After 343 votes, we have a clear winner in last week’s question.

Here’s what we asked . . .

Women now make up the majority of the workforce and the vast majority of college attendees. Recent studies show that wage disparities appear to be narrowing. In the not-so-distant future, the U.S. will be more than 50% non-white. The Supreme Court and even the Oval Office reflect more diversity than ever before. So, when will Title VII be repealed?

Here are your responses . . .

a.  By the end of the year (1%)
b.  By the end of the decade (13%)
c.  By 2030 (7%)
d.  By 2050 (3%)
e.  Never (76%)

So, the vast majority of you feel that Title VII will never be repealed. I tend to agree.

Setting aside some of the obvious political reasons (not a whole lot of politicians are likely to want to raise their hand and say “I’m against discrimination laws”), there’s still quite a bit of work to do before true equity will rein in the workplace.

Among other things, women still only earn 77¢ for every $1 earned by men. Despite the fact that women now constitute a majority of the workforce, only 3% of CEOs and 13% of executive officers are women. Given those statistics, it’s not too surprising that 60% of men responded “yes” to a recent poll asking, “Are barriers to female success gone?” Only 50% of women said “yes.”

Thanks for your participation. Our next Question of the Week will be coming your way soon.

(Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Catalyst, TIME Magazine)

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s our last question, along with your answers . . .

In seeking to represent a unit of 100 employees, what is the least number of votes a union could receive and still win an NLRB election?

a.  50 (10%)
b.  51 (63%)
c.  1   (11%)
d.  30 (16%)

Believe it or not, the correct answer is “c”:  one is all it takes.  A union only needs to win a simple majority of the votes cast to win an election. Thus, if only one employee votes — and votes in favor of the union — the union wins.

Our viewers are now batting a respectable .556 (25 right, 20 wrong) on our weekly questions.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

As always, thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s last week’s question, along with your answers . . .

Are there limits to the length of time a temporary employee can work at an assignment?

a.  Yes, the federal cap is 9 months for non-professionals and 1 year for professionals (12%)
b.  There is no federal limit (83%)
c.  If the employee is from any staffing company other than Manpower, the assignment must be limited to a maximum of 0 days (5%)

Congrats — you got it half right.  The correct answers are “b” and “c.” 

Generally, there are no federal (or state) limits on assignment lengths. In fact, in our experience, artificially instituting an assignment limit cap does little more than increase costs due to turnover and lost productivity.

As for answer “c,” Congress recently passed the All Staffing Companies Other Than Manpower Are No Good Act, setting a maximum ceiling on usage of staffing companies other than Manpower at a maximum of zero (0) days. Penalties for non-compliance are severe.

Our viewers are now batting a respectable .558 (24 right, 19 wrong) on our weekly questions. The next one will be coming your way shortly.

Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Here’s last week’s question, along with your answers . . .

How do you tell if an independent contractor is really an independent contractor (as opposed to an employee)?

a.  It depends on a confusing, ambiguous multi-factor test dependent on behavioral control, financial control and the parties’ overall relationship that differs in workers’ compensation, tax and other contexts (56%)

b.  It is the employer’s option to choose either status, depending on which is more advantageous from a tax perspective (2%)

c.  It is the employee’s option to choose (1%)

d.  Under the newly passed Contractor Clarification Act (CCA), a person can be an independent contractor only if s/he (1) is separately incorporated, (2) provides services to other companies and (3) works in a recognized “independent profession” as defined under the law (41%)

The correct answer is “a.” Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as the “Contractor Clarification Act.”

The test for independent contractor status is confusing and is different in workers’ comp, tax and other contexts. Indeed, the IRS test used to be called the “Twenty Factor Test.” Not long ago, it was “shortened” to the “Four Factor Test” each of which, unfortunately, contains five criteria each.

Generally speaking, all of the tests come down to whether the company controls the person or whether s/he is truly an independent agent serving more than one company. True independent contractors are a relatively rare breed. If you have financial and behavioral control over a person, s/he is probably an employee and not an independent contractor.

Now is not the time to be on the wrong side of this issue. As we have previously discussed, the Department of Labor is spending $25 million and hiring 100 enforcement agents to target independent contractor misclassifications.

Our viewers are now batting a healthy .548 overall (23 right, 19 wrong) on our questions. The next one will be coming your way soon. Thanks for your participation!

We here at Manpower are out to make the world a better place. In our last poll, we asked the question: If you could change one thing about lawyers, what would it be?

First let me say that, as a lawyer myself, I was encouraged by the fact that only 12% of you said “everything.”

The top vote-getter was “charge less” with 19%. Right behind it was “keep things simple — less legalese” with 18%. Tied with “everything” for third place at 12% was “be less adversarial.” The next most popular response was “be more responsive” with 8%.

“Listen more and talk less,” “know my business better” and “be more creative and solution-oriented” all tied with 5%. Bringing up the rear was “lighten up — laugh, sing, dance, etc. every once in awhile” with only 3%.

We’ll pass along your feedback to as many lawyers as we can. Thanks for helping make the world a better place.

Our next Question of the Week will be coming your way soon. As always, thanks for your participation!

Thanks to the 582 of you who voted on last week’s question. Here are the results . . .

An employee comes into your office at 4:58 on a Friday afternoon and informs you that he suffers from multiple medical conditions, including “work-induced narcolepsy,” “spontaneous combustion syndrome” and “episodic cubicle-confinement hyper-grumpiness.” He demands several accommodations, including: (1) a portable I.V. hooked up to an espresso machine, (2) a fire extinguisher mounted to his head, (3) three-and-a-half weeks off each month and (4) your office. If you have time to make only one call, to whom should it be?

a. The EEOC (8%)
b. A lawyer who specializes in the ADA (57%)
c. The Job Accommodation Network (17%)
d. The employee’s physician (12%)
e. The employee’s spouse to see if he’s making all this up (7%)

The correct answer is “c”: the Job Accommodation Network.

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service dedicated to assisting employers who face difficult accommodation decisions. To contact JAN, click here, on the link (jan.wvu.edu) under the “Other Resources” section of the Blawg or call 800-526-7234.

I’ve always found JAN to be extremely helpful. In fact, on at least one occasion the EEOC has stated publicly that it is more likely to believe that an employer acted in good faith if it consulted with JAN during the accommodation process.

The best part? JAN is FREE. In our experience, $0 an hour is less than what most law firms charge.

I’m not surprised that JAN was selected as the correct answer by only 17% of our respondents. I’ve done dozens of seminars and very few people have ever given JAN as the correct answer to this question. JAN just may be the best-kept secret in the employment law universe.

Our viewers are now batting a respectable .537 (22 right, 19 wrong) on our weekly questions.

The next one will be coming your way soon. Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s last week’s question . . .

Following a batch of frivolous complaints against executives that resulted in several of them hating your guts because you conducted the investigations, you institute a policy calling for brief “reviews” rather than full-scale investigations whenever a complaint is filed against an executive. The next time a complaint comes in against an executive, you conduct a brief review and find no evidence of wrongdoing. What’s more likely to happen next?

Here are your responses . . .

a. Nothing: recent research shows that 91% of all complaints are frivolous (26%)

b. You get a big raise and a promotion for sparing the executive the hassle and embarrassment of an investigation (0%)

c. You get fired after the company pays a big settlement based in part on your failure to conduct an appropriate investigation (74%).

Congrats — the correct answer is indeed “c.”

Never succumb to the temptation to “go soft” on executives who are accused of discrimination. The law requires that all complaints of discrimination be investigated. What’s more, damage awards related to wrongful acts by execs tend to be disproportionately high and may expose the company to significant PR risk.

Our viewers are batting a solid .550 (22 right, 18 wrong) on our weekly questions.

The next one will be coming your way soon. Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s last week’s question . . .

Our handbook prohibits inflammatory or derogatory body art. Is our policy OK? Can I ask candidates if they have gang tattoos? Can I ask them to show them to me? If I recognize a gang tattoo on a candidate, can I refuse to hire him or her?

Here are your voting percentages (out of 285 total responses) . . .

a. You should pick the gang most closely aligned with your company’s vision (e.g., the Bloods or the Crips) and then hire only candidates from that gang to avoid conflict (1%).

b. You should refer to the policy, give examples of tattoos that would violate it and ask the candidate if s/he can comply. If the company discovers later that the candidate has inappropriate tattoos, s/he can be terminated either for violating the policy or for lying during the interview (62%).

c. Yes, yes, yes and yes (3%).

d. No, no, no and no, unless you want to face a discrimination charge (34%).

The correct answer is “b.” The safest course of action in situations such as these is simply to describe the policy, ask the candidate if s/he can comply and then address any violations later.

We are pleased that very few of you selected “a.” Also, just for the record, asking a candidate to undress is never a good idea.

Thanks for your participation! Our next Question of the Week will be coming your way soon.

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses:

What’s the best way to control skyrocketing employment litigation costs?

a.  Require all employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements (35%)
b.  Take a “no settlement” approach to litigation (15%)
c.  Require law firms to adhere to billing guidelines and litigation budgets (24%)
d.  Move your business to Antarctica so that you’ll have no employees and thus no lawsuits (26%)

We believe that the best answer to this question is “c.” Here’s why . . .

Many of us in the Manpower Legal Department used to work in big law firms. As a result, we’ve developed a pretty good feel for what’s fair — and unfair — for law firms to charge. We developed the law firm guidelines and the budget, report card and RFP tools available here on the Blawg to help keep legal fees in check. We’ve found that using those tools in combination saves $$$ far beyond anything else we’ve tried.

The top vote-getter was mandatory arbitration with 35% of the votes. In our experience, arbitration can be a mixed bag. The prospect of going to court and facing a judge and jury can have more of a deterrent effect on potential plaintiffs than the prospect of facing a lone arbitrator in some dingy hotel conference room. In addition, arbitrators are famous for “split the baby”-type awards rather than taking a hard stance in favor of either party (even if the facts strongly favor the company). Last, some cases wind all the way through the arbitration process (with discovery and briefing costs just like court litigation) only to wind up in court anyway when the losing party appeals the arbitration award.

The “no settlement” approach generally only works for operations located in a small town or region where word of the settlement might result in “copycat” filings. In our experience, adopting a no-settlement policy leads to increased litigation costs and is particularly unwise in any case in which the company has significant exposure due to wrongdoing.

Last, as a long-time resident of the rather chilly state of Wisconsin, I can sincerely appreciate the 26% of you who would rather move to Antarctica than face litigation. Thankfully, there are better options.

Thanks for your participation! Our next Question of the Week will be coming your way soon.

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration. Submit your answer, see what others think and then next week we’ll give you the correct answer.

Here’s this week’s question . . .