception. The court disagreed and provided a narrow reading of “any other factor other than sex” stating that “[it] is limited to legitimate, job-related factors such as a prospective employee’s experience, educational background, ability, or prior job performance.”  Diversity of thought, or "thought diversity" is still an emerging field that is quickly becoming the new frontier of diversity, revolutionizing how we view it. Diversity has expanded beyond the traditional categories of race and gender, to include people from various cultural backgrounds, with different work experiences, who are retired, who have been rehabilitated with criminal records, and who are on the autism spectrum. All of these individuals bring different experiences, upbringings, challenges, etc. to the table impacting how they problem solve, resolve conflict, spearhead innovation, create new ways of working, etc. This collage of differences represent the competitive edge organizations will need to set themselves apart. As the world continues to diversify, organizations will have to do the same to stay competitive and keep their advantage over others who vie for market share.
So what does this mean? Thought diversity will be critical to moving work forward. From a human resource perspective, thought diversity applies to talent management—attracting, keeping, and developing talented workers that generate creativity and innovation, out-think competitors, and meet market demands in new and improved ways. Leaders should look to surround themselves with people who challenge them, and think differently than them. Not only does this make them better leaders, it makes the team and organization stronger. We’ve all heard the old adage that “two heads are better than one.” This has never been more accurate than in today’s workforce.  The 2018 contribution limit for health savings accounts (HSAs) linked to family coverage will be $6,850—not $6,900, as the IRS had previously announced. The IRS recalculated the limit because the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that passed at the end of 2017 applies the so-called chained consumer price index (chained CPI) to increases in HSA and a few other employee benefit contribution limits.
In its Internal Revenue Bulletin No. 2018–10, released March 5, the IRS clarified that:
 As of January 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced it will now use the primary beneficiary test” to determine whether an intern must be paid. This change will end the 6-part test the DOL adopted in 2010 that required all factors weigh in favor of the employer.
The primary beneficiary test is a 7-factor balancing test that measures whether the student/intern or employer is the primary beneficiary of the employer-intern relationship. If the intern/student is the primary beneficiary, he or she is not an employee and need not be paid. If the employer is the primary beneficiary, the student/intern is an employee and must be paid. To determine which party is the primary beneficiary, employers must examine the “economic reality” of the relationship using the 7 factors:  With a new year comes new changes. Let’s explore a few of the newest trends in HR.
The Employee Experience With the growing influence of millennials and increasing transparency catalyzed by the digitalization age, employees are expecting a more engaging and enjoyable work experience. This year will be a year where leaders MUST focus on developing the “Employee Experience”, which comprises of three core dimensions: engagement, culture, and performance management. This new focus will drive leaders to examine their employees’ organizational journeys and optimize them much as customer experience teams do for customer journeys. It will be an exciting time where HR will experiment with technology in the market such as pulse feedback tools, employee wellness apps, modern communication, and productivity tools that will help facilitate the understanding and development of the employee experience. HR Tech Artificial Intelligence and machine learning tools like GetLinks or Arya have disrupted recruitment practices, effectively lowering costs and obtaining candidates with the better fit. Another new app is HR In Your Pocket, which provides employees a holistic HR resource center for submission of leave and medical and reimbursement claims, tracking medical and lifestyle benefits, and internal job postings. It also features an in-app chat box to address questions employees might have about HR. HR MUST learn to be digital and not just buy digital products. |
Archives
December 2024
|
RSS Feed