Read and answer the question at the end of each Discussion, IN YOUR OWN WORDS. There are 2 short Discussion Topics When answering the questions, answer them within the the paragraphs. DO NOT just answ
Discussion Forum 1
I thought it might be very interesting for us to share our experiences with the current COVID work environment. Please consider this question prompt as a beginning. You are welcome to add any other relevant details about your experiences.
Before COVID-19, the ability to work from home was considered a critical employee perk. However, many HR consultants believe that this one-time benefit will become more of an entitlement as we move forward. In any case, the increasing COVID-19 rates indicate that the large number of employees working from home will extend into the late summer and fall. Given the altered work structures, employers are looking to maintain employee engagement and high productivity levels for employees working virtually.
There is no doubt that the large number of employees working from home has altered company cultures and work environments. However, essential employees may have experienced a much more limited impact. Please share your experiences with the following (If you are not currently working, share the experiences of a spouse, parent or friend):
· Workplace Formality (dress standard, work space): Has the formality and/or tone of your work environment changed?
· Virtual Connections between Employees (particularly informal): Is your company taking any steps to maintain connections between virtual employees and/or essential employees who are working to maintain social distancing requirements?
· Zoom (virtual meeting) fatigue: Are virtual employees suffering from virtual meeting fatigue? How are meetings for essential employees addressed?
· Maintaining employee wellness (physical and mental): Has your employer taking any steps to maintain employee physical or mental health during the pandemic?
Discussion Forum 2 - Political Discussions at Work
A picture in an employee’s cubicle reads “Black Lives Matter.” A different employee sees the photo and reports it to HR. After making the report, the second employee places a printout on his desk that reads “All Lives Matter.” This type of potential conflict is not unusual and human resource managers are struggling to maintain civility and decorum in an increasingly acrimonious society.
According to the latest research conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), 26% of Americans discuss politics in the workplace for at least 15 minutes each work week (Milligan, 2020). An October 2019 SHRM poll reports that 42% of employee have had a political disagreement at work, and 12% have experienced partiality based on political affiliation (Milligan, 2020). Managing the civility of this environment and related discussions is a challenge for HR managers who seek to avoid adverse employee experiences for those involved.
The polarization of the current U.S. political environment has slipped into the workplace, and the division has moved past support for political candidates and into the questioning of others’ civility and value systems. In addition to the potential employee discord, controversies over political issues have impacted businesses through threatened and actual boycotts.
Let’s discuss how an HR professional might navigate these issues and avoid a toxic workplace.
Three relevant points before we get started: First, unless you are discussing a government employer, the First Amendment probably does not apply. The First Amendment only prohibits the government from restricting free speech. Private employers have the right to set rules about acceptable speech, and a private employee essentially cannot bring a First Amendment claim against an employer.
Second, a written employment policy on point is unlikely to be available. A study conducted by the Illinois Technology Association found that 79% of the responding companies did not have a general policy that addressed political discussions in the workplace (Milligan, 2020).
Third, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) allows employees of private employers to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid" (Milligan, 2020). This means that employees cannot be terminated for discussing wages, hours, or working conditions. In addition, many states have laws that prohibit employers from coercing/influencing/discriminating against employees based on political or voting activities.
Milligan, S. (2020, Feb. 26). How should HR handle political discussions at work? HR Magazine.
POST ONE PROMPT:
How should an HR professional navigate political topics in the workplace to avoid toxic work environments? (Consider both formal politics and informal actions.)
POST TWO PROMPT:
Respond to one of the following situations or comment on a response previously posted by a classmate. These are actual situations HR professionals have addressed. What are your constructive suggestions? Share how you would address the issue or substantively discuss the recommendation provided by a classmate.
Option A: An employee wears a “Ridin’ with Biden” campaign button in the office of a private employer, and a co-worker asks her to remove it because she thinks political beliefs should be kept out of the workplace. The company does not have a written policy addressing political discussion in the workplace.
Option B: An employee hangs a National Rifle Association sticker in his cubicle in support of Second Amendment gun rights. One morning, he arrives at work (private employer) and the sticker is gone. He believes it has been stolen by a “snowflake.” The company does not have a written policy addressing political activities in the workplace.
Option C: An employee driving home from work sees a group of peaceful demonstrators protesting the deportation of immigrants and recognizes a colleague in the group. The next day, she tells several co-workers what/who she saw, which prompts the protester to complain to Human Resources. The company has no applicable written human resource policies.
Answers of less than 100 words per post are highly unlikely to receive full credit for quality.
Please keep in mind that your own political opinions are not a part of this discussion. The issue is how these types of situations should be handled to minimize HR-related concerns.
Discussion Forum 3 - EEOC Guidance During COVID 19
While addressing the coronavirus, employers must remain complaint with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. The statutes themselves are not new, but the current pandemic requires the application of law to new areas. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued guidance in several areas - including the six examples provided below:
A: COVID Symptoms
Employers covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may ask employees if they are experiencing symptoms of the pandemic virus including fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ADA.
B: Temperature Checks
Pre-pandemic, employers could only take employees’ temperatures (a type of medical examination) when job-related and consistent with business necessity. Because the CDC and state/local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19, employers may now employees' body temperature.
C: COVID-19 Viral Test
The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Given the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Thus, an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before they enter the workplace to determine if they have the virus.
D: COVID-19 Antibody Test
A COVID-19 antibody test constitutes a medical examination under the ADA. At this time, an antibody test does not meet the ADA’s “job related and consistent with business necessity” criteria for medical examinations of current employees. Thus, antibody test results should not be used to make any decisions regarding the return on employees to the workplace. Essentially, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA. Note: an antibody test is different from a COVID-19 virtual diagnostic test to determine if someone has an active case of COVID-19.
E: Family Member Disability
The ADA does not require that an employer accommodate an employee without a disability based on the disability-related needs of a family member or other person with whom she is associated. Essentially, an employee without a disability is not entitled under the ADA to telework as an accommodation in order to protect a family member with a disability from potential COVID-19 exposure. However, an employer is free to provide such flexibility if it chooses to do so.
F: Age Discrimination
With regard to issues of age discrimination, employers can not treat workers age 65 and older less favorably than other employees, even if their efforts are intended to protect employees who are at a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Employers can, however, provide additional flexibility to employees who are 65 years of age and older, "even if it results in younger workers ages 40-64 being treated less favorably based on age in comparison."
Post One Prompt:
Select one area of EEOC guidance and analyze the potential benefits and problems associated with the EEOC guidance. What other considerations should employers think through when addressing your chosen area? What unanticipated problems could arise? Are there any other steps employers should take to assist in your chosen area? Are there any practical concerns that employers will need to address?
Post Two Prompt:
Review one of the posts provided by a classmate (different than the one you selected for post one, i.e. pick a different issue). Are there any other considerations your classmate might incorporate into the response? In your opinion, should the laws under consideration in this area be suspended or altered during the pandemic? Why or why not? As an employer, would you have any realistic concerns with compliance with the anti-discrimination laws in this area during a pandemic? Why or why not?
(Note: Contributions less than 100 words are unlikely to meet quality requirements.)
Discussion 4 - Performance Appraisal at American Energy Development
(Case Study Information)
Background: American Energy Development (AED) drills for oil using both vertical and horizontal (“fracking”) drilling procedures. The founder of AED, Ron Robertson, recently passed away. His son John Robertson took over as CEO in 2019 and is steering a much more aggressive land acquisition strategy (for drilling wells) than was advocated by his father. Two hundred million dollars was raised last year to purchase land in Texas. Indeed, much of the operation is shifting to Texas and away from Pennsylvania because of the more lenient environmental laws governing fracking. Sixteen months ago, six new employees were hired to help kick start the Texas operation. John Robertson also relocated to DFW as a sign of his commitment to this new facility. Don Welch, Chief Operating Office and President, remains behind in Buffalo to run that operation.
Present: John Roberson is a transplant from the aggressive, fast-moving trench of Wall Street whereas a broker he was weaned on tough performance appraisals and an incentive system that richly rewarded success stories and quickly discarded poor performers. He wants to install a culture exactly like that in the DFW office. When he hired the six new key employees sixteen months ago, part of his early discussions with them was failure would not be accepted. No one was entitled to a job and it must be earned each day. Of the new six employees, two stand out for different reasons.
Billy Ray Jenson: Billy Ray is a petroleum engineer with 30 years’ experience after graduating from the University of Texas Petroleum Engineering program. He was hired in as a senior engineer at a base wage of $216,000, a figure that matched the market rate. Market rate is a difficult figure to determine in Texas these days. Over 100,000 employees have been terminated in one of the worst downturns in the gas and oil economy in recent decades. Billy Ray is very grateful to get a job with a very competitive salary. He is also eligible for a 3% bonus on any wells that “hit” if he was the engineer of record for that field. As per agreement with John Robertson, Billy Ray will get his first full performance review in two weeks.
Elizabeth Andrews: Elizabeth is also a petroleum engineer. She has 14 years’ experience and is paid $165,000 with the same bonus arrangement as other petroleum engineers. Elizabeth is very bright and brimming over with initiative. She has made several suggestions for drilling procedures using a holographic technology that has cut down on the number of dry wells by 11%.
The Performance Appraisal System: John Robertson told the new employees when they were hired that they would be evaluated by him based on his perceptions of their performance. About one year ago he provided a performance appraisal form that had four performance dimensions rated on a five point scale. He also communicated base pay increases that would be associated with each rating. The factors and merit increases are as follows:
Performance Dimensions: Teamwork, Productivity, Quality, Hard Working
Performance Scale: Very Good (5), Good (4), Average (3), Not Good (2), Bad (1)
Teamwork: Someone who works well with fellow team players and values their efforts and contributions as much as his/her own
Productivity: Amount of assigned work completed in an agreed upon time frame
Quality: Elimination of errors and absence of complaints
Hard Working: Shows up on time and works more hours than expected
John Robertson’s Concerns: John Robertson purposely chose general performance dimensions because he believes the oil business is fast changing and demands people who are willing to work with a great deal of ambiguity. He doesn’t want to be tied down to specific performance dimensions that employees can then use of “lawyer up” on him if they believe they didn’t get a fair shake. Most of his employees he gave average or good ratings. Two employees though are causing him some problems. He likes to link ratings to performance. He’s including to give Billy Ray Jenson a very good rating because this would be associated with an 8% increase. John is reluctant to give Billy Ray this large an increase because he feels he overpaid the Petroleum Engineer on the initial salary. He can’t rate Billy Ray Very Good and only give him a 3% increase since the merit pay guide is known to all employees. John has decided, therefore, to only rate Billy Ray Average. Billy Ray was great on the teamwork and hardworking dimensions. No question. So, John has decided he’ll downgrade Billy Ray on productivity and quality. Billy Ray has some promising wells that look like they might deliver, and he is right on target with the number of wells sunk in a one-year timeframe. But none of the wells have produced yet. John figures he can rate Billy Ray lower on that. John also has decided to rate Billy Ray lower on quality. They aren’t any hard and fast measures of quality, so John can justify whatever he wants to get an overall rating of average.
John has a different issue with Elizabeth Andrews. She is hard driving and aggressive. She shows great initiative, but he has had many complaints from other engineers that she isn’t a team player. They ask for her help using her holographic technology, claiming it will help them decided whether a well is worth pursuing. For the most part she turns these request down, claiming that she is too busy exploring her own wells. She suggests that the others take the same online class at UT Callas and this will guide them in use of holographic technology. On other dimensions Elizabeth is quite good. She works as hard as Billy Ray, has two wells that are producing already, far better than the industry standards for one year, and there have been no quality problems that he knows of. John is inclined to give Elizabeth an average rating because of complaints from other workers. The guys just don’t think she is a team player.
John’s Action John gives both workers an average rating. In the performance review Billy Ray takes the news and feedback stoically. However, six days later he tenders his letter of resignation, effective in one week.
Elizabeth is far more confrontational. She maintains that she was indeed a good team player, and that others were taking advantage of her so much that she didn’t have time to do her own job. She asserts that she took an online course on her own time and at her own initiative, so why couldn’t others do that too. Plus, she says, in response to his rating of her on the quantity dimension, she has two producing wells in only one years’ time. That is a phenomenal record, she maintains and certainly better than any of the other Petro Engineers John hired for the new office. This statement is accurate. Elizabeth says nothing else during the meeting but leaves the office unhappy, perhaps unhappy enough to do something about it.
Contribution 1 Question Prompt:
What problems do you see in the performance appraisal system and accompanying merit pay system? Did any of these problems contribute to the people problems John had with his two employees in the performance review process? What might John have done differently in the early communications process to improve later performance review sessions?
Contribution 2 Question Prompt:
Review the suggestions provided by another student. Do you think that the answers should or could be different in the current pandemic environment? How do you anticipate that the large numbers of employees working from home will alter the upcoming performance review cycle?
