![]() Have a "bad apple" among your employees? Hope that things will improve on their own? Waiting to see if your performance management efforts will lead to the results you want? Feel sorry for the individual, who may have a difficult personal life? Too busy to terminate them? Nervous about the reaction of your other employees? There may be several reasons why you are procrastinating, but ever wonder what keeping that "bad apple" in your organization is costing your organization? Here are some of the implications of not firing when you really should.
Next steps: Removing "bad apples" from your organization certainly has its benefits. But knowing you have an issue and actually going through the steps to revolve the problem including potential termination, are two entirely different things. Want to learn valuable tips and best practices? Join Clear Path for our "Hiring and Firing Effectively" learning session on September 25th. Click here to learn more or to register. Related posts you may enjoy: We'd love to connect with you!
0 Comments
![]() This week marks the 15th anniversary of cyclist Lance Armstrong's first of seven consecutive Tour de France titles (July 25, 1999). As most people know, he was stripped of all his titles and banned from the sport in 2012 for his involvement in a doping scandal. So what can a hiring manager learn from this unfortunate story? Lots, actually. I'm sure that the cycling world wishes it had done some more due diligence in checking out the validity of Armstrong's claims and not simply taken his word for it, regardless of how impressive his resume or how convincing his arguments. Steven D. Levitt, the coauthor of Freakonomics and an economics professor at the University of Chicago, cites research suggesting that more than 50% of job applicants lie on their resumes. Cover letters are notorious for embellishment and exaggeration. Seven tips to avoid making a bad hire: 1. Understand the most common resume misrepresentations (and be prepared to challenge them) during an interview:
2. Always, always, always perform reference checks for every hire:
3. Make good interviewing choices:
4. Ask the candidate to participate in a mock work requirement simulation or test them for proficiency in required skills:
5. Create a "Zero Tolerance" policy for lying or exaggerating on your credentials:
6. Perform an internet search on the candidate:
7. Weed out some potential "bad apples" by creating obstacles to overcome during the hiring process:
Bottom Line Hiring the right person for the position and your company is incredibly important. Using these steps can increase the likelihood of making a good choice. Would you like to learn more best practices for hiring employees? Attend our workshop "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th in Cambridge, ON. Click here to learn more. If you have any immediate questions, contact Anna at anna@clearpathemployer.com or call (519) 624-0800. Related posts: We'd love to connect with you!
![]() Terminating an employee is never a fun experience for anyone involved, the person being let go or the person delivering the news. However, a well-executed, carefully planned termination can avoid any serious disturbance in your workplace. In contrast, a poorly executed, "shoot from the hip" approach can lead to bigger problems for your organization. The HR consultants at Clear Path Employer Services have created this handy checklist for you or your managers to follow when preparing to terminate an employee. This blog does not get into whether or not a particular case should be terminated "for cause" or "not for cause," but rather gives general steps to ensure that when you decide the timing is right for a termination you have a step by step checklist to follow: Avoid drama and future lawsuits:
How to handle the conversation in considerate manner:
Practical tips:
Termination agreement:
Want to learn more? Clear Path is offering an informative learning session on "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th in Cambridge. Click here to learn more or to register. If you require immediate assistance with any HR issue, please contact Anna Aceto-Guerin at 519-624-0800 or by email at anna@clearpathemployer.com. Related posts:
We'd love to connect with you!
The process of interviewing candidates for a position in your company is one that few truly enjoy. It can be stressful and awkward for everyone involved. With the potential risk of breaching recent AODA legislation or Human Rights legislation, hiring managers may make errors unknowingly that could create bigger headaches for their company down the road. Here is a list of five mistakes to avoid when interviewing:
Have a question or want to share your tips for hiring effectively? Please share them in the Comments below. Need some help with implementing hiring best practices in your organization? Clear Path is hosting a learning session on "Hiring and Firing Effectively" on September 25th. Click here to learn more or to register. Related blog posts: We'd love to connect with you!
![]() Canada's aggressive new Anti-Spam legislation came into effect on July 1, 2014. A key component of the legislation is that the sender must receive consent (approval) in order to send someone a "Commercial Electronic Message." A CEM is defined as "any electronic message that encourages participation in a commercial activity, regardless of whether there is an expectation for profit." This blog is not a comprehensive review of the legislation or a list of everything your organization needs to do to comply. Instead, we will focus on the "people" aspects that impact HR professionals and business managers. Build awareness among your team members:
Some of the exceptions to the need for explicit consent:
Real world example:
What about Social Media posts?
What about recruiting new employees?
Want to learn more about establishing employee policies and procedures? You should attend Clear Path's upcoming "Setting the Rules of the Game: Creating an Effective Employee Policy Book" session. It is being held on November 6th and will cover a wide variety of topics, including CASL Compliance policies. Click here to learn more or to register. We'd love to connect with you!
Q: In his editorial titled “Ontario’s worker compensation system is under attack,” former WSIB chair Odoardo Di Santo stated that claim denials have increased 50% and benefit payments have been reduced by $631 million. The WSIB responded in a piece titled "Support for Ontario's injured workers is stronger than ever," declaring that the decrease is due to fewer workplace accidents and more effective Return-To-Work (RTW) strategies. What is your perspective? A: Clear Path has noticed a modest increase in initial entitlement denials over the past five years, but not a 50% increase. We have definitely noticed the WSIB's focus on RTW, which it has been aggressively promoting since the change from the former Labour Market Re-Entry (LMR) program to the current Work Reintegration (WR) program. If long-term wage benefits are down, perhaps it is due to the fact that the entire point of the WR program is to return workers to employment and to avoid long-term claims. Q: Mr. Di Santo suggests that the primary focus of the WSIB these days is cost containment and working to reduce its unfunded liability. He says this is being done by reducing benefits to injured workers without enough focus on the "revenue side" and believes employers should be paying more into the system. What are your thoughts? A: We take issue with Mr. Di Santo's claim that the WSIB has not been focused on increasing revenue from employers over the past five years. Here are some specific things that employers have had to manage:
Q. There is much controversy over a proposed WSIB policy that could impact the long-term benefits of an injured worker with a pre-existing condition. There are accusations that the WSIB is already implementing this policy "illegally." Have you noticed this? A: No, we have not seen implementation of this draft policy and would be curious to see the specific decisions they are pointing to. Typically a policy number needs to be quoted in a decision (or at least the language of the policy would be included). We have seen some cases where a NEL (Non-Economic Loss) award has been re-determined because medical has come to the file that indicates a pre-existing condition. I think this is fully valid. If the worker has a pre-existing condition, part of the permanent impairment (PI) can be attributable to that pre-existing condition and the costs to the employer should reflect this. One benefit of these decisions is that Clear Path has had some success obtaining SIEF cost relief in cases where the NEL was reduced due to the identification of a pre-existing condition, which is half the battle when requesting SIEF. Q: Can you help us understand a bit more about this proposed policy? A: The draft policy regarding pre-existing conditions seems very similar to the Aggravation Basis policy. Under the Aggravation policy, If an incident has aggravated a worker’s pre-existing condition, then the period of disability would be contained to the ACUTE period. If the recovery goes beyond the acute period, the WSIB would attempt to determine when the "normal" healing time for work related impairment typically have ended and then how much is attributable to the pre-existing condition. This draft policy states that "If the pre-existing condition is degenerative in nature and is impacting the worker’s ongoing level of impairment, then WSIB benefits continue until clinical evidence is presented that the worker is at the point he/she would have been if the workplace injury had not occurred." By identifying that a pre-existing condition may affect recovery the WSIB is essentially putting a marker in the sand, and then trying to determine the effect of that pre-existing condition or impairment on the recovery period. How long would that recovery have been without the pre-existing condition? You can’t just say that a worker would be at the same point whether they had a pre-existing condition or not, you are now acknowledging that the pre-existing has to impacted recovery. It looks like this will be a complicated policy to implement. You're getting into an area that is very "foggy." Typically many injured workers won't have the "baseline" medical evidence of where they were prior to the injury. The WSIB won't have a comparator of the worker’s status before the incident on which to base its decisions, they will have to rely a doctor's best guess. Q: What is Clear Path's perspective on changes at the WSIB? A: I believe that most employers we know would find the suggestion that the system is pro-employer as "laughable." Perhaps our perspective is biased, but we would suggest that over the past 10 years the system seems to be more worker friendly, not less. The employers' experience has often been frustrating, with little information being shared and little notice of big changes (that have a significant impact on employers and are implemented in a way that is punitive, such as reserve factors being changed at the last moment.) That being said, the WSIB has made some strides in becoming a more fair and modern organization:
Structural changes at the WSIB have been a mixed bag for employers. In the past, they used to have a dedicated case manager that likely understood your company and might come out and see your workplace or facility. Now there is a team approach with multiple people on your claims. It can be frustrating to explain the story over and over again. Ultimately, the WSIB continues to be an expensive and often confusing system for employers. The NEER program alone is excessively complicated and results in different results for small employers vs large ones. Q: Where can people learn more? A: We are always available to assist via phone if you have a questions about a claim or generally about WSIB. We also encourage anyone involved in WSIB claims management to participate in one of our upcoming learning sessions, which will increase your knowledge and give you practical strategies to deploy in your workplace. Sessions include:
Related blog posts: We'd love to connect with you!
Real-world proof that you should always be checking: Clear Path recently received a decision at an ARO Appeal resulting in 6 months of Loss of Earnings (LOE) benefits being denied on a client’s claim, in addition to 50% SIEF cost relief we had already acquired on the same claim. Checking the customer’s monthly cost statement, we discovered that the SIEF was applied correctly but that the LOE had not been removed. With a bit more investigation, we discovered from the WSIB Case manager that the Appeals decision from the ARO had not been referred to the implementation team. Someone at the WSIB had “dropped the ball” and without our follow-up this mistake may never have been found – which would have resulted in significant costs for the employer. Here are a few things to watch out for: 1. Ensure any SIEF cost relief has been applied properly.
2. Ensure that any LOE that has been denied is actually removed on your next statement.
3. Keep an eye on when a Non-Economic Loss (NEL) award is actually paid out.
4. Notice if costs for a claim allowed as a REO have gone onto a new claim in error.
5. Ensure old claims are not re-activated without you knowing.
6. Physiotherapist or other healthcare costs that continue when a claim is closed
Want to learn more? Come out to one of our upcoming NEER sessions to find out what to look for (offered in both Introductory and Advanced levels). If you can’t make a session, call one of our friendly consultants who will help you make sure that you are not missing any costs savings! We can be reached at (519) 624-0800. Related blog posts: We'd love to connect with you!
Ontario's Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (WSIB) has just released its "By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report" and it contains some interesting details. They have created distinct reports for Schedule 1 Employers (majority of employers) and Schedule 2 Employers (those that self-insure the provisions of benefits under the WSIA). Click here to download each report.
Most common...
Downward trend in workplace accidents:
Not all industries are created equal (when it comes to 2013 lost time claims):
Areas in the province with above average lost time claims (per 10,000 employed workers):
Benefit payments:
Biggest changes in payments by benefit category (2013 vs. 2009):
Fatalities:
We encourage you to take a deeper look at the "By The Numbers: 2013 WSIB Statistical Report" for yourself. If you have any questions about WSIB claims management or how to reduce your own claim-related costs, please contact Anna at anna@clearpathemployer.com or (519) 624-0800. Did you know that Clear Path offers a free, no-obligation review of your NEER Statement? Learn more here. Related blog posts: We'd love to connect with you!
![]() A war of words is brewing over changes at the WSIB and The Toronto Star seems to be the chosen battlefield. In recent weeks, the newspaper has covered a number of stories that are critical of changes in how the WSIB is treating injured workers and then opinion pieces by former WSIB chair Odoardo Di Santo and past president of the Ontario Federation of Labour Gordon Wilson. On July 4th, Kate Lamb, Chief of Corporate Services at WSIB, weighed in with a rebuttal. The most contentious issue appears to be the WSIB's proposed policy to look at a worker's pre-existing medical conditions when it comes to the amount paid out in pension and other long-term worker benefits. Here's a summary of what's being said:
He is disburbed by a trend towards a reduction in worker benefits since David Marshall took over the role in 2010, rather than a focus on increasing "the revenue side," including:
Di Santo also claims that David Marshall was granted the "unprecedented authority to change autocratically most WSIB policies without board approval." He is extremely critical of the "infamous" pre-existing condition policy and claims that the board has already begun "illegally implementing the policy." *** Please see the WSIB's rebuttal below.
Mr. Wilson states that there are "over 8,000 workers within Ontario who have claims that have been denied, many without a hearing at the WSIB of their initial claim" and are waiting for an Appeal that may never happen due to the slow-moving Appeals process. He makes the inflamatory claim that "some employers, aided by bureaucrats with the MOL and its subordinate body the Prevention Office, have developed a strategy that compliments (sic) the denial of worker benefits." He states that businesses can implement ineffective Health & Safety programs and "when workers pay the price, have the WSIB deny their benefits." Wilson is also critical of demands from the MOL for the well regarded Workers Health and Safety Centre to comply with "a myriad of operational directives, none of which support the WHSC's ability to deliver as they have in the past." The WSIB's perspective: Kate Lamb, Chief of Corporate Services for the WSIB, published a rebuttal to Odolardo Di Santo's commentary on July 4th in a Toronto Star piece called "Support for Ontario's injured workers is stronger than ever." (Full article) Ms. Lamb is "disappointed" to read Mr. Di Santo's commentary and seeks to "correct the record" by stating the following:
Bottom Line: So what do you think about this "war of words?" Are Toronto Star writers, Mr. Di Santo, and Mr. Wilson raising reasonable alarms that should be heard? Or are they offering a distinctly pro-worker bias? Have you noticed the use of the proposed policies with your claims? What do you think about Ms. Lamb's rebuttal? Are they on the right track to a "balanced" approach that still meets fiscal requirements? Her piece was not very specific about the current implementation of the draft policy regarding pre-existing conditions, only emphasizing that Ontario is the only province without a policy and that it is continuing to engage stakeholders about any potential policy change. We'd love to hear from you! Share your comments below. Watch for an upcoming blog where Clear Path shares its perspective on the comments of Mr. Di Santo. Related blog posts: We'd love to connect with you!
|
Categories
All
Archives
September 2017
|
Clear Path Employer Services
295 Thompson Drive, Unit 2 Cambridge, Ontario N1T 2B9 T: (519) 624-0800 T: (888) 336-0950 F: (519) 624-0860 E: info@clearpathemployer.com Website created by:
Absolutely Business Copyright 2017 |
|
Hear More About Us:
Spread the Word:
Policies and Information:
|