Strategy is a future-oriented view of the organization and the ability to deliver predictive insight brings HR ever deeper into the strategic realm of the organization. However, as with many such trends, there is a lot of focus on the concept and the promise, and less on the mechanics of how you actually make it happen. I have heard and read a few thought pieces recently that are asking for good predictive numbers and decrying the more standard HR measures, such as turnover, because they are not predictive. This is not true. The ability to predict comes from having robust and deep historical data. There is no shortcut to predictive measures. Prediction relies on history, and without history, any predictive attempt will be shallow at best, and more likely wrong.

The value in predicting turnover is clear. Hiring resources are scaled to needs and are therefore efficient; key roles are empty for shorter periods of time, reducing productivity losses; panic hiring is reduced based on more realistic expectations, leading to potentially better hires. The question becomes, how do you know what your turnover might be without knowing what your turnover is now?

There are some good emerging models which look at several factors relating to each employee, such as length of employee commute, time since last role change, performance ranking overtime, etc., which are demonstrating good predictive function for voluntary turnover. These models have come from years of study of actual employee behavior, and for them to work in each specific organization, they rely on being tested and refined for that specific context. For example, a commute of 30 minutes maybe too long for employees. In other geographies, a commute of 45 minutes may prove to be too long. The factor (i.e., the commute) is a valid factor, however, without understanding the history of how this factor plays out in your organization, any prediction is at best a guess.

This is our message for the start of 2012: prediction is a worthy goal. It can offer incredible value and should be a goal for any HR person or department looking to continue its shift into the strategic realm of business. However, it is not possible to jump from no measurements to predictive measurements. It is also not correct to decry the measures of the past. Yes, they only tell you what has happened; however, prediction is best done by understanding the patterns of the past and projecting them into the future. Without this deep historical picture, there is no ability to predict. Therefore, if you want to pursue the goal of prediction, your first step is to build your historical set of data. Without it your pursuit of prediction will have no future.

Ian J. Cook
BC HRMA

© 2012 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | 4 comments |

The request got me thinking about the costs of measurement. Often this is an area that is not considered when people get into the question of finding data. Measurement costs can be big, they are a mix of tangible and intangible and invariably they are the last thing to be considered when people start looking for answers.

For example employee engagement surveys are a major line item in many HR budgets. An organization of 2000 employees or less can easily spend over $100,000 a year to come up with their engagement score. This number includes staff time as well as the direct costs of administering the survey. This is not the cost for solving the issues identified or making changes. This is just the cost to come up with the number and communicate it to the right people in the business.

The costs of sourcing the annual engagement score have been through serious scrutiny in the last few years. From anecdotal evidence it seems that many organizations have moved their surveys in house using free online tools.  Now that executive leaders have become used to reviewing the engagement score, HR has to keep producing it on a reduced budget. The cost of measurement has impacted how things get done.

Reflecting on the measurement challenges related to the wellness topic above, it quickly became clear it was not worth measuring. Proper measurement would have involved significant work to develop, test and verify questions that are valid and reliable. Then it would be important to survey a sample at least twice a year to avoid any seasonal effects. Analysing the data would involve significant manual processing and the filtering and analysis of some amount of text-based content. All of these factors make the measurement process costly and complex. Which in turn makes it diffcult to sustain.  Much as the wellness outcomes being sought were important, the likely returns from the area being studied would not warrant the investment required to capture and process the data.

There is an alternative to undertaking your own measurement project. This is to review organizational studies and literature to find outputs which support your program. The wellness topic that was the focus for the presentation has lots of supporting literature to show that it brings benefits.

The question of cost is one of the least talked about and most important aspects of any measurement program. In many instances when it comes to questions about people, and especially where you need large amounts of qualitative data, the costs of data capture may outweigh the value of the data.  Before any specific area of the business is measured or a measurement process is developed, it is important that you know what data you need, what it will cost you to capture this data on a consistent and timely basis and whether these costs are consistent with the value that can be derived from the data.

Ian J. Cook
BC HRMA

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

The law applies to the Government of Ontario, the Legislative Assembly, every designated public sector organization and every person or organization that provides goods, services and facilities to the public or other third parties and that has at least one employee in Ontario.

Among other processes, organizations must use policies, practices and procedures to achieve accessibility and meet the standards in the Regulation. This includes a policy statement of organizational commitment to meet the accessibility needs of persons with disabilities in a timely manner.

On November 9, 2011, First Reference Inc. will be holding a half-day seminar on accessibility standards compliance under the AODA. The AODA Accessibility Standards Compliance is a half-day seminar that will provide an overview of the AODA compliance framework focusing on the practical guidance in the form of templates, checklists and resources tailored to assist you in understanding and meeting the specific requirements that are applicable to your organization, whether it be a public, private or non-profit enterprise. For more information or to register, visit the seminar website here

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

The AODA requires the public and private sectors to work together to make Ontario accessible for persons with disabilities. The main purpose of the Act is to identify and remove the barriers that prevent a person with a disability from fully participating in all aspects of society. These might include a physical barrier, an architectural barrier, an information or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier, a policy or a practice.

The Act allows for accessibility standards to be created by regulation. These standards constitute the rules that businesses and organizations have to follow to identify, remove and prevent barriers to accessibility. At this stage, accessibility standards have been created or are being created in the following areas: customer service, information and communication, employment, transportation and built environment. Accessibility standards require provincially regulated employers to address accessibility issues in ways not expressly required by the Human Rights Code.

Each standard contains (or will contain) both specific and general requirements involving:

• Developing accessibility policies and plans
• Training employees and volunteers; and
• Considering accessibility when purchasing goods or services

Private sector employers have less than six months to get ready for the standards under this new legislation. Jeff Murray’s presentation at the 12th Annual Ontario Employment Law Conference will cover:

• The new accessibility standards and preparing your organization to meet them;
• The content of compliant policies;
• How to prepare key workplace parties for their new roles; and
• Lessons from public sector employers covered since 2010.

We invite business owners and managers who are interested in finding out how to comply with the new standards to attend. Register—and Learn the latest

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2011 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

• The Information and Communications Standard focuses on accessible information and communications relating to the provision of goods and services.
• Requirements for employment prescribe how organizations provide accessibility for people with disabilities across all stages of the employment life cycle; for example, recruitment, retention, etc.
• Requirements for transportation will prevent and remove barriers so that people with disabilities can more easily access transportation services across the province.

The requirements being proposed for inclusion in the Integrated Accessibility Regulation are intended to apply to all organizations that provide goods or services to the public or other third parties and have at least one employee in Ontario. The class structure is based on the following (unless otherwise stated):

• Government of Ontario
• Broader public organizations (BPS) with 50+ employees
• Broader public organizations with 1–49 employees
• Private and not-for profit organizations with 50+ employees
• Private and not-for-profit organizations with 1–49 employees

Private and not-for-profit organizations with 1–49 employees will be exempt from certain requirements such as compliance reporting.

The Transportation Standard will mainly impact BPS 50+. However, if small transportation providers have transportation systems, they are subject to transportation requirements as scheduled for BPS 50+.

Proposed legal requirements common to all three standards include policies and procedures, training and enforcement as follows:

Policies and procedures

Every obligated organization will be required to establish, maintain and implement policies governing the implementation of the accessibility standards (Information and Communications, Employment and Transportation). The policies will be required to include:

• A description of how the organization will meet the requirements of the accessibility standards; and
• A statement of commitment for meeting the needs of persons with disabilities in a timely manner.

The government of Ontario and every broader public organization will be required to establish and maintain policies on how the organization will consider the needs of persons with disabilities when procuring or acquiring goods, services and facilities.

The government, all broader public organizations and private and not-for profit organizations with 50+ employees will be required to prepare one or more written document(s) describing their policies and be able to provide a copy of the document(s) to any person who requests them in a format that meets the person’s needs. Note: upon request for alternative formats, organizations are not required to have every format in stock, but rather have the means to provide the information as soon as possible, once the request has been made.

Training

In addition, all employees, volunteers, persons who provide services on behalf of an organization and persons who participate in developing the policies, practices and procedures of an organization, will be required to be trained on the requirements of the accessibility standards.

Training must be provided on an ongoing basis and be appropriate to the duties of the employees, volunteers and other persons. All obligated organizations will be required to provide accessibility training on achieving an accessible workplace to employees.

Enforcement

Two elements of the inspection and enforcement system will be regulated within the Compliance Assurance Framework under the Integrated Accessibility Regulation:

• An administrative monetary penalties scheme is being established under the AODA. The scheme will allow the director or a designate to issue an order against a person, organization or corporation to pay a penalty amount as a result of non-compliance with the AODA or the accessibility standards. The largest lump sum penalty amount that can be issued to an individual or an organization that is not a corporation is $2,000, and the maximum for a corporation is $15,000. The amount of the penalties will be set out in a regulation.
• Under section 26 of the AODA, the ministry must designate a tribunal within a reasonable time after the first accessibility standard is in place. It was determined that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) will be designated as the tribunal to hear appeals of director’s orders under the AODA. The LAT is the most suitable existing tribunal for designation as it handles appeals related to businesses meeting prescribed standards or requirements under regulations and statutes. The tribunal will be responsible for hearing appeals from directors’ orders including orders for administrative penalties issued against a person or organization for contravention of the Act or accessibility standard(s) or other regulation.

Furthermore…

The government is also proposing to amend Ontario Regulation 629 to modernize the technical requirements for highway vehicles (e.g., buses, transit buses, motor coaches, taxis, physically-disabled-passenger vehicles and school buses) as part of the ministry’s proposed standards under the AODA. As mentioned, the ministry is proposing that the Transportation Standard be part of the Integrated Accessibility Regulation.

According to the government, the proposed integrated regulation will streamline, align and phase-in accessibility requirements. This will allow for progress on accessibility and reduce regulatory burden for obligated organizations.

Stakeholders and interested parties are invited to comment on the IAR and proposed amendments to Ontario Regulation 629 before October 16, 2010. All comments on the proposed regulation must be directed through the Regulatory Registry.

A more detailed commentary on these proposed standards and their specific requirements is published on HRinfodesk (login required).

Yosie Saint-Cyr
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Managing Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

Who is he suing?

The sole survivor is suing his employer—the constructor—and the company that supplied the platform which collapsed, along with the Ontario Ministry of Labour, for $16.3 million in damages.

The 22-year-old worker, who had only been in Canada for a couple of months prior to the accident, argues that these parties owed him a duty to keep him safe, and they failed to exercise that duty.

As a result of the accident, the worker spent months in the hospital, and suffered severe injuries involving crushed legs and a broken spine. Now out of hospital, he is in significant pain and can barely walk.

What’s more, the estate of one of the deceased workers has also sued the same parties for $14 million. In line with the sole survivor’s arguments, this statement of claim argues that the ministry was responsible for monitoring the site and making sure the parties charged were properly carrying out their duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The next step in these proceedings is the submission of defence statements by the parties who were sued.

This news came shortly after the ministry laid several charges carrying fines of up to $17 million against the employer/constructor and platform supplier. There were also charges against executives and supervisors.

More specifically, of the 61 charges:

• 30 were against the constructor/employer
• 16 were against an individual director of the constructor/employer company
• Eight were laid against an individual supervisor of the constructor/employer company
• Four charges were laid against the supplier of the suspended platform company
• Three charges were laid against an individual director of the supplier of the suspended platform company

Maximum penalties for the corporations are $500,000 per conviction. For individuals, the maximum penalties are $25,000 per conviction and up to a year in prison. Hearings for this matter begin on September 30, 2010.

Interestingly, a criminal investigation has also commenced. There is a question as to whether the companies involved will be tried under the Criminal Code, particularly section 217.1, which states, “Every one who undertakes, or has the authority, to direct how another person does work or performs a task is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. This means organizations and individuals who fail to safeguard workplace health and safety can be criminally liable and experience even more severe consequences than those found under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Time will tell as to how this turns out.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

As of August 23rd, the AINP will no longer accept new applications in the Family Stream and the U.S. Visa Holder Category. However, it will continue to accept applications in these streams if they were received by the AINP on or before August 23, 2010. This change is considered temporary but will be in effect until further notice.

The AINP continues to accept applications in the following streams and categories:

1. Employer-Driven Stream
2. Skilled Workers, International Graduates, and Semi-Skilled Workers
3. Strategic Recruitment Stream
4. Compulsory Trades or Engineering Occupations
5. Self-Employed Farmer Stream

“Our focus needs to be on jobs for Albertans and Canadians first,” said Thomas Lukaszuk, Minister of Employment and Immigration. “We will continue to process applications for people who have the skills our growing economy needs.”

Last year, the AINP nominated 4,216 applicants for permanent residence. The two streams that were suspended accounted for 33 percent of that total.

Henry J. Chang
Blaney McMurtry LLP

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |

What employers cannot do is what the employer did in a case out of British Columbia: it became clear to the BC Human Rights Tribunal that although the employer may have hired the employee knowing that she had a physical disability (a back problem that affected her mobility and necessitated her alternating between a standing and a sitting position), when the employer saw the extent to which it was required to accommodate her, the employer changed its mind and terminated her employment. The employer humiliated the employee during the four days she worked there by asking her to perform inappropriate tasks, and insensitively terminated her in front of another worker.

Since the employer could not provide any documentation or evidence of a justifiable reason for the termination, or any attempts at accommodation whatsoever, the employer was found to have discriminated against the employee based on the ground of disability.

Simply put, the employer could not prove that it terminated the employee solely for a non-discriminatory reason. It was no excuse to claim that the employee was new and on probation—the Human Rights Code applies to all types of workers, including those on probation.

The tribunal awarded the employee $4,140 for wage loss, $78.81 for other expenses incurred due to her complaint, $8,000 as damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and pre- and post-judgment interest.

It is clear that employers need to be careful when terminating employees who suffer from a disability.

I’m wondering, has your company ever been concerned about the human rights implications of terminating an employee who suffers from a disability? Have you been faced with the challenge of accumulating documentation of a non-discriminatory termination?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | 3 comments |

Image taken from: http://www.careerfaqs.com.au

I recently read an article regarding a study about workplace expectations among the generations. The study suggests there are significant generational differences that exist in the workplace that impact workplace culture and employee relations.

In order to understand the findings, it’s first important to understand characteristics of workers belonging to the different generations, specifically: Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y; and what motivates them in their work. Various sources confirm there are certain qualities associated with each generation:

• The “Baby Boomers” (born between 1946 and 1964) tend to make work a central part of their lives. As work-oriented individuals, baby boomers are more willing to work overtime. They are less eager to work slowly, unsupervised or take a lot of vacation. This may be due to the fact that their parents, part of the World War II generation, raised their children to appreciate the value of hard work. Not seeking work-life balance, baby boomers are primarily motivated by knowing they are valued workers. They derive personal fulfillment from work, and enjoy having meetings.
• On the other hand, “Generation X”, “Gen X” or “Xers” (born between 1965 and 1981) tend to want jobs that come with high status, money and prestige. Though they are not as work-oriented as the baby boomers, they also value hard work. This generation places more value on balancing work with leisure. This may be due to the fact that this generation grew up with new freedoms created by social movements, and incorporated individualism into their lives. Since this generation grew up watching their parents turn into workaholics and then become downsized/restructured out of their chosen careers, this generation tends to be skeptical and does not expect job security; work is viewed as a contract. While at work, this generation is motivated by being valued as an individual, having relationships nurtured, receiving challenging work, being given the freedom to manage time and work, and receiving feedback and recognition.
• Then there is “Generation Y”, the “Millennials” or “Generation Me” (born between 1982 and 1999). Members of this generation tend to want more vacation and want to be able to work slowly compared to those belonging to the other generations. Although they desire money and status even more than the baby boomers, they value work and results less and are less willing to work overtime. In comparison to other generations, individuals belonging to this generation are more likely to say that work is nothing more than a way to earn a living. This may be due to the fact that they grew up sheltered, pampered, nurtured and “special”. These confident individuals are not afraid to question authority and speak their minds. Their parents were less likely to discipline them, correct their mistakes or share with them the harsh realities of life. While at work, this generation is motivated most by being able to work with creative people. This is the most open-minded the least prejudiced of the generations.

It’s easy to see how generational differences could affect the workplace in terms of the culture, recruiting strategies, the way in which teams are built, dealing with change, motivating/managing employees, and maintaining/increasing productivity.

As mentioned above, the study on workplace expectations revealed that generation gaps could lead to clashes in the workplace. It examined about 16,507 high school graduates from 1976, 1991 and 2006, and found boomers and Xers in a company may find it frustrating that new generation Me employees expect more vacation without paying their dues; time to chat online or visit social networking websites at work; praise for showing up to work on time; work-life balance without any sacrifice; and more money and prestige with less work. It concluded that unrealistic expectations could also lead to disappointment among the generation Me employees, especially in today’s challenging and competitive employment climate.

I’m wondering: do you believe that generation Y is changing the face of your work environment? Has your organization experienced baby boomer-generation Y conflicts, or conflicts between older employees (baby boomers, generation Xers) versus newer employees (generation Yers)? If so, how is your organization working to ensure that the workplace retains a unified work culture?

The full study, Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Intrinsic Values Decreasing, is available at the Journal of Management.

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | 2 comments |

Employers should remember that employees also have a duty to work with the employer to reach an acceptable solution; they must communicate what they need in order to receive accommodation from the employer.

To meet their duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, employers may ask questions that help them to understand what the employee needs. Undue hardship means that some hardship is acceptable, but not so much that it would jeopardize the health and safety of others or bankrupt the employer.

What employers do not want to do is copy what the employer did in a case I read recently. In fact, this employer’s actions led to a finding of discrimination based on disability by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, and the decision was confirmed by the Federal Court.

In this case, the employee communicated her situation and her needs in order to return to work after medical leave, but the employer ignored her needs and did not attempt to accommodate her whatsoever. On at least two occasions, the employee, a senior bus driver, tried to reach a solution that would enable her to work with her medical limitations by having a varied work schedule. The employer insisted that it was essential to have a business operation that operated safely and securely seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

First, the employee requested, on her doctor’s recommendation, to work three days a week. In response, the employer put her in a part-time position with work assigned on an availability basis. After some recovery time had passed, she indicated that her doctor had authorized her to return to work five days a week but limited her to daytime work. The employer refused to return her to her full-time status, indicating that it would not do so as long as the limitations on her working hours remained. This was unusual since, prior to her leave, the employee worked day shifts on a regular route.

The tribunal found that the employer could not show it was impossible to accommodate the employee without experiencing an undue hardship. The employer presented no evidence to indicate what undue hardship it would suffer if it accommodated the employee’s needs. The accommodation requested on either occasions would not have negatively affected the employer’s operations at all.

The decision confirmed that if an employer can, without undue hardship, offer the employee a variable work schedule or lighten his or her duties or even authorize staff transfers to ensure that the employee can do his or her work, the employer has to do so to accommodate the employee. The employer’s standard to determine accommodation measures must consider factors relating to the unique capabilities and inherent worth and dignity of every individual, up to the point of undue hardship.

The Federal Court sent a clear message on how important it is to make a genuine effort to accommodate employees who suffer from disabilities. The case recommended that employers ask these important questions when faced with accommodation issues:

• Has the employer investigated measures that do not have a discriminatory effect, such as testing against an individually sensitive standard?
• If alternative measures were investigated and found to be capable of fulfilling the employer’s purpose, why were they not implemented?
• For the employer to accomplish its legitimate purpose, is it necessary to have all employees meet a single standard, or could standards be established to reflect group or individual differences and capabilities?
• Is there a way to do the job that is less discriminatory while still accomplishing the employer’s legitimate purpose?
• Is the standard designed to ensure that the desired qualification is met without placing an undue burden on those to whom the standard applies?
• Have all parties who are obliged to assist in the search for possible accommodation fulfilled their roles?

I’m wondering, has your organization ever encountered a situation where you were asked to accommodate an employee who suffered from a disability? Did you explore alternative solutions together with the employee? Has your organization ever faced an undue hardship in a case of accommodation?

Christina Catenacci
First Reference Human Resources and Compliance Assistant Editor

© 2010 First Reference Inc. All Rights Reserved. | Permalink | Make a comment |