1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:02,480 Welcome to the Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources 2 00:00:02,480 --> 00:00:04,800 podcast. I'm Tracy Chernoff, and I've 3 00:00:04,800 --> 00:00:07,240 spent my entire professional career in HR. 4 00:00:07,720 --> 00:00:10,840 Each week, we'll explore the delicate balance between people 5 00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:13,840 and business with the aim to reconnect the two and create 6 00:00:13,840 --> 00:00:16,720 meaningful outcomes. Listen in as I share my own 7 00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:20,520 experiences, challenge the status quo, and chat with guests 8 00:00:20,520 --> 00:00:23,560 from various industries about our mission to bring the human 9 00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:26,480 back to human resources. Hi everyone, welcome back to the 10 00:00:26,480 --> 00:00:28,600 Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources podcast. 11 00:00:28,600 --> 00:00:30,400 Don't forget to rate review and subscribe wherever you're 12 00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:32,800 catching this episode, whether you're watching or listening. 13 00:00:33,680 --> 00:00:35,480 This is another policy poll segment. 14 00:00:35,480 --> 00:00:40,400 I feel like I need the breaking news alert sound like, you know, 15 00:00:40,760 --> 00:00:45,800 because this is a this is a monthly episode cadence for us 16 00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:48,880 and us. Meaning if you're new here, this 17 00:00:48,880 --> 00:00:52,520 is Brian joins me. He is a an attorney and he is 18 00:00:52,520 --> 00:00:55,360 kind of our our resident expert in all things law. 19 00:00:55,360 --> 00:00:58,080 But don't forget he is not giving you any legal advice. 20 00:00:58,080 --> 00:01:01,800 So make sure you seek your own attorney, OK, Brian's mine. 21 00:01:01,800 --> 00:01:03,080 You can't take it. No, just kidding. 22 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:05,920 But seriously, seek your own legal advice. 23 00:01:05,920 --> 00:01:09,680 This Is Us just talking about things that might be relevant to 24 00:01:09,680 --> 00:01:13,280 you and actually probably are very relevant to you, especially 25 00:01:13,280 --> 00:01:17,000 if you have AUS based workforce. And so every month, as you 26 00:01:17,080 --> 00:01:20,400 hopefully know if you've been listening, we take this policy 27 00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:23,160 Pulse episode and we talk about all of the things that you 28 00:01:23,160 --> 00:01:26,240 should have a pulse on from a policy standpoint. 29 00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:30,400 So this month we're going to kick off the Policy Pulse 30 00:01:30,400 --> 00:01:32,200 episode, talking about the Department of Labor. 31 00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:36,280 Their ears must ring because we talk about them a lot. 32 00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:41,200 And so we are going to talk about the emergency pay that now 33 00:01:41,200 --> 00:01:45,280 must be included in overtime. So in a new opinion letter, the 34 00:01:45,280 --> 00:01:48,560 Department of Labor determined that emergency pay, extra 35 00:01:48,560 --> 00:01:51,800 compensation for work performed during declared emergencies, 36 00:01:52,040 --> 00:01:55,120 must now be included when calculating overtime under the 37 00:01:55,120 --> 00:01:57,520 FLSA or the Fair Labor Standards Act. 38 00:01:58,000 --> 00:02:01,960 The case involved a city that paid firefighters a 50% premium 39 00:02:01,960 --> 00:02:04,520 during emergencies. The Department of Labor ruled 40 00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,520 that because the policy guaranteed the premium in 41 00:02:07,520 --> 00:02:10,840 advance, it wasn't discretionary and had to be counted in the 42 00:02:10,840 --> 00:02:14,080 regular rate of pay. Brian, can you break that down 43 00:02:14,080 --> 00:02:16,400 for us? Tell us a little bit why it 44 00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:19,600 matters, what we should do, how this impacts us. 45 00:02:20,240 --> 00:02:22,200 Yeah. So generally speaking, employers 46 00:02:22,200 --> 00:02:27,240 tend to, and many times rightfully so, take the base 47 00:02:27,240 --> 00:02:30,400 wage for an employee. So say it's 10 bucks an hour. 48 00:02:32,080 --> 00:02:35,280 Overtime for that 1.5 would be $15.00 an hour. 49 00:02:35,760 --> 00:02:39,400 Easy math, right? So any hours over 40 would be 50 00:02:39,800 --> 00:02:41,560 paid at $15.00 an hour instead of 10. 51 00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:47,480 Except if there's some type of supplemental pay, emergency pay, 52 00:02:47,480 --> 00:02:50,200 hazard pay, shift differential. Those are three of probably the 53 00:02:50,200 --> 00:02:54,200 most common. Those are calculated in the base 54 00:02:54,200 --> 00:02:56,640 pay. So if someone makes an 55 00:02:56,640 --> 00:03:02,640 additional dollar an hour for emergency pay and they work 10 56 00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:07,200 emergency hours during a certain pay period, for those 10 hours 57 00:03:07,200 --> 00:03:08,920 their base pay is $11.00 an hour. 58 00:03:08,920 --> 00:03:12,560 So now you have to average over the entire the entire 59 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:14,480 calculation. This becomes much more complex 60 00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:20,000 now because your 1.5 on the base rate is going to be different 61 00:03:20,000 --> 00:03:22,880 because the base rate itself is different, because it, it needs 62 00:03:22,880 --> 00:03:26,240 to be calculated including the emergency pay, the hazard pay, 63 00:03:26,240 --> 00:03:28,280 whatever supplemental pay is being offered. 64 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:32,280 And that's where actually you can use software that is really 65 00:03:32,280 --> 00:03:35,880 helpful with that. Lots of of payroll software can 66 00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:38,880 automatically calculate that for you based on your location, 67 00:03:38,880 --> 00:03:41,240 based on the location of the employee, where they're working, 68 00:03:41,440 --> 00:03:43,680 the type of pay that you're giving them, It will 69 00:03:43,680 --> 00:03:49,360 automatically calculate the, the overtime rate based on the 70 00:03:49,360 --> 00:03:52,000 adjusted base pay rate for that particular pay period. 71 00:03:52,480 --> 00:03:56,800 And it, there was a lot of words to say essentially the base pay 72 00:03:56,800 --> 00:03:59,480 becomes different when people get supplemental pay. 73 00:03:59,600 --> 00:04:03,080 That's that's, that's the the, the the ultimate story there. 74 00:04:03,680 --> 00:04:08,360 No, it's interesting. I, if I'm understanding 75 00:04:08,360 --> 00:04:12,160 correctly, in the event of an emergency where someone is 76 00:04:12,160 --> 00:04:15,880 receiving this type of hazard or, or an emergency pay, it 77 00:04:15,960 --> 00:04:21,839 impacts their, their base rate at the hourly level and then the 78 00:04:21,839 --> 00:04:25,640 overtime is calculated based on that new rate, correct? 79 00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:28,840 That's really interesting. I, it makes me think about, 80 00:04:28,840 --> 00:04:32,920 think about COVID and all the people who received hazard pay 81 00:04:32,920 --> 00:04:36,680 and how that was, you know, kind of calculated overtime was not 82 00:04:36,680 --> 00:04:38,960 calculated on top of that hazard pay. 83 00:04:38,960 --> 00:04:41,680 It was separate, basically a separate line item. 84 00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:45,440 And there were also a lot of people who are not overtime 85 00:04:45,480 --> 00:04:47,200 eligible who did not get hazard pay. 86 00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:52,120 But I'm just saying I know a few people who who are salaried and 87 00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:53,600 did not get hazard pay during COVID. 88 00:04:54,000 --> 00:04:59,480 But anyway, that's interesting. I hope that HR teams have really 89 00:04:59,480 --> 00:05:05,040 strong payroll support because the complexity of that and what 90 00:05:05,040 --> 00:05:11,880 I would imagine is the exposure in not properly calculating is 91 00:05:11,880 --> 00:05:16,640 quite significant. So for teams actually who are 92 00:05:16,640 --> 00:05:19,480 smaller and maybe don't have payroll support, they're just 93 00:05:19,480 --> 00:05:22,320 probably outsourcing this to their payroll provider, which is 94 00:05:22,360 --> 00:05:25,600 fine. But I do think that HR leaders 95 00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:29,120 need to be really clear on this. So whether they are part of a 96 00:05:29,120 --> 00:05:33,840 small team or a large team, they do their due diligence and 97 00:05:33,840 --> 00:05:36,840 making sure that things are calculated correctly. 98 00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:40,640 And to your and to your point about outsourcing it too, even 99 00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:44,600 if you are outsourcing it and you trust the the vendor to 100 00:05:44,760 --> 00:05:48,080 calculate all of this correctly, it's still ultimately on you, 101 00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:51,680 the employer, to verify the information to verify that it's 102 00:05:51,680 --> 00:05:54,200 calculated correctly. So you still need to know what 103 00:05:54,200 --> 00:05:55,760 calculations are happening. Right. 104 00:05:55,760 --> 00:05:58,800 We are not absolved of our responsibility in this. 105 00:05:59,520 --> 00:06:04,640 Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. And you know, frankly, we've 106 00:06:04,640 --> 00:06:07,840 seen even in some of the other topics that we've discussed like 107 00:06:08,680 --> 00:06:13,720 lawsuits surrounding AI hiring, AI based hiring, that you cannot 108 00:06:13,760 --> 00:06:16,280 absolve yourself of the responsibility as an employer. 109 00:06:16,280 --> 00:06:23,560 Just because you hire someone to do whatever that thing is does 110 00:06:23,560 --> 00:06:28,560 not mean that you are no longer responsible or obligated to 111 00:06:28,560 --> 00:06:30,200 follow the laws. For sure. 112 00:06:30,560 --> 00:06:31,960 And this is the Department of Labor too. 113 00:06:31,960 --> 00:06:37,080 So I, it makes me think about all of the, you know, government 114 00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:40,880 based organizations, government contracted organizations that 115 00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:43,080 might be audited for these things. 116 00:06:43,080 --> 00:06:46,520 Because in my mind, when the Department of Labor is involved, 117 00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:50,880 you should just expect an audit. You, you should just just expect 118 00:06:50,880 --> 00:06:55,440 that there's like a larger focus on compliance because it's not, 119 00:06:55,440 --> 00:06:58,240 you know, naturally we see this with anything. 120 00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:03,480 But when it comes down to state specific items, I feel like 121 00:07:03,480 --> 00:07:05,680 it's, you know, of course there's exposure when you're not 122 00:07:05,680 --> 00:07:10,120 compliant, but it's, it's a different ball game when we're 123 00:07:10,120 --> 00:07:11,880 talking about something at the federal level. 124 00:07:13,000 --> 00:07:15,160 Absolutely. And and to your point about AII 125 00:07:15,160 --> 00:07:18,760 mean the EEOC has issued what a handful of opinions over the 126 00:07:18,760 --> 00:07:22,360 last couple of years, handful of notices exactly to that point 127 00:07:22,640 --> 00:07:26,000 that if you use AI in your hiring process, in your 128 00:07:26,000 --> 00:07:28,800 promotion process, in any part of the employee life cycle 129 00:07:28,800 --> 00:07:33,120 process, you the employer, not the vendor are liable for any 130 00:07:33,120 --> 00:07:35,080 discrimination that occurs. And this is kind of the same 131 00:07:35,080 --> 00:07:38,280 approach. I do think that companies in 132 00:07:38,280 --> 00:07:45,160 general probably try their best to offload the responsibility 133 00:07:45,160 --> 00:07:48,360 and hire as many vendors as they possibly can to point fingers 134 00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:54,360 at, but you just can't. Yeah, this I, you know, frankly, 135 00:07:54,360 --> 00:07:57,840 I think this is a little bit of job stability for HR people out 136 00:07:57,840 --> 00:08:02,400 there because the more regulation there is, the the 137 00:08:02,400 --> 00:08:08,680 more involved people have to be like we, we see the the downside 138 00:08:08,680 --> 00:08:12,120 to AI and some of these things and needing human intervention, 139 00:08:12,120 --> 00:08:14,560 for example. And I do think that this is 140 00:08:14,560 --> 00:08:18,320 where when HR professionals, especially business partners, 141 00:08:18,320 --> 00:08:23,760 generalists, managers, they are in the know with whatever might 142 00:08:23,760 --> 00:08:27,760 be going on it, it builds a lot of credibility within a 143 00:08:27,760 --> 00:08:30,800 business, especially if someone's like an HR consultant 144 00:08:30,800 --> 00:08:33,440 or something like that. You got to know what's going on, 145 00:08:34,360 --> 00:08:38,039 got to be on the be in the scoop in the know, listen to the 146 00:08:38,039 --> 00:08:41,440 Policy Pulse episodes and maybe maybe everyone will be that much 147 00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:43,000 more informed. That's right. 148 00:08:43,440 --> 00:08:48,320 Speaking of the EEOC, perfect segue, the EEOC sued A staffing 149 00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:50,960 firm over male only hiring request. 150 00:08:52,120 --> 00:08:55,520 And I described this as a juicy story before we started 151 00:08:55,520 --> 00:08:57,960 recording. And I I think it's juicy because 152 00:08:57,960 --> 00:09:01,400 it's, it's these are just things that, you know, are really 153 00:09:01,400 --> 00:09:05,600 fascinating to me, these types of lawsuits or, you know, 154 00:09:05,600 --> 00:09:08,480 whatever might be coming kind of to fruition. 155 00:09:08,480 --> 00:09:13,280 So the EEOC filed suit against a South Carolina staffing firm 156 00:09:13,280 --> 00:09:17,280 accused of honoring a client's male only preference for laborer 157 00:09:17,280 --> 00:09:19,760 positions. The agency alleges that Work 158 00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:23,560 Smart Staffing excluded women based on client instructions, 159 00:09:24,280 --> 00:09:27,480 blocking qualified female candidates and failing to train 160 00:09:27,480 --> 00:09:29,720 staff to resist unlawful demands. 161 00:09:30,160 --> 00:09:35,600 This is so fascinating to me because it's like, how do you do 162 00:09:35,600 --> 00:09:38,000 that? How do you make such a dumb 163 00:09:38,000 --> 00:09:42,080 mistake to to to kind of go in that path? 164 00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:45,160 But at the same time, then I questioned myself and I'm like, 165 00:09:45,160 --> 00:09:48,800 well, are there certain circumstances where you can say 166 00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:51,640 this is the preference? Obviously you can't discriminate 167 00:09:51,640 --> 00:09:54,320 against someone else. So there, you know, there's a 168 00:09:54,320 --> 00:09:57,680 lot of grey there. Anyway, take us, walk us through 169 00:09:57,680 --> 00:10:00,160 it, Brian. I mean, I will say this, Tracy, 170 00:10:00,160 --> 00:10:02,800 it never underestimate the ability of people to be dumb, 171 00:10:03,040 --> 00:10:05,200 whether intentional or unintentional. 172 00:10:05,200 --> 00:10:10,320 Totally. So, yeah, this, this one's 173 00:10:10,320 --> 00:10:13,800 actually interesting to me because this one, the EEOC 174 00:10:13,800 --> 00:10:18,480 initiated this case itself. Usually with an EEOC charge, 175 00:10:18,480 --> 00:10:23,360 there's an employee complaint that is filed with the EEOC, 176 00:10:23,360 --> 00:10:28,080 they investigate and then decide to, to take it further or to, to 177 00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:31,000 walk away. This was something where the 178 00:10:31,000 --> 00:10:36,320 commissioner saw this and filed a charge on their own. 179 00:10:37,400 --> 00:10:40,880 To me that demonstrates sort of a, an, an aggressive approach. 180 00:10:41,960 --> 00:10:45,960 It, it also sort of puts staffing agencies on notice 181 00:10:46,640 --> 00:10:51,560 because they in, in some cases, depending on the set up, this is 182 00:10:51,560 --> 00:10:54,360 not, you know, a broad brush, but like it depending on the set 183 00:10:54,360 --> 00:10:58,160 up, sometimes employment staffing agencies can, can be 184 00:10:58,160 --> 00:11:05,000 exposed to double liability. So this is something that HR 185 00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:07,640 absolutely needs to keep an eye on. 186 00:11:07,640 --> 00:11:10,280 This is something that I think anybody who's been through like 187 00:11:10,360 --> 00:11:16,000 HR one O 1 would be able to pump the brakes and say, wait, this 188 00:11:16,000 --> 00:11:20,440 is not something we can do. But if you're in that situation, 189 00:11:20,720 --> 00:11:23,160 especially as a staffing agency, you want to be, you want to 190 00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:25,400 train your recruiters because a lot of times, even though 191 00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:29,200 recruiters are technically under the HR umbrella, they don't 192 00:11:29,200 --> 00:11:33,680 always get HR training. They don't always understand the 193 00:11:33,680 --> 00:11:38,280 nuances of HR itself. So that's important to make sure 194 00:11:38,280 --> 00:11:43,560 that that recruiters are being trained and then document it 195 00:11:43,760 --> 00:11:46,360 like everything in HR, right? We've talked about it ad 196 00:11:46,360 --> 00:11:48,560 nauseam. You and I document, document, 197 00:11:48,560 --> 00:11:51,600 document. If you feel like as a recruiter, 198 00:11:51,720 --> 00:11:54,720 even you, you see something come across your desk that says we're 199 00:11:54,720 --> 00:11:58,560 only hiring males for this position, document that and say 200 00:11:58,600 --> 00:12:01,000 this is this is not OK. I'm not OK with this. 201 00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:03,240 There's something wrong here. Pass it up the chain. 202 00:12:04,360 --> 00:12:06,960 And and because again, there's, that's where that double 203 00:12:06,960 --> 00:12:09,640 liability comes into play. The staffing agency, if they 204 00:12:09,880 --> 00:12:14,000 move forward with posting a job that says males only or don't 205 00:12:14,000 --> 00:12:18,280 put it in the job posting, but weed out any female applicants 206 00:12:18,720 --> 00:12:22,120 during the initial screening process, that puts some 207 00:12:22,120 --> 00:12:24,240 potential liability on the staffing agency itself. 208 00:12:24,240 --> 00:12:28,160 So it's, it's vital, it's important that that recruiters 209 00:12:28,160 --> 00:12:31,600 are trained on, on this type of stuff to at least be able to 210 00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:35,960 have sort of the, the, the base level knowledge of what's going 211 00:12:35,960 --> 00:12:39,280 on. And, and know that like, you 212 00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:41,880 can't say we're only hiring males for this position. 213 00:12:42,560 --> 00:12:46,760 There are some, there are some exceptions where like depending 214 00:12:46,760 --> 00:12:51,880 on job duties and things like that there, there might be ways 215 00:12:51,880 --> 00:12:55,920 that that you might be able to exclude certain applicants 216 00:12:55,920 --> 00:12:57,840 because of their characteristics. 217 00:12:58,480 --> 00:13:01,000 But those are those are really thin exceptions. 218 00:13:01,480 --> 00:13:04,640 Yeah, this was one of the things that I was thinking about. 219 00:13:05,280 --> 00:13:08,640 But before I get into that, because I have a whole oops, I 220 00:13:08,800 --> 00:13:10,400 just touched my mic. Well, I've edit that out because 221 00:13:10,400 --> 00:13:15,720 I probably was like 1250. All right, we'll keep it going. 222 00:13:15,960 --> 00:13:20,120 So before I get into all of those thoughts that I have one 223 00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:23,840 of the other thoughts in my mind other than like, seriously, how 224 00:13:23,840 --> 00:13:27,680 can someone be so dumb? Is that this is such poor 225 00:13:27,680 --> 00:13:30,800 judgement. Like I would probably no, not 226 00:13:30,800 --> 00:13:32,440 probably. I would literally never hire the 227 00:13:32,440 --> 00:13:36,560 staffing agency because of this. It's so foolish. 228 00:13:36,880 --> 00:13:41,280 I mean, they're intrinsically, you have to know that there's, 229 00:13:41,480 --> 00:13:45,080 there's discrimination there, whether they like it or not. 230 00:13:45,440 --> 00:13:48,080 And then this is kind of what I was thinking about. 231 00:13:48,080 --> 00:13:51,760 And what I sort of alluded to in the beginning is that we see job 232 00:13:51,760 --> 00:13:55,200 description sometimes that say must be able to lift 50 lbs, 233 00:13:55,200 --> 00:13:59,800 must be able to, I don't know, must be, must feel comfortable 234 00:13:59,800 --> 00:14:02,640 being in whatever circumstance. Like, I think of, I have a 235 00:14:02,640 --> 00:14:10,440 family member who is a probation officer and they, she has to 236 00:14:10,440 --> 00:14:14,640 like observe when people provide urine samples, for example. 237 00:14:15,240 --> 00:14:22,080 And so as a woman, she is paired up with female like clients, as 238 00:14:22,080 --> 00:14:23,800 they call them, people who are on probation. 239 00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:29,360 And so I, one of the thoughts that I wondered about is when 240 00:14:29,360 --> 00:14:33,480 there are moments where saying that you need a female probation 241 00:14:33,480 --> 00:14:35,760 officer or a male probation officer because of the 242 00:14:35,800 --> 00:14:40,160 clientele, because of the population to reduce risk, for 243 00:14:40,160 --> 00:14:44,360 example, for them and the client where that might come into play. 244 00:14:44,360 --> 00:14:49,520 But I think I would imagine that it's done in a much different 245 00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:53,640 way than don't interview female client candidates or we're not 246 00:14:53,640 --> 00:14:56,480 accepting female candidates. So that's the first thought, 247 00:14:56,480 --> 00:14:58,480 which I'm curious to hear your perspective on. 248 00:14:58,480 --> 00:15:03,440 And the second is like, as someone with a name that men 249 00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:06,760 have sometimes, like Tracy Morgan, for example, my name is 250 00:15:06,760 --> 00:15:08,720 Tracy. His name is Tracy. 251 00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:11,480 What? There is a possibility that 252 00:15:11,480 --> 00:15:14,800 they're just completely discriminating against so many 253 00:15:14,800 --> 00:15:18,920 fronts because they see a name and they think it's they they're 254 00:15:19,120 --> 00:15:20,880 just, you know, it's just gendered, right? 255 00:15:21,080 --> 00:15:24,920 And it does make me think of an episode in the most recent 256 00:15:24,920 --> 00:15:29,400 season of and just like That where the this one character, 257 00:15:29,400 --> 00:15:31,960 Lisa, has an editor named Marion. 258 00:15:32,160 --> 00:15:36,640 And Marion is a guy and it's like a blip of an episode where 259 00:15:36,640 --> 00:15:38,760 he's like, yeah, that's my name. Like So what? 260 00:15:38,760 --> 00:15:41,200 It could be a girl's name too. And so I don't know. 261 00:15:41,240 --> 00:15:45,560 This is obviously lower on the the risk standpoint, I guess, in 262 00:15:45,560 --> 00:15:49,360 terms of the discrimination that has happened with this staffing 263 00:15:49,360 --> 00:15:52,360 firm. But All in all, it's just really 264 00:15:52,360 --> 00:15:55,760 dumb. And I can't imagine how many 265 00:15:55,760 --> 00:15:57,600 people said, yeah, this is a good idea. 266 00:15:57,960 --> 00:16:02,320 But anyway, going back to this initial question around, you 267 00:16:02,320 --> 00:16:05,640 know, or like circumstance where maybe it's OK to say that we 268 00:16:05,640 --> 00:16:08,960 need like females for this or males for that. 269 00:16:09,360 --> 00:16:11,920 Where does that kind of come up? Does it come up? 270 00:16:12,040 --> 00:16:14,760 Is it OK? See in that instance with with 271 00:16:14,760 --> 00:16:17,960 probation officers, I would argue that you don't actually 272 00:16:17,960 --> 00:16:22,880 need to hire a female probation officer, but you may need female 273 00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,040 staff around. So like you wouldn't necessarily 274 00:16:26,040 --> 00:16:32,240 have to only hire female P OS, you could hire, you know, anyone 275 00:16:32,560 --> 00:16:34,640 like A. Secretary or someone who can. 276 00:16:34,640 --> 00:16:37,080 As long as someone can witness, it's kind of like when you go to 277 00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:41,200 the go to the doctor's office and you, you have a male doctor, 278 00:16:41,200 --> 00:16:45,320 a female comes in during certain examination, like that same type 279 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:47,240 of thing. Like you just have a, a second, 280 00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:51,520 a second person there, especially if the patient or 281 00:16:51,520 --> 00:16:55,960 client requests it, it, it comes. 282 00:16:56,040 --> 00:17:03,120 So I think the, the, the best example for like exclusion for 283 00:17:03,120 --> 00:17:06,800 certain things is it's not exactly a one to one, but I 284 00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:11,160 think this will give people a a good idea is truck drivers. 285 00:17:11,960 --> 00:17:15,040 Anybody who has a DUI is immediately excluded. 286 00:17:15,040 --> 00:17:17,359 You cannot, you can't be a truck driver. 287 00:17:19,359 --> 00:17:23,839 And so that is, that is a characteristic that someone has 288 00:17:24,880 --> 00:17:28,160 and it excludes them from certain certain types of jobs. 289 00:17:29,200 --> 00:17:33,240 So I think that, like I said, the the exceptions are thin. 290 00:17:33,560 --> 00:17:38,400 If if we're painting a broad brush, we're going to say, never 291 00:17:38,680 --> 00:17:42,920 say that this job requires only males or only females. 292 00:17:44,600 --> 00:17:48,120 It's important to make sure that you're evaluating people based 293 00:17:48,120 --> 00:17:51,360 on qualifications. And to your point about, you 294 00:17:51,360 --> 00:17:56,120 know, being able to lift 50 lbs, sure, 70 years ago that may have 295 00:17:56,120 --> 00:17:59,600 excluded females because, you know, we aren't where we are 296 00:17:59,600 --> 00:18:03,440 today. And so only men would have been 297 00:18:03,440 --> 00:18:07,360 hired for for jobs because you have to be able to lift, lift 50 298 00:18:07,360 --> 00:18:08,960 lbs. And because you know women 299 00:18:08,960 --> 00:18:11,280 aren't strong enough to lift 50 lbs, they can't lift a box, 300 00:18:11,280 --> 00:18:15,000 right? With two 30 LB toddlers I can 301 00:18:15,000 --> 00:18:18,800 say I totally do this with you. I have no doubt. 302 00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:23,600 So that that is kind of one of those that's like it. 303 00:18:23,600 --> 00:18:28,640 It's, it's one of those examples of like a very thin, a thin 304 00:18:28,640 --> 00:18:33,000 reason to to exclude someone, which I don't think is is 305 00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:36,520 legitimate. But there are, there are some, 306 00:18:36,520 --> 00:18:41,280 some extremely minor exceptions like that where, where people 307 00:18:41,280 --> 00:18:45,640 can be excluded based on specific characteristics, right. 308 00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:47,360 The DUI is a good one. Yeah, yeah. 309 00:18:47,360 --> 00:18:49,920 Another one, another quick, easy one would be somebody who's 310 00:18:50,320 --> 00:18:57,160 maybe in a wheelchair and they can't, you know, they too can't 311 00:18:57,160 --> 00:19:01,280 be a truck driver unless there are, you know, trucks that allow 312 00:19:01,280 --> 00:19:04,600 for like cars where you can drive if you don't have use of 313 00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:06,720 your legs. If if trucks exactly. 314 00:19:07,080 --> 00:19:10,120 So like there are, again, you know, now we go back to some of 315 00:19:10,120 --> 00:19:13,200 the accommodations discussions that we've had in previous 316 00:19:13,200 --> 00:19:16,800 episodes where maybe there's an accommodation for someone who 317 00:19:16,800 --> 00:19:18,960 doesn't have the use of their legs to become a truck driver 318 00:19:19,600 --> 00:19:23,120 that a court would say is a legitimate request. 319 00:19:23,320 --> 00:19:27,480 And you know, the employer has to has to allow that for, for 320 00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:28,640 the employee who's in a wheelchair. 321 00:19:28,960 --> 00:19:32,240 So there are, again, there are, there are minor exceptions 322 00:19:32,240 --> 00:19:33,960 where, where some things like that would come into play. 323 00:19:33,960 --> 00:19:36,800 But if if you're looking at broad brush, don't ever say 324 00:19:36,800 --> 00:19:41,760 males only or females only. Yeah, we extra emphasis on that. 325 00:19:42,120 --> 00:19:45,120 So dumb with a capital DI don't understand. 326 00:19:46,240 --> 00:19:49,480 Well the EEOC I'm sure had a field day with that. 327 00:19:49,480 --> 00:19:52,480 To your point, taking an aggressive approach and it's 328 00:19:52,520 --> 00:19:55,840 wildly. It's just wild to me. 329 00:19:55,840 --> 00:20:00,680 I should say that no one complained, no one said this is 330 00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:05,440 not legal or this is not cool. I think that goes to, to some of 331 00:20:05,440 --> 00:20:07,400 the training, you know, I think that goes to some of the 332 00:20:07,400 --> 00:20:08,400 training that we've talked about. 333 00:20:09,120 --> 00:20:13,680 You know, I, before I went out on my own, I, I was director of 334 00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:15,320 HR for a national staffing agency. 335 00:20:15,320 --> 00:20:20,840 And I mean, I, when I came in, I instituted HR training for all 336 00:20:20,840 --> 00:20:25,080 of the 30 ish recruiters that were in the office because it, I 337 00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:27,960 saw, I saw that as a huge gap that was a huge potential 338 00:20:27,960 --> 00:20:30,960 liability. So we needed to have, we needed 339 00:20:30,960 --> 00:20:33,760 to have some training for, for at least again, like we talked 340 00:20:33,760 --> 00:20:35,400 about the base level knowledge of HR. 341 00:20:35,400 --> 00:20:37,240 What are the things that you just have to know? 342 00:20:37,240 --> 00:20:39,600 What's the one O 1 course? Right. 343 00:20:39,800 --> 00:20:44,280 Don't discriminate. Plain and simple, right? 344 00:20:46,240 --> 00:20:48,600 And taking a little bit of a different approach here, 345 00:20:48,600 --> 00:20:50,960 California, we always come back to California. 346 00:20:50,960 --> 00:20:54,960 There California is always on the docket for us these 347 00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,920 episodes. So California expanded pay 348 00:20:57,920 --> 00:21:00,680 transparency and equal pay liability. 349 00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:04,400 Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 642, strengthening 350 00:21:04,400 --> 00:21:07,600 California's pay transparency and equal pay laws effective 351 00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:09,960 January 1st, 2026. So the next few months, 352 00:21:10,520 --> 00:21:14,680 employers must post a good faith pay range reflecting what they 353 00:21:14,680 --> 00:21:18,520 realistically expect to pay the selected candidate, not the 354 00:21:18,520 --> 00:21:21,280 broadest possible range. Some of these ranges. 355 00:21:21,360 --> 00:21:24,200 I, I mean, can we take a moment to say like, you're not going to 356 00:21:24,200 --> 00:21:27,440 pay someone between 100 and $500,000? 357 00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:32,120 Like, let's be so for real. Anyway, the law also extends the 358 00:21:32,120 --> 00:21:36,680 statute of limitations for Equal Pay Act claims to three years. 359 00:21:36,680 --> 00:21:39,320 So just to, because I my inflection was a little funny, 360 00:21:39,480 --> 00:21:43,400 the statute of limitations is extended to three years for any 361 00:21:43,400 --> 00:21:47,680 Equal Pay Act claims allowing recovery for up to six years of 362 00:21:47,680 --> 00:21:50,520 violations. So this is really interesting. 363 00:21:50,600 --> 00:21:54,680 I, I definitely am going to pass to you, of course, this good 364 00:21:54,680 --> 00:21:57,600 faith pay range, which frankly, some businesses are not even 365 00:21:57,600 --> 00:22:01,520 posting pay ranges still, which is completely insane. 366 00:22:01,520 --> 00:22:04,480 Again, when we think about HR one O 1, like you've got to know 367 00:22:04,480 --> 00:22:07,400 what's required your job put we talked about this, I think last 368 00:22:07,400 --> 00:22:09,160 month. Your job post is reaching people 369 00:22:09,160 --> 00:22:11,840 outside of your own state, so you have to assume that people 370 00:22:11,840 --> 00:22:14,400 are going to apply outside of your own state that may or may 371 00:22:14,400 --> 00:22:17,680 not have paid transparency laws. You have to do the right thing. 372 00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:21,920 And I literally saw a role, I think it might have been like AI 373 00:22:21,920 --> 00:22:25,280 don't know if it was like an HR business partner role or 374 00:22:25,280 --> 00:22:31,640 something, director something. And it was $100,000 to $450,000. 375 00:22:31,680 --> 00:22:34,920 And I was like, is this a senior role or is this a junior role? 376 00:22:34,920 --> 00:22:37,120 Have you not decided? Are you doing this so that you 377 00:22:37,120 --> 00:22:38,360 have flexibility? Like what? 378 00:22:38,560 --> 00:22:41,800 Because it's not that you can't pay above the range, it's that 379 00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:45,080 you should post the range that you expect to pay someone. 380 00:22:45,080 --> 00:22:47,840 And then obviously, negotiations happen and sometimes you end up 381 00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:50,320 paying a little bit more, but you shouldn't be paying less 382 00:22:50,680 --> 00:22:54,840 anyway. Brian, tell us what's going on 383 00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:57,440 here. I think the simplest way to sort 384 00:22:57,440 --> 00:23:01,520 of distill this down is that California now says you can't 385 00:23:02,120 --> 00:23:05,920 put in a job description what you could pay an employee. 386 00:23:06,480 --> 00:23:09,760 You have to put in the job posting what you will pay the 387 00:23:09,760 --> 00:23:14,480 employee, and that can still be a range, but it has to be an 388 00:23:14,560 --> 00:23:16,400 accurate range. It's like you said, you know 389 00:23:16,400 --> 00:23:18,680 100,000 to 500,000 is not an accurate range. 390 00:23:19,160 --> 00:23:21,800 If it is an accurate range for your company, if you can make a 391 00:23:21,800 --> 00:23:25,760 legitimate business case for it, then you need to explain what 392 00:23:25,760 --> 00:23:27,520 goes into that. And that's part of where the 393 00:23:27,520 --> 00:23:30,480 California law redefines wages to include all those other 394 00:23:30,480 --> 00:23:33,120 things that we talked about earlier, like supplemental pay. 395 00:23:33,320 --> 00:23:37,680 It also includes bonuses, stock options, the supplemental pay, 396 00:23:38,240 --> 00:23:41,520 any allowances. Allowances would be things like 397 00:23:41,880 --> 00:23:45,480 ancillary benefits, like, you know, if you're a traveling 398 00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:49,120 salesperson, the company may pay for all of your gas, they may 399 00:23:49,120 --> 00:23:52,240 buy you a car. All of that needs to be 400 00:23:52,240 --> 00:23:56,280 calculated into these pay ranges so that there's an accurate pay 401 00:23:56,280 --> 00:24:01,280 range for people to look at. That is what you will actually 402 00:24:01,280 --> 00:24:04,640 be paying, not what you could maybe pay. 403 00:24:04,960 --> 00:24:07,840 So why are we talking about California 1, like you said, it 404 00:24:07,840 --> 00:24:11,760 tends to, you know, be the, be the, the leading voice on some 405 00:24:11,760 --> 00:24:16,280 of these things. But two, it's it remote work. 406 00:24:16,320 --> 00:24:19,160 Like you also said, we're hiring people across state lines a lot 407 00:24:19,160 --> 00:24:22,760 more than we used to, and employers need to be aware of 408 00:24:22,760 --> 00:24:24,160 this if you're hiring nationwide. 409 00:24:24,160 --> 00:24:27,000 If you're hiring for a remote job, your job posting is going 410 00:24:27,000 --> 00:24:30,520 to be seen in California. You need to be compliant with 411 00:24:30,520 --> 00:24:32,600 the California job posting laws. Right. 412 00:24:33,000 --> 00:24:39,680 So just so I'm clear, then, if let's say a job has the base 413 00:24:39,680 --> 00:24:43,360 range, generally speaking, and it's and it's reasonable, the 414 00:24:44,320 --> 00:24:49,560 bonus and these other wages, then they, they can't just say 415 00:24:49,560 --> 00:24:53,040 bonus or stock. They have to say the amount. 416 00:24:53,200 --> 00:24:57,200 Like it has to actually explicitly state the number that 417 00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:01,440 maybe stock is not included in wages, but maybe it is if it's 418 00:25:01,440 --> 00:25:04,480 a, if it's considered a benefit in some capacity. 419 00:25:04,480 --> 00:25:06,920 And maybe we'll get more clarity on that because I think of 420 00:25:06,920 --> 00:25:10,600 California, I think of these companies that offer Rs us or IS 421 00:25:10,600 --> 00:25:14,640 OS but bonuses. That's interesting because 422 00:25:14,640 --> 00:25:19,240 usually you see base salary plus bonus, you know the range for 423 00:25:19,240 --> 00:25:22,920 the base salary and then plus bonus and you don't have clarity 424 00:25:22,920 --> 00:25:25,760 on what that bonus is. Yeah, and a lot of times. 425 00:25:25,760 --> 00:25:30,440 So you're right, California is now requiring that what wages 426 00:25:30,680 --> 00:25:33,480 will include all of that, Bonuses, stock options, 427 00:25:33,640 --> 00:25:37,120 supplemental pay, all of that. So yes. 428 00:25:37,120 --> 00:25:38,600 Oh. Yeah, you did say stock options. 429 00:25:38,600 --> 00:25:39,840 I'm. Sorry, it can be challenging. 430 00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:43,640 Yeah, it can be challenging sometimes to calculate a bonus, 431 00:25:43,640 --> 00:25:49,360 but most companies that offer bonuses, whether it's to 432 00:25:50,160 --> 00:25:53,760 salespeople or for performance based, they have a cap on it. 433 00:25:54,160 --> 00:25:57,920 So you at least know what the cap is going to be on on a 434 00:25:57,920 --> 00:25:59,520 bonus. So you can include that 435 00:25:59,520 --> 00:26:05,400 calculation in the wage range that you're putting in the you 436 00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:07,680 can. Just say like total like. 437 00:26:08,600 --> 00:26:10,800 It's total. Targeted, yeah, total comp, 438 00:26:11,080 --> 00:26:15,400 targeted earnings and then it's rather than breaking it up based 439 00:26:15,400 --> 00:26:18,360 on salary and bonus you that interesting. 440 00:26:18,800 --> 00:26:20,640 Exactly. I do think there's, I do think 441 00:26:20,640 --> 00:26:23,520 there's some confusion that will, you know, sort of be 442 00:26:23,960 --> 00:26:26,680 worked through over the next, over the next couple of years as 443 00:26:26,680 --> 00:26:29,320 this law takes effect January 1st. 444 00:26:29,320 --> 00:26:33,360 So I think that yeah, I think there will be some some 445 00:26:33,360 --> 00:26:38,320 clarification whether through additional legislation in 446 00:26:38,320 --> 00:26:42,120 California or through courts in California sort of putting some 447 00:26:42,120 --> 00:26:45,160 more definition around some of these things like what's an 448 00:26:45,160 --> 00:26:47,880 acceptable range. Like if we don't sure we may 449 00:26:47,880 --> 00:26:50,920 have a cap on our bonuses, but we don't know exactly, you know, 450 00:26:50,920 --> 00:26:56,320 the range for a bonus maybe could be like $200,000 depending 451 00:26:56,320 --> 00:26:59,240 on on the position. So like that could be a big 452 00:26:59,240 --> 00:27:02,680 jump, like maybe the total comp for this particular position 453 00:27:02,680 --> 00:27:07,480 with a $200,000 range of bonus could actually be like 300 to 454 00:27:07,480 --> 00:27:09,280 500,000. Is that too much? 455 00:27:09,560 --> 00:27:14,360 Is that too much of A of a range or is that estimated enough? 456 00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:17,040 So I think those are some questions that that we'll see 457 00:27:17,040 --> 00:27:18,880 some answers to over the next couple of years. 458 00:27:20,120 --> 00:27:22,760 But I do think it's a, it's a step in the right direction 459 00:27:22,760 --> 00:27:25,840 because like to your point at the top of this, this 460 00:27:25,840 --> 00:27:30,440 discussion, it was, we saw so many as, as these laws started 461 00:27:30,440 --> 00:27:34,000 to start to hit in different cities, cities and states over 462 00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:38,000 the past few years, we saw a lot of that where companies would 463 00:27:38,000 --> 00:27:41,200 just put, OK, you know, this job will pay between 90 and 464 00:27:41,200 --> 00:27:43,600 $900,000. OK, thanks. 465 00:27:43,600 --> 00:27:47,760 Like that's not useful. So I think trying to really 466 00:27:47,760 --> 00:27:52,520 scale this down and and make it into a useful, useful estimate 467 00:27:53,400 --> 00:27:58,120 is, is is an important step for for for a state to take to 468 00:27:58,120 --> 00:28:01,200 require employers to to provide that for potential applicants. 469 00:28:01,400 --> 00:28:04,440 Yeah. It makes me think a little bit 470 00:28:04,440 --> 00:28:07,640 further about the stock options piece, which I'm sorry I didn't. 471 00:28:07,840 --> 00:28:11,280 It like went right over my head when you talked about it before. 472 00:28:13,160 --> 00:28:16,160 How does that work for private companies that don't share the 473 00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:19,160 cost of or the the value of a share? 474 00:28:19,600 --> 00:28:23,640 Like if they're putting it, let's say, for example, in the 475 00:28:23,640 --> 00:28:30,360 total comp, then it's not really clear for the candidate that 476 00:28:30,360 --> 00:28:33,800 they're receiving stock unless it's explicitly stated that they 477 00:28:33,800 --> 00:28:36,440 receive stock. And that's part of this total 478 00:28:36,720 --> 00:28:39,760 comp kind of assessment. The other thing too is that a 479 00:28:39,760 --> 00:28:43,600 lot of companies argue that stock is part of total comp when 480 00:28:43,600 --> 00:28:46,760 you look at it on the broader scale, but not part of your 481 00:28:46,760 --> 00:28:50,760 targeted earnings. Because depending on if the 482 00:28:50,760 --> 00:28:53,800 company is public or not, you might not actually be able to 483 00:28:53,800 --> 00:28:55,840 cash in on any of your shares yet. 484 00:28:56,160 --> 00:28:59,600 So I just wonder how that will work. 485 00:29:00,440 --> 00:29:01,800 Yeah, you're right. And there may be a vesting 486 00:29:01,800 --> 00:29:03,840 period. I think that's part of the, I 487 00:29:03,840 --> 00:29:06,040 think that's part of the clarification that we'll see 488 00:29:06,040 --> 00:29:09,840 over the next couple of years about, you know, is that, is 489 00:29:09,840 --> 00:29:13,880 that part of the compensation, is that part of the wages as 490 00:29:13,880 --> 00:29:17,680 California has defined it? Because I, I could see sort of 491 00:29:17,680 --> 00:29:20,200 going in the other direction. I could see another another 492 00:29:20,320 --> 00:29:25,400 option where employers simply stop offering stock options or 493 00:29:25,400 --> 00:29:28,920 they only offer it after your third year, your 5th year. 494 00:29:28,960 --> 00:29:31,040 Yeah, something like that. Oh, interesting. 495 00:29:31,920 --> 00:29:35,440 That'll be fascinating, especially when we think about 496 00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:39,560 like Silicon Valley and all of those tech startups like they 497 00:29:39,560 --> 00:29:43,080 really lean into stock options for attracting talent. 498 00:29:43,080 --> 00:29:46,360 That'll be very interesting. I'll have to find a few to kind 499 00:29:46,360 --> 00:29:49,640 of keep my eyes on and see what they're doing with their job 500 00:29:49,640 --> 00:29:51,560 postings. That's really interesting. 501 00:29:51,560 --> 00:29:53,240 Yeah. I guess we'll have to see how 502 00:29:53,240 --> 00:29:57,160 things shake out. But it is, it is interesting 503 00:29:57,160 --> 00:30:00,520 from like a candidate perspective that then you have 504 00:30:00,600 --> 00:30:08,040 even more clarity, unless it's hard to even see the reasonable 505 00:30:08,040 --> 00:30:11,840 range really play out. Because again, if the bonus is 506 00:30:11,840 --> 00:30:15,120 really high and then the stock options are really high, you 507 00:30:15,120 --> 00:30:17,800 could end up being in the same situation where you have this 90 508 00:30:17,800 --> 00:30:23,360 to $900,000 pay range, although unlikely, it could be like a 509 00:30:23,360 --> 00:30:27,280 $400,000 gap, $500,000 range, I should say. 510 00:30:28,560 --> 00:30:30,320 So it'll be interesting to see how that shakes out. 511 00:30:31,400 --> 00:30:38,360 Yeah. Our last kind of pulse policy 512 00:30:38,360 --> 00:30:41,120 pulse item here is about the Supreme Court. 513 00:30:42,400 --> 00:30:45,520 So there are some major cases that could reshape HR. 514 00:30:45,800 --> 00:30:49,760 The Supreme Court's 20252026 term includes several cases that 515 00:30:49,760 --> 00:30:53,240 could dramatically alter how federal agencies regulate the 516 00:30:53,240 --> 00:30:55,720 workplace. The headline case, Trump versus 517 00:30:55,720 --> 00:30:58,880 Slaughter, challenges whether presidents can remove members of 518 00:30:58,880 --> 00:31:03,960 independent agencies like the FTCNLRB or EEOC without cause. 519 00:31:04,520 --> 00:31:08,840 The court will also hear Little versus Hecox bans on transgender 520 00:31:08,840 --> 00:31:12,960 athletes, M&K Employee Solutions versus IAM pension fund union 521 00:31:12,960 --> 00:31:17,120 pension liability, and GEO Group versus Monocle, A sovereign 522 00:31:17,120 --> 00:31:19,240 immunity for federal contractors. 523 00:31:19,480 --> 00:31:24,000 Two additional petitions, Cook County versus Nawara under the 524 00:31:24,000 --> 00:31:29,120 ADA and Parker Hannifin versus Johnson under ERISA. 525 00:31:29,320 --> 00:31:31,840 Am I saying I always like question whether I should say it 526 00:31:31,840 --> 00:31:34,400 ERISA or ERISA, but I always say ERISA, is that right? 527 00:31:34,720 --> 00:31:38,160 Yeah, yes, they and they could also reach the court this term. 528 00:31:38,160 --> 00:31:42,600 So a lot of cases. A lot, yeah. 529 00:31:42,960 --> 00:31:44,680 Yeah. I think this could be an 530 00:31:44,680 --> 00:31:50,400 interesting, an interesting term for HRI think that, I mean, not 531 00:31:50,400 --> 00:31:53,120 to mention the country in general, but also for HR 532 00:31:53,120 --> 00:31:56,720 specifically. I think that, you know, right 533 00:31:56,720 --> 00:32:01,560 now, it's we, we could before between our discussion today and 534 00:32:01,560 --> 00:32:07,680 when this, when this pod drops, we could actually have some 535 00:32:07,680 --> 00:32:09,240 announcements on some of these cases. 536 00:32:09,240 --> 00:32:12,960 So, you know, we can come back and and chat again next month. 537 00:32:12,960 --> 00:32:15,600 If if we do that. I think for me, the the, the 538 00:32:15,600 --> 00:32:18,560 most important one that that HR needs to pay attention to is the 539 00:32:18,640 --> 00:32:22,480 the Trump B Slaughter, the one that the challenge is whether 540 00:32:22,480 --> 00:32:25,440 presidents can remove members of independent agencies without 541 00:32:25,440 --> 00:32:27,800 cause. Presidents as the the head of 542 00:32:27,800 --> 00:32:35,680 the executive branch can remove employees of executive agencies, 543 00:32:36,160 --> 00:32:38,360 but they have to have cause for doing so. 544 00:32:38,880 --> 00:32:41,080 So essentially this this case, Trump V. 545 00:32:41,080 --> 00:32:46,400 Slaughter, is seeking to overturn a 1935 case that 546 00:32:46,400 --> 00:32:51,040 protects independent agency employees from from removal by 547 00:32:51,040 --> 00:32:54,680 the president without 'cause this would give the president 548 00:32:54,680 --> 00:32:57,640 far more control over these types of agencies. 549 00:32:57,640 --> 00:33:00,080 Specifically for our conversation, the NLRB and the 550 00:33:00,080 --> 00:33:07,040 EEOC, which could mean wild swings every every four years. 551 00:33:08,120 --> 00:33:14,960 You could see changes on labor law on wage an hour priorities 552 00:33:14,960 --> 00:33:17,080 like we've talked about earlier with with the overtime 553 00:33:17,080 --> 00:33:21,680 calculation. You could even see some OSHA 554 00:33:23,080 --> 00:33:29,320 safety standards changing. The, I think that's, that's the 555 00:33:29,320 --> 00:33:32,920 most important thing for, for HR to keep an eye on right now is 556 00:33:32,920 --> 00:33:34,760 to see what happens with this case. 557 00:33:34,760 --> 00:33:40,800 Because not because private companies and HR are, you know, 558 00:33:40,960 --> 00:33:45,880 have people working in federal agencies, but because 559 00:33:45,880 --> 00:33:50,280 specifically the NLRB and the EEOC could be decimated 560 00:33:50,280 --> 00:33:53,720 overnight and, and other people could be put in that have 561 00:33:53,720 --> 00:33:57,360 totally different priorities, taking the agencies in totally 562 00:33:57,360 --> 00:34:01,440 different directions. I think this, this will do. 563 00:34:01,720 --> 00:34:04,600 If this is overturned, and I don't know if it will be, but 564 00:34:04,600 --> 00:34:08,080 if, if the 1935 precedent is overturned, I think it will do 565 00:34:08,080 --> 00:34:10,080 two things. One, it will create those wild 566 00:34:10,080 --> 00:34:15,760 swings from an HR perspective that you just, you won't know 567 00:34:15,760 --> 00:34:19,560 what to expect. And two, some states will fill 568 00:34:19,560 --> 00:34:22,800 that gap like we talked about California, Washington, New 569 00:34:22,800 --> 00:34:24,440 York, Illinois, a handful of others. 570 00:34:24,719 --> 00:34:30,199 Those states at the state level will try and sort of counteract 571 00:34:30,199 --> 00:34:33,480 any of those wild swings and have more stability for 572 00:34:33,480 --> 00:34:38,480 employers and HR professionals if if that comes to be. 573 00:34:38,920 --> 00:34:41,920 Right, interesting. And the ERISA point too. 574 00:34:41,920 --> 00:34:46,159 It's so interesting because it's all about fiduciary plans 575 00:34:46,199 --> 00:34:49,040 basically, right or fiduciaries, I should say. 576 00:34:50,480 --> 00:34:55,239 And a lot of HR people probably don't even necessarily think 577 00:34:55,239 --> 00:35:01,000 about their, their, their fiduciary liability, whether 578 00:35:01,000 --> 00:35:07,440 they are managing plans for four O 1K or other types of pensions. 579 00:35:07,680 --> 00:35:10,520 Not well, maybe pensions, but also any other types of 580 00:35:10,520 --> 00:35:13,080 retirement funds or if they offload that. 581 00:35:13,080 --> 00:35:17,480 Like I, I, I mean, there's so much there that plus the EEOC 582 00:35:17,760 --> 00:35:19,600 plus the National Labor Review Board. 583 00:35:19,600 --> 00:35:22,280 I mean, that's, it's a lot. And we already have talked about 584 00:35:22,280 --> 00:35:26,560 the, the realities of being in HR and how we are already kind 585 00:35:26,560 --> 00:35:29,360 of in this like moment of whiplash, like, OK, just tell 586 00:35:29,360 --> 00:35:30,800 us, which way are we swinging here? 587 00:35:31,040 --> 00:35:36,320 So the idea of having more of a pendulum swing is a little bit 588 00:35:36,400 --> 00:35:39,560 terrifying, but we'll see, I guess, how it shakes out. 589 00:35:40,440 --> 00:35:43,480 Yeah, we certainly will. And and I think that also kind 590 00:35:43,480 --> 00:35:47,280 of says where we are that like I didn't even touch on the ERISA 591 00:35:47,280 --> 00:35:49,360 stuff, which is hugely important. 592 00:35:49,600 --> 00:35:53,160 And like you said, it's a, it's a massive potential fiduciary 593 00:35:53,160 --> 00:35:56,520 liability for, for employers that are offering those 594 00:35:56,520 --> 00:35:59,760 benefits. But that's where we are that 595 00:35:59,760 --> 00:36:05,200 like this, this, this huge issue is actually secondary to another 596 00:36:05,200 --> 00:36:09,240 even more massive potential potential issue from an HR 597 00:36:09,240 --> 00:36:11,560 perspective. I I think it's just it, yeah, 598 00:36:11,560 --> 00:36:13,200 it, it says a lot about where we are right now. 599 00:36:13,720 --> 00:36:16,560 Yeah, totally. We're, we're kind of just 600 00:36:16,560 --> 00:36:19,800 looking at the tip of the iceberg and the iceberg is vast. 601 00:36:21,480 --> 00:36:26,840 These are, these are major agencies major with like tons 602 00:36:26,840 --> 00:36:34,120 and tons and tons of oversight and regulation and, and things 603 00:36:34,120 --> 00:36:36,640 that ultimately impact us every single day. 604 00:36:37,800 --> 00:36:43,320 So I don't look forward to any possibility of any of those 605 00:36:43,320 --> 00:36:48,320 major, major organizations having major changes necessarily 606 00:36:48,320 --> 00:36:51,800 from some of these cases that ultimately could really reshape 607 00:36:52,560 --> 00:36:56,440 the entire landscape of the workforce and and workplaces. 608 00:36:56,440 --> 00:37:00,000 So thank you for giving us a, a taste of what may be to come. 609 00:37:00,000 --> 00:37:02,960 We will see. And I can't even believe it, 610 00:37:02,960 --> 00:37:04,560 it's we're already this is October. 611 00:37:04,560 --> 00:37:08,400 So our next policy pulse will be November and then we'll have 612 00:37:08,400 --> 00:37:11,600 probably one more after that before the end of the year, 613 00:37:11,600 --> 00:37:14,240 which is insane. I know, right? 614 00:37:14,280 --> 00:37:16,560 How is it? How is it the middle of October? 615 00:37:17,520 --> 00:37:19,200 Insane. Where has the time gone? 616 00:37:19,280 --> 00:37:21,840 I know I thought we were, I mean, September felt like a 617 00:37:21,840 --> 00:37:25,600 really long month, but now October, it's like like just 618 00:37:25,600 --> 00:37:27,760 flying by. It's a flash of lightning. 619 00:37:28,960 --> 00:37:33,000 Well, Brian, thank you again for another fabulous Policy Pulse 620 00:37:33,000 --> 00:37:35,680 segment. Thank you for being our resident 621 00:37:36,000 --> 00:37:39,680 expert in all things that could ultimately impact us very 622 00:37:39,680 --> 00:37:42,680 greatly. So for listeners out there, 623 00:37:42,680 --> 00:37:44,840 don't forget to take a look at the show notes so you can 624 00:37:44,840 --> 00:37:48,480 connect with Brian. Maybe we tap a shoulder if you 625 00:37:48,480 --> 00:37:53,760 need some, some support or you need to, you know, maybe bring 626 00:37:53,760 --> 00:37:59,520 some resources onto your team. Brian probably maybe is ready 627 00:37:59,520 --> 00:38:00,800 and available. I don't know, Brian, I'm 628 00:38:00,800 --> 00:38:03,480 offering you up, but I have no idea what your availability 629 00:38:03,480 --> 00:38:05,240 looks like. But definitely connect with 630 00:38:05,240 --> 00:38:07,400 Brian. Connect with the show, connect 631 00:38:07,400 --> 00:38:10,960 with me and we will see you next week for a regular episode and 632 00:38:10,960 --> 00:38:14,000 then in a month pretty much for our next policy policy episode. 633 00:38:14,000 --> 00:38:17,400 Thank you so much. Hey, just before you go, don't 634 00:38:17,400 --> 00:38:20,200 forget to subscribe to the show so that you are the first to 635 00:38:20,200 --> 00:38:23,960 hear when an episode drops each week and maybe leave a five star 636 00:38:23,960 --> 00:38:26,560 review and a comment about how much you love this episode. 637 00:38:26,720 --> 00:38:29,320 Plus, if you have someone in mind who would really enjoy this 638 00:38:29,320 --> 00:38:30,960 episode, make sure you share it with them. 639 00:38:31,080 --> 00:38:33,880 Thank you so much for tuning in and I'll see you next week.