Category Archives: Workplace

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

What Employers Need to Know About Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Posted on by

In an effort to combat the COVID-19 virus and its subsequent variants, the Biden administration has instituted three important mandates that employers should be aware of as they may impact their business. First, the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), requires that all employers with 100+ employees mandate vaccination or weekly testing. The second mandate involves federal workers and contractors and requires them to obtain a vaccination without any option for weekly testing. The final mandate was issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and requires vaccination of all healthcare workers at CMS-covered facilities.

OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard

The mandate that has the most wide-ranging impact is Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that calls for employers with 100 or more employees to either require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination or to prove compliance with a weekly-testing program. This ETS is expected to affect over 80 million employees. 

On December 17, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay placed on OSHA’s ETS issued by the Fifth Circuit in November. The court held that OSHA does have statutory authority to mandate national vaccines and/or testing for employers with more than 100 employees. Specifically, it outlined that because COVID-19 is a virus that causes bodily harm, OSHA was well within its administrative authority to regulate the health and safety of employees. 

Since the Sixth Circuit’s decision to dissolve the stay, OSHA announced that it will not be issuing citations for noncompliance with the ETS requirements until January 10 and the testing requirements will not be enforced until February 9 with the caveat that the employer must make good faith efforts to come into compliance as soon as possible.

After this ruling by the Sixth Circuit, eight groups challenged the OSHA vaccine mandate and filed emergency applications with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay the mandate again until the case can be heard in the highest court. On December 20, the Supreme Court requested a response from the federal government by December 30. And, on December 22, in an almost unprecedented move, the Supreme Court ordered oral argument on these emergency applications, which will take place on January 7.

Despite the fact that the validity of the ETS is now squarely before the Supreme Court, employers should still operate as if the ETS will go into immediate effect. OSHA has implemented new deadlines to reflect the current status of the ETS.

By January 10, employers should:

  • Track employee vaccination status
  • Create a database detailing vaccination information for each employee
  • Require unvaccinated employees to wear a mask
  • Provide paid time off for employees to get vaccinated and recover

As of February 9, 2022, employers must also require unvaccinated employees must start testing for COVID weekly. Self-administered or self-read tests would not comply. Employers must observe or use a proctor and have employees tested on site, or at a recognized testing facility.

The Mandate for Federal Employees and Contractors

The second mandate stems from President Biden’s executive order that requires most federal employees or contractors to get vaccinated. This mandate does not have a testing option.

On December 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern Section of Georgia granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the enforcement of the Biden’s administration’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors.The court found that the administration had overstepped the bounds of it authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 40 U.S.C. 101 et. seq. The injunction effectively prohibits enforcement of the federal contractor vaccine mandate in all 50 states and any territory of the United States. However, on December 17, the Eleventh Circuit, denied the government’s motion to stay. This effectively upheld the injunction. The court found that the government had failed to show that it “would be irreparably harmed absent a stay.”

The CMS Mandate

The third mandate is an interim file rule of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which requires vaccination of all healthcare workers at CMS-covered facilities throughout the United States. The CMS mandate is currently enjoined by court order in 25 states and continues in full effect in 25 other states. After the ruling by the Fifth Circuit in November, however, CMS suspended implementation and enforcement of the mandate pending resolution of the challenges before the Supreme Court.

Grow Employee Engagement with a Strong Investigation Process

Posted on by

In a tight labor market, employers are seeking to gain or retain a workforce with more pay, work for home and other perks. They can also improve retention through a culture of trust and consideration. Improve how you listen and investigate when someone on your team speaks up about compliance. If you investigate with urgency and respond, then you’ll gain trust and build employee engagement.

Here is an anecdotal case, from the perspective of the business: An anonymous report comes in from a small foreign office, that says “It seems like there is something going on between the marketing lead and a partner. I suspect they are wasting marketing funds.” The seriousness of the issue is not entirely clear—maybe the person reporting the issue is questioning the quality of the marketing campaigns. It is a challenge to reach people overseas.  Some initial questions are asked, but the case sits for months before anyone starts reviewing the matter closely. 

After almost a dozen interviews, no one reveals anything useful. The answer has to be found by sifting through years of email. The investigation ultimately uncovers how the company is being taken advantage of. It is shocking how so many people in the office know the marketing lead is stealing company funds, but said nothing. 

After the late start, combined with actual wrong-doing that is festering, the person who reported the wrongdoing and the rest of the office have stopped caring. The business is left with a problem infecting the whole office, instead of having to deal with only one or two bad actors.

Compliance is a Retention Issue

A compliance report may raise questions about potentially uncomfortable topics: harassment, fraud, conflicts of interest or any number of issues highlighted in a typical code of conduct. When a report is substantiated, someone might be disciplined or fired—thus, colleagues may view the person who reported the issue as disloyal to the team. Those who come forward may also fear that their company may not care about the reported issue or try to cover it up, and maybe even retaliate against them.

With the risks reporting presents, it is likely to be the most engaged, loyal employees who report, so you risk losing your best if you fail to listen. This happens when you leave reported issues unaddressed, where you fail to rectify a substantiated report or when you let a report languish unresolved. But if you follow up and respond quickly, you will win trust. When a talented employee feels listened to, they will have higher morale, trust the boss more and be more committed.

Improving Investigations

Listening to a compliance reporter is about taking the issue seriously and expediciously running it to ground. The foreign office scenario above would have gone better had the investigators seen through the vagueness of the report to the potential seriousness of the underlying misconduct and then doggedly pursued a resolution from the start. With those in the office uncooperative in interviews, having access to past email made it possible for the investigation team to close the case.  

Here are five tips to improve and speed up how you investigate:

  1. Have a process: Implement a disciplined approach for following the routine steps in a compliance investigation—assessing the initial report; developing an investigation plan; finding, verifying and analyzing to formulate a decision; and resolving with discipline, prevention, and training.
  2. Be selective when choosing your investigators: Staff your investigative team with individuals who are not wired to let cases sit. Provide them investigation training and consider augmenting with outsourced external investigators if an issue is large or complex.
  3. Define objectives: Set a clear objective for the investigation at the outset to keep investigators on track. The investigation can move on when they have obtained sufficient facts about the objective—finding that “smoking gun” email, for example. When you learn something new that needs further review, flag it for later but do not let it interfere with your first objective.
  4. Use technology: Give your investigators direct access to the data. It is frustrating for an investigator to receive a report and then have to wait for IT to provide the relevant emails or other data, then wait for IT to provide additional materials when the investigator learnes something new. The team’s investigation times accelerate when it has direct access to email and other communications through archiving platforms and other technology.
  5. Track timing: The time to complete an investigation is dependent on the circumstances. The investigation team should set period of time to resolve the investigation when a compliance issue arises.

A business builds a strong culture when it supports those who speak up. Having a strong investigative team, defining objectives, using technology and being aware of completion timing will allow you to quickly learn what is going on. You will also demonstrate that you are not using a haphazard approach.  This will give your employees more confidence in your company and encourage them to stay around.

Tornadoes Devastate Midwest and Southern States

Posted on by

Last week, a series of tornadoes ripped across the Midwest and Southern United States, killing dozens and crippling infrastructure in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee. While Karen Clark & Company has estimated that the insured loss from the tornado outbreak will be about $3 billion, and credit rating agency Fitch predicted that losses would total $5 billion, Dr. Joel N. Myers, AccuWeather founder and CEO, estimated that the tornadoes are expected to cost about $18 billion in total damage and economic loss. Mark Friedlander, director of corporate communications at The Insurance Information Institute, said, “Based on preliminary assessments of the extensive property damage we are seeing across multiple states, this weekend’s tornado outbreak has the potential to be the costliest on record in the U.S.”

As of Monday, 88 deaths across the region had been confirmed, but over 100 people are also missing, which means the death count may be higher. The cyclones killed more than 70 people in Kentucky, the hardest-hit state, leaving thousands homeless and knocking out power for more than 25,000 in the western region of the state. Additionally, 10,000 Kentucky homes and businesses reported being without water, and another 17,000 were under boil-water advisories, according to the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management.

Across the entire affected region, 750,000 customers were left without electricity. These outages have complicated search and rescue efforts, as rescue workers excavated destroyed buildings, searching for people who are still missing. In Mayfield, Kentucky, for example, the city’s main fire station and multiple police stations were inoperable, and the city was scrambling to find new ways to field emergency calls.

Also in Mayfield, at least eight people died at a Mayfield Consumer Products scented candle factory after workers reportedly pleaded with supervisors to let them leave the building after warning sirens sounded and an initial twister had passed with little damage, only to be threatened with firing if they did not continue working. Over 100 workers were trapped inside the building after the next tornado leveled it. Several survivors have already filed a lawsuit against the company, citing “flagrant indifference” to worker safety, and that the company “knew or should have known about the expected tornado and the danger of serious bodily injuries and death to its employees if its employees were required to remain at its place of business during the pendency of the expected tornado.”

Another tornado struck an Amazon warehouse in Edwardsville, Illinois, killing six people and injuring another. Amazon claims that it took all necessary precautions, but family members of victims have alleged that the company prioritized productivity over worker safety by not heeding tornado warnings and not adequately preparing employees for emergency weather safety responses. Amazon pledged to help workers and their families affected by the tragedy by donating $1 million to the Edwardsville Community Foundation, a charitable trust that benefits regional communities. OSHA is reportedly investigating the Amazon warehouse, and Kentucky state regulators are investigating the Mayfield Consumer Products event.

While an Amazon spokesperson noted that the company’s warehouse was up to code, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker also promised an investigation into whether building codes needed to be updated, “given serious change in climate that we are seeing across the country.” Scientists say that climate change may have changed normal weather patterns and led to these tornadoes’ increased intensity and reach, with record warm temperatures across the region potentially exacerbating the disaster.

Businesses and risk professionals should prepare now for more frequent and intense weather events. The following recent Risk Management articles may help:

RIMS ERM Conference 2021: A Case-Study Approach to “Solve Any DEI Issue in One Hour”

Posted on by

At today’s RIMS ERM Conference 2021, a hybrid event with in-person experiences in New York City and virtual content online, many of the presenters focused on the intersection of ERM (enterprise risk management) with other mission-critical three-letter topics, including ESG (environmental, social and governance) and DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).

In one of the afternoon’s sessions, “Identify and Solve Any Organizational DEI Issue In One Hour,” presenter Layne Kertamus, professional in residence of risk management and insurance at Utah Valley University, explored “new ways to talk about what needs to be said, and what needs to be listened to.”

“Most organizations that I’m aware of have moved past the idea that they have to do something on [DEI] issues for our stakeholders—it has moved on to ‘We cannot afford to not have some real results in these arenas’ and that should be motivation enough, if we needed any motivation,” Kertamus said. “The issue will not go away and it will evolve. Hopefully we can find a way to make this not just a prompt for change, but a real asset.”

Kertamus noted the particular challenges of the “frozen middle” in implementing meaningful DEI initiatives. Middle management feels pressure from both above and below to take DEI action, and “may react to hearing these goals with concern or dread—for example, thinking ‘My status and opportunities may now be more limited than they were before.’”

With the “why” and other background largely established, Kertamus focused the session on one approach to the “how” of DEI-related change. While many DEI discussions start with general open forums and reminders about being respectful and open, he noted that some of these approaches may lead to inauthentic or surface-level outcomes. To really get into an authentic plan that gains acceptance, Kertamus said, “sometimes we need to create environments where we can talk the way we need to talk.”

He proposed that organizations adopt a case study method to facilitate some of these discussions, outlining the “one hour” from his session’s title:

  • With this method, a “case presenter” brings their concern, challenge or passion to present a large-scale DEI-related issue in the workplace that impacts other stakeholders. A facilitator should be selected and need not be an expert, but must bring an open mind and a willingness to enforce time limits. A group of “peer consultants” is then gathered from across the company, perhaps at different levels or in different departments.
    online pharmacy lexapro with best prices today in the USA

  • First, the group listens to a five minute presentation from the case presenter, and then spends 10 minutes asking fact-based questions directed through the facilitator.
    online pharmacy flomax with best prices today in the USA

    It is critical that the questions are directed and perhaps even pointed, but be focused on facts and not opinions or defenses.
    online pharmacy cozaar with best prices today in the USA

  • The largest segment of the process is a group diagnostic session, spending 20 minutes examining what, if anything, the presenter may have left out, may have ignored as a result of their own lived experience, or other gaps in the issue. It is critical not to jump to solutions in this phase—you may get “answers,” but the purpose here is true diagnosis.
  • The next 10 minutes should be spent on group action brainstorming, brainstorming solutions for the presenter, embracing all perspectives and bringing personal experience, values, and insight to the table. “Be willing to give the presenter bad news, if necessary,” Kertamus urged. For example, you may need to acknowledge that there is no solution, or that they missed a strategic opportunity along the way. The presenter should remain quiet and listen during this step.
  • Next, the presenter gets 10 minutes to respond to the discussion, speaking candidly and asking questions after listening to the group’s brainstorming session. “This can be a defensive time, they may feel beat up, but it can also be an opportunity for real connection, understanding, and for making agreements and commitments moving forward,” he said.
  • If agreements are made, one question is critical before adjourning: “When will you move forward using action steps recommended today?” This can be a critical moment in advancing concrete plans and changes in attitude or approach to DEI in the workplace.

While this approach can be used with a wide range of issues as the focus “case,” Kertamus noted it is particularly useful with “problems where someone cannot just use their authority to impose a change or solution,” for example, a leader who has tried to implement changes and build equity and inclusion as values in a department but keeps meeting resistance. “This is really for instances where you accept the mission of the organization and want to make it real or palpable, but cannot just impose it, you need to open other dialogues,” he said.

If you are not attending the RIMS ERM Conference 2021 live this week, “Identify and Solve Any Organizational DEI Issue In One Hour” and other sessions from the event will be available to stream online during the event or later on-demand.