FMLA Screaming (Part II)

Have you pondered the question from yesterday’s post?  Agree with me that there are things you can do and things you should do?  That should do includes approaching FMLA with come compassion and not being super strict with FMLA’s limitations, right?

Yesterday’s post covered some of my tips for the start of FMLA.  Here are a few more for during leave.

Preparation for leave is essential.  Hopefully, the employee knew he needed to go on leave and was able to prepare by giving his manager his passwords, updating her on the status of projects, and plan to turn over work.  Sometimes, this isn’t the case.  An accident, premature delivery, or quick onset of a serious illness can take the employee out of the workplace leaving a manager without the benefit of the advanced notice.  What do you do in these emergency situations?  Leave the employee alone.  The employee is already ill or injured himself, worried about a family member, or facing the crushing reality of being a parent to a new baby.  The status of the sales agreement with customer XYZ is not top of mind.

Let technology help you with not knowing what’s going on.  Get access to email and other systems to help piece together the status of projects without bothering the employee.  Need a password?  Work with the software vendor or your own IT team to recover a password if necessary.  Change permissions so the manager or another team member can see things.  Again, don’t bother the employee.

If the leave is intermittent and the employee’s need for leave could come as a surprise on any given day, plan for what that looks like.  How will the employee handle the sudden need to be off?  Come to an agreement with the employee about his work when this happens.  Does this mean the employee spends the last 10 minutes of each day sending a quick email on the status of things?  Maybe.  (Would that be a nice thing to have anyway even if he didn’t need leave?  Yep!)  Setting expectations is a manager’s job.  If the manager laments every time Juan takes an intermittent day, well then it’s the manager’s problem for not preparing for this – not Juan’s.  (I know, I know, this isn’t a great one-liner to share with the manager, but you all are good coaches, you’ll soften the message.)

Don’t surveil the employee.  Seriously.  Don’t send someone out to watch the employee’s house to see if he is cleaning his gutters or fixing a deck.  Don’t monitor his social media accounts for signs of a vacation.  Assume the employee needed the leave and is using the leave within his or his family member’s health care provider’s instructions.  If something fishy starts happening, you’ll learn about it.  Don’t waste your time and resources beforehand.

When the employee is ready to come back to work, don’t forget the ADA.  Yes, the ADA can be an even bigger headache for employers.  Yes, the Seventh Circuit recently held employers might not have to give more leave than the FMLA requires.  However, the ADA places a reasonableness standard on employers.  Employers are required to consider reasonable accommodations, including leave, for each requesting employee on a case-by-case basis.  Don’t get consumed with “well if we give it to Larry, we’ll have to give it to everyone else.”  Remember, the ADA requires case-by-case analysis.  For more return-to-work tips, check here.

Lastly, remember that communication is really important at the end of leave.  You may want to know if any restrictions are necessary.  You may want more confirmation as to what day.  For requests like these, remember K8’s rule of three.  Ask at least three times in writing before you assume the employee is abandoning his job.

I get that the FMLA is tough.  I get that it can be frustrating for HR and managers.  However, it can be a godsend for employees.  It’s supposed to give them peace of mind that their job will wait for them if they need to be out for a bit.  Use this fact as a part of your compassion and empathy game. The employee will thank you for it.

 

 

Photo by frank mckenna on Unsplash (Great, happy picture, right?  Perfect for a Friday!)

HR Tech’s Adverse Problem

While I totally loitered at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Conference (I was a presenter, just failed to register – oops), I’d thought a post on what we talked about yesterday and a bit about what’s happening at the University of Minnesota’s HR Tomorrow Conference today: adverse impact, why it’s important, and why you should care.

Adverse impact (known as “disparate impact” by the lawyers) is when groups of individuals described by a particular characteristic is negatively affected by an employer’s decision, selection tool, or policy when that decision, tool, or policy is neutral on its face or does not intend to actually have a negative impact.  For example, if an employer uses a psychological test that filters out African Americans, the test would have an adverse/disparate impact on African Americans.

The concept of disparate impact has been around for a long time.  The United States Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power formally recognized the claim.  Since that time, the law has been debating many aspects of the claim, including what statistical models to use, does the doctrine apply if the rule intends to discriminate, how does impact different from treatment, and will the doctrine apply to all the HR technology out there.  While this post could go on-and-on about all of these questions, this last piece is really important for HR tech buyers, and the answer is probably.

We already know that lots of HR technology vendors, including the fancy-dancy stuff like artificial intelligence, machine learning, algorithms, etc., market their products as the only way to find the best candidates, identify problem employees, and make all your dreams come true.  When these technologies are used, their use could create a disparate impact.  How do we know?  Because we’ve already seen how these technologies discriminate outside the world of HR – see photo ID that classifies African Americans as gorillas, recidivism tools that increase prison terms for African Americans, etc., so it is highly likely that they could operate the same way when it comes to HR tech.  Arguably, HR tech has the potential to greatly impact because the decisions HR makes affect individual’s livelihood.

So what should we do about diverse impact?  While there are many, many things we need to do to limit the potential that the HR tech we use doesn’t discriminate, we should start with two things.  First, we have to know how the technology works and the data it uses to make recommendations.  This requires vendors to be open and honest with us, lose the marketing gloss, and really explain their products. Can they explain how the tech works?  Can they explain how the tech works on our organization’s data?  Could the data have bias baked in?  (The answer to this last one is probably yes, especially if we’re looking at hiring or performance data.  There’s just no escaping it.)  When vendors are transparent and honest about these issues, we can take more steps to mitigate any disparate impact the tech might have.

Second, we need to test and test and test to see if the tech creates the disparate impact.  Lawyers and data scientists talk about validation as the test.  For lawyers, validation means under the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures.  For data scientists, validation means how strong the correlations are statistically.  This definitional problem causes more debate and potential confusion.  So, we need to find vendors who understand, appreciate, and can articulate validation under both tests.  Because the HR tech world is a bit like the wild, wild west, it’s hard to find them. (Trust me, they’re out there.  I’ve probably met them or at least brow-beat them from a distance on this very issue.)

All that said, I want HR to understand and appreciate that these issues could exist and start playing an active part in fixing these issues.  While I’d love for everyone to trust each other, placing blind faith in a vendor is not in our organizations’ best interest.  Holding people accountable is one of the strengths in HR.  We should use it here too.

One final note, I love this stuff.  This tech is going to revolutionize how we do business.  I just want to do it in such a way that doesn’t create that much risk for our businesses.  Remember my pledge?

 

Photo by Patrick Lindenberg on Unsplash