|
|
INDEX |
|
|
|
Employees have long been told that they should watch what they write on social networking sites, just in case their employer or potential employer is reading it. However, a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board shows that employers should be equally cautious about what they do after reading work-related posts on a site like Facebook. Last month, an NLRB administrative judge reinstated five workers fired by a New York state non-profit for postings made on Facebook from their personal computers while they were off the clock. The workers were also awarded back pay. The five workers were responding to supposed comments from a fellow worker about their job performance. The comments quickly grew heated and profanity filled. Soon thereafter, the five employees were fired for making the comments. The judge used a law
meant to protect employees' ability to unionize in making the ruling. He
ruled that the employees were protected under the National Labor Relations
Act because they were acting together to defend themselves against
allegations that their job performance was lacking. This decision came despite the fact that the original complaint had not been
brought to management, nor did it matter that the employees were not bringing
their case to management directly. “Employees have a protected
right to discuss matters affecting their employment amongst
themselves,” the judge wrote in his decision. “Explicit or
implicit criticism by a co-worker of the manner in which they are performing
their jobs is a subject about which employee discussion is protected. . .
.” Also key to the decision was that the comments were made on the
employees' own time. This decision should give
employers pause before taking disciplinary action against employees who
complain about work, whether in person or on social networking sites. This is
especially true when the complaints are about work performance or working
conditions. Remember that if there is any doubt about the legality of firing
or disciplining an employee, you should consult with a qualified legal
professional. In addition, if you have any questions about your insurance
protection should you be sued, be sure to contact your insurance
representative.
On-the-job exercise might seem like a perk that would benefit
employees but cost the employer money. However, a recent article published in
the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine shows that taking time
during the work week for employee exercise might actually improve a company's
bottom line. The article details a study where a group of employees was split into
three groups. One group was enrolled in a mandatory exercise program for 2.5
hours a week on company time. The second group was simply given 2.5 hours
off. The third group remained on their normal work schedule. The study showed that those employees assigned to the exercise program
reported significantly increased productivity and missed fewer days of work
due to illnesses. The study's authors suggest that the loss in time from work
to accommodate the exercise program was more than made up through an increase
in productivity while the employees were working and through the fact that
they missed fewer days. “Work hours may be used for health promotion activities with
sustained or improved production levels, since the same, or higher,
production level can be achieved with lesser resources,” the study's
authors concluded. This finding fits into a larger body of research that shows that
employees who are fit and happy do a better job than their unhealthy and
unhappy co-workers. For example, a recent study contained in the book
“The Progress Principle” looked at 12,000 daily diaries kept by
workers over the course of a decade. These diaries showed that happy, engaged
employees were far more likely to have new ideas and be more productive. The
bottom line for managers and business owners is that there is a growing
consensus that one of the best ways to improve the output of employees is
through improved employee morale and health.
Talk of bed bug infestation seems to be all over the news these days. In large cities all over America bed bugs are turning up in numbers unseen in decades. And it's not just homes: some businesses have had to close their doors because bed bugs have turned up. The bed bug problem is not just a media invention. The National Pest Management Association reports that its member pest control companies that once received one or two bed bug calls in a year are getting one or two every week. The sudden increase in bed bug infestations has been blamed on a number of factors, including the decrease in the use of chemical pesticides like DDT and the increase in international travel. And while homes are the most likely place to find bed bugs, businesses are not immune. Hotels are most at risk, for obvious reasons. But the bugs have been found in retail establishments, theaters and a variety of other businesses. The reason bed bugs turn up in so many places is that they are so hardy. They can go about a year between feedings and have an uncanny ability to hide. The danger for businesses is mostly reputational. A company that is known for having bed bugs will have a hard time attracting customers who are afraid of taking bed bugs home with them. Reputation isn't the only cost. There can be a loss of productivity during the removal of the bugs. And getting rid of the bugs is not cheap - pest control costs can run into the thousands of dollars. About the only thing business owners can do is stay vigilant. Investigate any reports of bugs or bug bites and inspect areas that might be home to the bugs. If any bugs are spotted, call a pest control company. The cost of dealing with an infestation is unlikely to be covered by commercial insurance. Most policies do not cover the cost of pest removal. But you should check with your insurance representative if you are unsure or have any questions.
After the 5.8 magnitude quake that struck the East Coast in August, many non-Californians are asking themselves: Do I need earthquake insurance? The answer to that question is, well, maybe. The first thing to understand is that damage from an earthquake is not covered by standard business or homeowners policies. Anyone wanting protection from an earthquake is required to buy separate coverage. And because of the potentially catastrophic nature of the damage that an earthquake can do to a business or home, it is something everyone should at least consider. For those who live in California, the decision is pretty straight forward: There is a substantial likelihood that a major earthquake will hit at some point and prudence requires earthquake coverage – especially if you live near the coastal faults that run down the state. The decision is similar for many who live along the West Coast as there are major fault lines that run through Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. In fact, the state at most risk for a major earthquake is not California, but Alaska. But, as the recent quake shows, not all earthquakes happen out west. The United States Geological Survey warns that earthquakes pose a “significant risk” to 75 million Americans in 39 states. And while the majority of urban areas at significant risk are in western states, the USGS warns that areas such as New York, Boston, Memphis and Charleston are also at an elevated risk of damage from an earthquake. “Although earthquakes occur less frequently in the Eastern United States, studies show that urban areas in the East could face devastating losses because severe shaking would affect a larger area than a similar earthquake in the Western United States,” the USGS warns. “Also, most structures in the Eastern United States are not designed to resist earthquakes.” So, those who live in the Midwest or East should, at the
very least, look at the risk of earthquake in their location and weigh that
against the risk of not carrying earthquake coverage. Your insurance
representative can help you with this and any questions about the coverage
should also be directed toward them
While wildfires seem to get larger and more destructive every year, a new
report from the National Fire Protection Association shows that over the last
three decades the number of fires – and the damage and injuries caused
by them – has decreased dramatically. In 1977, there were 3.26 million fires in the United States but by
2010 that number stood at 1.33 million. “We have made tremendous
progress in reducing the fire problem in the United States since we began
looking at these numbers in the late 70’s,” said Lorraine Carli, vice president of communications for NFPA. The number of injuries has dropped along with the decrease in total
fires over the decades, although the number of deaths per 1,000 fires has
remained relatively flat. Not all the data is positive, however. Since 1977,
the amount of property damage per structure fire has increased almost 50
percent when adjusted for inflation. But the damage figures for 2010 do show
a reversal of this long-term trend. In 2010, fires caused $11.5 billion in
damage, a decrease of 7.5 percent from the previous year.
Many victims of Hurricane Irene are discovering the same horrible thing many hurricane victims find out soon after their homes or businesses are hit by a violent storm: their insurance doesn't cover the damage. This is because many people focus on the wind speeds of hurricanes but fail to recognize that most of the damage caused by the storms comes from water, something that isn't covered by standard property policies. Standard property coverage protects businesses and homeowners from an assortment of dangers, including wind and fire damage. However, flood damage is specifically excluded from these policies. Instead, you must purchase a separate policy that independently covers water damage. Hurricane Irene showed why having this extra coverage is essential. The storm plowed up the East Coast and left billions of dollars in damage from the wind – but experts say most of the damage was caused by flooding. For example, almost all of the damage to hard-hit areas of Vermont was caused by flooding. In many flood-prone places in America, the National Flood Insurance
Program is the only way to get flood insurance. Check with your insurance
representative if you have any questions.
Employers
will soon be forced to post notices of employees' right to unionize. The new
rule requires that employers tell employees that they “have the right
to act together to improve wages and working conditions, to form, join and
assist a union, to bargain collectively with their employer, and to refrain
from any of these activities,” according to the National Labor
Relations Board. The rule is set to go into effect on November 14, 2011.
However, the rule is already being challenged by business groups. The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce has sued to stop implementation of the rule saying it
violates the First Amendment and federal law.
A
Halloween prank gone horribly wrong may end up costing one high school
$100,000. According to the Taunton Daily Gazette, last year a teacher burst
into a classroom wearing a mask and carrying what appeared to be a chainsaw.
In the melee that followed, one student broke a bone and injured their knee
while running from the chainsaw wielding teacher. The child's lawyer said the
chainsaw appeared to be running during the incident. The student is suing the
school for $100,000 in damages.
The National Transportation
Safety Board has recommended that the use of cell phones be banned by all
commercial drivers. The recommendation stems from a crash last year that
killed 11 people. In that accident, the driver of an 18-wheel semi truck crossed a highway median and collided with a
van carrying more than a dozen people. Phone records indicate that the driver
was making a phone call at the time of the crash. “Distracted driving
is becoming increasingly prevalent, exacerbating the danger we encounter
daily on our roadways,” said NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman. “It can be especially lethal when the
distracted driver is at the wheel of a vehicle that weighs 40 tons and
travels at highway speeds.”
|
|
|