Human Resource Headlines: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly


Site Map Our Sponsors Home

Compliance Gurus
Lending Gurus
Security Gurus
Marketing Gurus
Technology Gurus
eBanking Gurus

Print Friendly!

Email This Article!

Discuss NOW!

Human Resource Headlines: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly

One of the things I like most about human resource management is that something big happens pretty much every day. Never have I been made more acutely aware of how vibrant and volatile the area of human resources is than in the past few weeks. Never mind what may be happening in our own workplaces-just look at what is going on nationally.

From January to present, we have seen a new President face challenges in his hiring and appointment processes. We have heard news stories of some rather base antics of employment-related espionage by our former President and his departing staff. We have watched two major federal agencies forced to retreat from heavy-handed rules impacting our workplaces. We have faced the threat of up-coming layoffs concurrent with speculation of imminent economic recession, and have experienced, first-hand or through the media, incidents of workplace and school violence.

This is the time of "the good, the bad and the ugly" in human resources. Here, in case you haven't heard, are some legally-oriented examples.

The Good. On March 6th and 7th Congress (first, the U.S. Senate, and then the U.S. House) passed a Resolution of Disapproval, overturning OSHA's recently promulgated Ergonomics Program Standard. This was wonderful news for the vast majority of employers who would have been required under the new ergonomics rules to keep records of every work-related musculoskeletal disorder suffered by each and every employee in the workplace.

The down side to Congress' action is that the unions who lobbied hard for the ergonomics rule are not likely to sit by and let the matter just drop. Union lobbying in this area has been going on for ten years or more. Consequently, we human resource folk expect to see more attempted rule-making on this issue in the future. Stay tuned.

The Bad. In January, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs ("OFCCP") mailed out approximately 50,000 "EO-Surveys" to federal contractors, including those banks and financial institutions covered by affirmative action laws and regulations. The OFCCP gave these banks and other federal contractors only 45 days to complete and submit the EO-Surveys. Moreover, the OFCCP refused to promulgate any rules that might have allowed a federal contractor to request an extension of time to respond to the EO-Surveys.

Because the EO-Surveys basically required banks and other federal contractors to hand over all their affirmative action data to the OFCCP, many of federal contractors who had not fully complied with the OFCCP's affirmative action requirements on a yearly basis struggled to satisfy the OFCCP's deadline. Complaints flew fast and furious.

Help came when, on February 21, 2001, the OFCCP announced an extension of time to submit EO-Surveys for all banks and other federal contractors who received them in January. Under the OFCCP's new extension, EO-Surveys are now due on May 31, 2001.

The "bad" in all this? The OFCCP has issued new final regulations governing affirmative action compliance. Included in the regulations are new reporting requirements for racial and ethnic data. This means that all voluntary self-identification forms and other statistical gathering mechanisms must be amended to reflect new racial and ethnic categories. Future EO-Survey responses, and affirmative action plan documents, will need to break down racial and ethnic data to reflect the OFCCP's new categories.

The Ugly. This is not a new federal law or regulation, but the impact may be just as severe. Last year the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor issued an Opinion Letter stating that a loan officer position in a financial services organization is not an exempt employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In rendering its opinion, the Wage and Hour Division reasoned that loan officers do not customarily engage in the overall policy-making functions of a financial institution's business. In addition, loan officers are employed to perform functions that are necessary to the production side of the financial institution's business, rather than the support of production side. Based upon this reasoning, the Division held that loan officers are not bona fide administrative employees under the FLSA, and are therefore subject to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of that Act.

The impact of the Division's opinion is that, unless loan officers are employed in a supervisory position, and therefore qualify as a bona fide executive, banks and other financial institutions should probably be requiring the loan officers to maintain daily time records. Banks and financial institutions should also be paying loan officers at the rate of one and a half times their normal hourly rate of pay, for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Division's opinion may come as a shock to many banking institutions. The Division's reasoning is in line; however, with the mandates of the FLSA and long-standing federal regulations on the subject.

I can't wait to see what "they" do next, can you?

First published on BankersOnline.com 3/26/01.
Copyright, 2001, The Compliance Company. All rights reserved.

BOL Archives Privacy Policy Important Disclaimer Recommend This Site ! Contact Us

BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.