Welcome to the Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources
podcast. I'm Tracy Chernoff, and I've
spent my entire professional career in HR.
Each week, we'll explore the delicate balance between people
and business with the aim to reconnect the two and create
meaningful outcomes. Listen in as I share my own
experiences, challenge the status quo, and chat with guests
from various industries about our mission to bring the human
back to human resources. Hi everyone, welcome back to the
Bringing the Human Back to Human Resources podcast.
Don't forget to rate review and subscribe wherever you're
catching this episode, whether you're watching or listening.
This is another policy poll segment.
I feel like I need the breaking news alert sound like, you know,
because this is a this is a monthly episode cadence for us
and us. Meaning if you're new here, this
is Brian joins me. He is a an attorney and he is
kind of our our resident expert in all things law.
But don't forget he is not giving you any legal advice.
So make sure you seek your own attorney, OK, Brian's mine.
You can't take it. No, just kidding.
But seriously, seek your own legal advice.
This Is Us just talking about things that might be relevant to
you and actually probably are very relevant to you, especially
if you have AUS based workforce. And so every month, as you
hopefully know if you've been listening, we take this policy
Pulse episode and we talk about all of the things that you
should have a pulse on from a policy standpoint.
So this month we're going to kick off the Policy Pulse
episode, talking about the Department of Labor.
Their ears must ring because we talk about them a lot.
And so we are going to talk about the emergency pay that now
must be included in overtime. So in a new opinion letter, the
Department of Labor determined that emergency pay, extra
compensation for work performed during declared emergencies,
must now be included when calculating overtime under the
FLSA or the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The case involved a city that paid firefighters a 50% premium
during emergencies. The Department of Labor ruled
that because the policy guaranteed the premium in
advance, it wasn't discretionary and had to be counted in the
regular rate of pay. Brian, can you break that down
for us? Tell us a little bit why it
matters, what we should do, how this impacts us.
Yeah. So generally speaking, employers
tend to, and many times rightfully so, take the base
wage for an employee. So say it's 10 bucks an hour.
Overtime for that 1.5 would be $15.00 an hour.
Easy math, right? So any hours over 40 would be
paid at $15.00 an hour instead of 10.
Except if there's some type of supplemental pay, emergency pay,
hazard pay, shift differential. Those are three of probably the
most common. Those are calculated in the base
pay. So if someone makes an
additional dollar an hour for emergency pay and they work 10
emergency hours during a certain pay period, for those 10 hours
their base pay is $11.00 an hour.
So now you have to average over the entire the entire
calculation. This becomes much more complex
now because your 1.5 on the base rate is going to be different
because the base rate itself is different, because it, it needs
to be calculated including the emergency pay, the hazard pay,
whatever supplemental pay is being offered.
And that's where actually you can use software that is really
helpful with that. Lots of of payroll software can
automatically calculate that for you based on your location,
based on the location of the employee, where they're working,
the type of pay that you're giving them, It will
automatically calculate the, the overtime rate based on the
adjusted base pay rate for that particular pay period.
And it, there was a lot of words to say essentially the base pay
becomes different when people get supplemental pay.
That's that's, that's the the, the the ultimate story there.
No, it's interesting. I, if I'm understanding
correctly, in the event of an emergency where someone is
receiving this type of hazard or, or an emergency pay, it
impacts their, their base rate at the hourly level and then the
overtime is calculated based on that new rate, correct?
That's really interesting. I, it makes me think about,
think about COVID and all the people who received hazard pay
and how that was, you know, kind of calculated overtime was not
calculated on top of that hazard pay.
It was separate, basically a separate line item.
And there were also a lot of people who are not overtime
eligible who did not get hazard pay.
But I'm just saying I know a few people who who are salaried and
did not get hazard pay during COVID.
But anyway, that's interesting. I hope that HR teams have really
strong payroll support because the complexity of that and what
I would imagine is the exposure in not properly calculating is
quite significant. So for teams actually who are
smaller and maybe don't have payroll support, they're just
probably outsourcing this to their payroll provider, which is
fine. But I do think that HR leaders
need to be really clear on this. So whether they are part of a
small team or a large team, they do their due diligence and
making sure that things are calculated correctly.
And to your and to your point about outsourcing it too, even
if you are outsourcing it and you trust the the vendor to
calculate all of this correctly, it's still ultimately on you,
the employer, to verify the information to verify that it's
calculated correctly. So you still need to know what
calculations are happening. Right.
We are not absolved of our responsibility in this.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense. And you know, frankly, we've
seen even in some of the other topics that we've discussed like
lawsuits surrounding AI hiring, AI based hiring, that you cannot
absolve yourself of the responsibility as an employer.
Just because you hire someone to do whatever that thing is does
not mean that you are no longer responsible or obligated to
follow the laws. For sure.
And this is the Department of Labor too.
So I, it makes me think about all of the, you know, government
based organizations, government contracted organizations that
might be audited for these things.
Because in my mind, when the Department of Labor is involved,
you should just expect an audit. You, you should just just expect
that there's like a larger focus on compliance because it's not,
you know, naturally we see this with anything.
But when it comes down to state specific items, I feel like
it's, you know, of course there's exposure when you're not
compliant, but it's, it's a different ball game when we're
talking about something at the federal level.
Absolutely. And and to your point about AII
mean the EEOC has issued what a handful of opinions over the
last couple of years, handful of notices exactly to that point
that if you use AI in your hiring process, in your
promotion process, in any part of the employee life cycle
process, you the employer, not the vendor are liable for any
discrimination that occurs. And this is kind of the same
approach. I do think that companies in
general probably try their best to offload the responsibility
and hire as many vendors as they possibly can to point fingers
at, but you just can't. Yeah, this I, you know, frankly,
I think this is a little bit of job stability for HR people out
there because the more regulation there is, the the
more involved people have to be like we, we see the the downside
to AI and some of these things and needing human intervention,
for example. And I do think that this is
where when HR professionals, especially business partners,
generalists, managers, they are in the know with whatever might
be going on it, it builds a lot of credibility within a
business, especially if someone's like an HR consultant
or something like that. You got to know what's going on,
got to be on the be in the scoop in the know, listen to the
Policy Pulse episodes and maybe maybe everyone will be that much
more informed. That's right.
Speaking of the EEOC, perfect segue, the EEOC sued A staffing
firm over male only hiring request.
And I described this as a juicy story before we started
recording. And I I think it's juicy because
it's, it's these are just things that, you know, are really
fascinating to me, these types of lawsuits or, you know,
whatever might be coming kind of to fruition.
So the EEOC filed suit against a South Carolina staffing firm
accused of honoring a client's male only preference for laborer
positions. The agency alleges that Work
Smart Staffing excluded women based on client instructions,
blocking qualified female candidates and failing to train
staff to resist unlawful demands.
This is so fascinating to me because it's like, how do you do
that? How do you make such a dumb
mistake to to to kind of go in that path?
But at the same time, then I questioned myself and I'm like,
well, are there certain circumstances where you can say
this is the preference? Obviously you can't discriminate
against someone else. So there, you know, there's a
lot of grey there. Anyway, take us, walk us through
it, Brian. I mean, I will say this, Tracy,
it never underestimate the ability of people to be dumb,
whether intentional or unintentional.
Totally. So, yeah, this, this one's
actually interesting to me because this one, the EEOC
initiated this case itself. Usually with an EEOC charge,
there's an employee complaint that is filed with the EEOC,
they investigate and then decide to, to take it further or to, to
walk away. This was something where the
commissioner saw this and filed a charge on their own.
To me that demonstrates sort of a, an, an aggressive approach.
It, it also sort of puts staffing agencies on notice
because they in, in some cases, depending on the set up, this is
not, you know, a broad brush, but like it depending on the set
up, sometimes employment staffing agencies can, can be
exposed to double liability. So this is something that HR
absolutely needs to keep an eye on.
This is something that I think anybody who's been through like
HR one O 1 would be able to pump the brakes and say, wait, this
is not something we can do. But if you're in that situation,
especially as a staffing agency, you want to be, you want to
train your recruiters because a lot of times, even though
recruiters are technically under the HR umbrella, they don't
always get HR training. They don't always understand the
nuances of HR itself. So that's important to make sure
that that recruiters are being trained and then document it
like everything in HR, right? We've talked about it ad
nauseam. You and I document, document,
document. If you feel like as a recruiter,
even you, you see something come across your desk that says we're
only hiring males for this position, document that and say
this is this is not OK. I'm not OK with this.
There's something wrong here. Pass it up the chain.
And and because again, there's, that's where that double
liability comes into play. The staffing agency, if they
move forward with posting a job that says males only or don't
put it in the job posting, but weed out any female applicants
during the initial screening process, that puts some
potential liability on the staffing agency itself.
So it's, it's vital, it's important that that recruiters
are trained on, on this type of stuff to at least be able to
have sort of the, the, the base level knowledge of what's going
on. And, and know that like, you
can't say we're only hiring males for this position.
There are some, there are some exceptions where like depending
on job duties and things like that there, there might be ways
that that you might be able to exclude certain applicants
because of their characteristics.
But those are those are really thin exceptions.
Yeah, this was one of the things that I was thinking about.
But before I get into that, because I have a whole oops, I
just touched my mic. Well, I've edit that out because
I probably was like 1250. All right, we'll keep it going.
So before I get into all of those thoughts that I have one
of the other thoughts in my mind other than like, seriously, how
can someone be so dumb? Is that this is such poor
judgement. Like I would probably no, not
probably. I would literally never hire the
staffing agency because of this. It's so foolish.
I mean, they're intrinsically, you have to know that there's,
there's discrimination there, whether they like it or not.
And then this is kind of what I was thinking about.
And what I sort of alluded to in the beginning is that we see job
description sometimes that say must be able to lift 50 lbs,
must be able to, I don't know, must be, must feel comfortable
being in whatever circumstance. Like, I think of, I have a
family member who is a probation officer and they, she has to
like observe when people provide urine samples, for example.
And so as a woman, she is paired up with female like clients, as
they call them, people who are on probation.
And so I, one of the thoughts that I wondered about is when
there are moments where saying that you need a female probation
officer or a male probation officer because of the
clientele, because of the population to reduce risk, for
example, for them and the client where that might come into play.
But I think I would imagine that it's done in a much different
way than don't interview female client candidates or we're not
accepting female candidates. So that's the first thought,
which I'm curious to hear your perspective on.
And the second is like, as someone with a name that men
have sometimes, like Tracy Morgan, for example, my name is
Tracy. His name is Tracy.
What? There is a possibility that
they're just completely discriminating against so many
fronts because they see a name and they think it's they they're
just, you know, it's just gendered, right?
And it does make me think of an episode in the most recent
season of and just like That where the this one character,
Lisa, has an editor named Marion.
And Marion is a guy and it's like a blip of an episode where
he's like, yeah, that's my name. Like So what?
It could be a girl's name too. And so I don't know.
This is obviously lower on the the risk standpoint, I guess, in
terms of the discrimination that has happened with this staffing
firm. But All in all, it's just really
dumb. And I can't imagine how many
people said, yeah, this is a good idea.
But anyway, going back to this initial question around, you
know, or like circumstance where maybe it's OK to say that we
need like females for this or males for that.
Where does that kind of come up? Does it come up?
Is it OK? See in that instance with with
probation officers, I would argue that you don't actually
need to hire a female probation officer, but you may need female
staff around. So like you wouldn't necessarily
have to only hire female P OS, you could hire, you know, anyone
like A. Secretary or someone who can.
As long as someone can witness, it's kind of like when you go to
the go to the doctor's office and you, you have a male doctor,
a female comes in during certain examination, like that same type
of thing. Like you just have a, a second,
a second person there, especially if the patient or
client requests it, it, it comes.
So I think the, the, the best example for like exclusion for
certain things is it's not exactly a one to one, but I
think this will give people a a good idea is truck drivers.
Anybody who has a DUI is immediately excluded.
You cannot, you can't be a truck driver.
And so that is, that is a characteristic that someone has
and it excludes them from certain certain types of jobs.
So I think that, like I said, the the exceptions are thin.
If if we're painting a broad brush, we're going to say, never
say that this job requires only males or only females.
It's important to make sure that you're evaluating people based
on qualifications. And to your point about, you
know, being able to lift 50 lbs, sure, 70 years ago that may have
excluded females because, you know, we aren't where we are
today. And so only men would have been
hired for for jobs because you have to be able to lift, lift 50
lbs. And because you know women
aren't strong enough to lift 50 lbs, they can't lift a box,
right? With two 30 LB toddlers I can
say I totally do this with you. I have no doubt.
So that that is kind of one of those that's like it.
It's, it's one of those examples of like a very thin, a thin
reason to to exclude someone, which I don't think is is
legitimate. But there are, there are some,
some extremely minor exceptions like that where, where people
can be excluded based on specific characteristics, right.
The DUI is a good one. Yeah, yeah.
Another one, another quick, easy one would be somebody who's
maybe in a wheelchair and they can't, you know, they too can't
be a truck driver unless there are, you know, trucks that allow
for like cars where you can drive if you don't have use of
your legs. If if trucks exactly.
So like there are, again, you know, now we go back to some of
the accommodations discussions that we've had in previous
episodes where maybe there's an accommodation for someone who
doesn't have the use of their legs to become a truck driver
that a court would say is a legitimate request.
And you know, the employer has to has to allow that for, for
the employee who's in a wheelchair.
So there are, again, there are, there are minor exceptions
where, where some things like that would come into play.
But if if you're looking at broad brush, don't ever say
males only or females only. Yeah, we extra emphasis on that.
So dumb with a capital DI don't understand.
Well the EEOC I'm sure had a field day with that.
To your point, taking an aggressive approach and it's
wildly. It's just wild to me.
I should say that no one complained, no one said this is
not legal or this is not cool. I think that goes to, to some of
the training, you know, I think that goes to some of the
training that we've talked about.
You know, I, before I went out on my own, I, I was director of
HR for a national staffing agency.
And I mean, I, when I came in, I instituted HR training for all
of the 30 ish recruiters that were in the office because it, I
saw, I saw that as a huge gap that was a huge potential
liability. So we needed to have, we needed
to have some training for, for at least again, like we talked
about the base level knowledge of HR.
What are the things that you just have to know?
What's the one O 1 course? Right.
Don't discriminate. Plain and simple, right?
And taking a little bit of a different approach here,
California, we always come back to California.
There California is always on the docket for us these
episodes. So California expanded pay
transparency and equal pay liability.
Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 642, strengthening
California's pay transparency and equal pay laws effective
January 1st, 2026. So the next few months,
employers must post a good faith pay range reflecting what they
realistically expect to pay the selected candidate, not the
broadest possible range. Some of these ranges.
I, I mean, can we take a moment to say like, you're not going to
pay someone between 100 and $500,000?
Like, let's be so for real. Anyway, the law also extends the
statute of limitations for Equal Pay Act claims to three years.
So just to, because I my inflection was a little funny,
the statute of limitations is extended to three years for any
Equal Pay Act claims allowing recovery for up to six years of
violations. So this is really interesting.
I, I definitely am going to pass to you, of course, this good
faith pay range, which frankly, some businesses are not even
posting pay ranges still, which is completely insane.
Again, when we think about HR one O 1, like you've got to know
what's required your job put we talked about this, I think last
month. Your job post is reaching people
outside of your own state, so you have to assume that people
are going to apply outside of your own state that may or may
not have paid transparency laws. You have to do the right thing.
And I literally saw a role, I think it might have been like AI
don't know if it was like an HR business partner role or
something, director something. And it was $100,000 to $450,000.
And I was like, is this a senior role or is this a junior role?
Have you not decided? Are you doing this so that you
have flexibility? Like what?
Because it's not that you can't pay above the range, it's that
you should post the range that you expect to pay someone.
And then obviously, negotiations happen and sometimes you end up
paying a little bit more, but you shouldn't be paying less
anyway. Brian, tell us what's going on
here. I think the simplest way to sort
of distill this down is that California now says you can't
put in a job description what you could pay an employee.
You have to put in the job posting what you will pay the
employee, and that can still be a range, but it has to be an
accurate range. It's like you said, you know
100,000 to 500,000 is not an accurate range.
If it is an accurate range for your company, if you can make a
legitimate business case for it, then you need to explain what
goes into that. And that's part of where the
California law redefines wages to include all those other
things that we talked about earlier, like supplemental pay.
It also includes bonuses, stock options, the supplemental pay,
any allowances. Allowances would be things like
ancillary benefits, like, you know, if you're a traveling
salesperson, the company may pay for all of your gas, they may
buy you a car. All of that needs to be
calculated into these pay ranges so that there's an accurate pay
range for people to look at. That is what you will actually
be paying, not what you could maybe pay.
So why are we talking about California 1, like you said, it
tends to, you know, be the, be the, the leading voice on some
of these things. But two, it's it remote work.
Like you also said, we're hiring people across state lines a lot
more than we used to, and employers need to be aware of
this if you're hiring nationwide.
If you're hiring for a remote job, your job posting is going
to be seen in California. You need to be compliant with
the California job posting laws. Right.
So just so I'm clear, then, if let's say a job has the base
range, generally speaking, and it's and it's reasonable, the
bonus and these other wages, then they, they can't just say
bonus or stock. They have to say the amount.
Like it has to actually explicitly state the number that
maybe stock is not included in wages, but maybe it is if it's
a, if it's considered a benefit in some capacity.
And maybe we'll get more clarity on that because I think of
California, I think of these companies that offer Rs us or IS
OS but bonuses. That's interesting because
usually you see base salary plus bonus, you know the range for
the base salary and then plus bonus and you don't have clarity
on what that bonus is. Yeah, and a lot of times.
So you're right, California is now requiring that what wages
will include all of that, Bonuses, stock options,
supplemental pay, all of that. So yes.
Oh. Yeah, you did say stock options.
I'm. Sorry, it can be challenging.
Yeah, it can be challenging sometimes to calculate a bonus,
but most companies that offer bonuses, whether it's to
salespeople or for performance based, they have a cap on it.
So you at least know what the cap is going to be on on a
bonus. So you can include that
calculation in the wage range that you're putting in the you
can. Just say like total like.
It's total. Targeted, yeah, total comp,
targeted earnings and then it's rather than breaking it up based
on salary and bonus you that interesting.
Exactly. I do think there's, I do think
there's some confusion that will, you know, sort of be
worked through over the next, over the next couple of years as
this law takes effect January 1st.
So I think that yeah, I think there will be some some
clarification whether through additional legislation in
California or through courts in California sort of putting some
more definition around some of these things like what's an
acceptable range. Like if we don't sure we may
have a cap on our bonuses, but we don't know exactly, you know,
the range for a bonus maybe could be like $200,000 depending
on on the position. So like that could be a big
jump, like maybe the total comp for this particular position
with a $200,000 range of bonus could actually be like 300 to
500,000. Is that too much?
Is that too much of A of a range or is that estimated enough?
So I think those are some questions that that we'll see
some answers to over the next couple of years.
But I do think it's a, it's a step in the right direction
because like to your point at the top of this, this
discussion, it was, we saw so many as, as these laws started
to start to hit in different cities, cities and states over
the past few years, we saw a lot of that where companies would
just put, OK, you know, this job will pay between 90 and
$900,000. OK, thanks.
Like that's not useful. So I think trying to really
scale this down and and make it into a useful, useful estimate
is, is is an important step for for for a state to take to
require employers to to provide that for potential applicants.
Yeah. It makes me think a little bit
further about the stock options piece, which I'm sorry I didn't.
It like went right over my head when you talked about it before.
How does that work for private companies that don't share the
cost of or the the value of a share?
Like if they're putting it, let's say, for example, in the
total comp, then it's not really clear for the candidate that
they're receiving stock unless it's explicitly stated that they
receive stock. And that's part of this total
comp kind of assessment. The other thing too is that a
lot of companies argue that stock is part of total comp when
you look at it on the broader scale, but not part of your
targeted earnings. Because depending on if the
company is public or not, you might not actually be able to
cash in on any of your shares yet.
So I just wonder how that will work.
Yeah, you're right. And there may be a vesting
period. I think that's part of the, I
think that's part of the clarification that we'll see
over the next couple of years about, you know, is that, is
that part of the compensation, is that part of the wages as
California has defined it? Because I, I could see sort of
going in the other direction. I could see another another
option where employers simply stop offering stock options or
they only offer it after your third year, your 5th year.
Yeah, something like that. Oh, interesting.
That'll be fascinating, especially when we think about
like Silicon Valley and all of those tech startups like they
really lean into stock options for attracting talent.
That'll be very interesting. I'll have to find a few to kind
of keep my eyes on and see what they're doing with their job
postings. That's really interesting.
Yeah. I guess we'll have to see how
things shake out. But it is, it is interesting
from like a candidate perspective that then you have
even more clarity, unless it's hard to even see the reasonable
range really play out. Because again, if the bonus is
really high and then the stock options are really high, you
could end up being in the same situation where you have this 90
to $900,000 pay range, although unlikely, it could be like a
$400,000 gap, $500,000 range, I should say.
So it'll be interesting to see how that shakes out.
Yeah. Our last kind of pulse policy
pulse item here is about the Supreme Court.
So there are some major cases that could reshape HR.
The Supreme Court's 20252026 term includes several cases that
could dramatically alter how federal agencies regulate the
workplace. The headline case, Trump versus
Slaughter, challenges whether presidents can remove members of
independent agencies like the FTCNLRB or EEOC without cause.
The court will also hear Little versus Hecox bans on transgender
athletes, M&K Employee Solutions versus IAM pension fund union
pension liability, and GEO Group versus Monocle, A sovereign
immunity for federal contractors.
Two additional petitions, Cook County versus Nawara under the
ADA and Parker Hannifin versus Johnson under ERISA.
Am I saying I always like question whether I should say it
ERISA or ERISA, but I always say ERISA, is that right?
Yeah, yes, they and they could also reach the court this term.
So a lot of cases. A lot, yeah.
Yeah. I think this could be an
interesting, an interesting term for HRI think that, I mean, not
to mention the country in general, but also for HR
specifically. I think that, you know, right
now, it's we, we could before between our discussion today and
when this, when this pod drops, we could actually have some
announcements on some of these cases.
So, you know, we can come back and and chat again next month.
If if we do that. I think for me, the the, the
most important one that that HR needs to pay attention to is the
the Trump B Slaughter, the one that the challenge is whether
presidents can remove members of independent agencies without
cause. Presidents as the the head of
the executive branch can remove employees of executive agencies,
but they have to have cause for doing so.
So essentially this this case, Trump V.
Slaughter, is seeking to overturn a 1935 case that
protects independent agency employees from from removal by
the president without 'cause this would give the president
far more control over these types of agencies.
Specifically for our conversation, the NLRB and the
EEOC, which could mean wild swings every every four years.
You could see changes on labor law on wage an hour priorities
like we've talked about earlier with with the overtime
calculation. You could even see some OSHA
safety standards changing. The, I think that's, that's the
most important thing for, for HR to keep an eye on right now is
to see what happens with this case.
Because not because private companies and HR are, you know,
have people working in federal agencies, but because
specifically the NLRB and the EEOC could be decimated
overnight and, and other people could be put in that have
totally different priorities, taking the agencies in totally
different directions. I think this, this will do.
If this is overturned, and I don't know if it will be, but
if, if the 1935 precedent is overturned, I think it will do
two things. One, it will create those wild
swings from an HR perspective that you just, you won't know
what to expect. And two, some states will fill
that gap like we talked about California, Washington, New
York, Illinois, a handful of others.
Those states at the state level will try and sort of counteract
any of those wild swings and have more stability for
employers and HR professionals if if that comes to be.
Right, interesting. And the ERISA point too.
It's so interesting because it's all about fiduciary plans
basically, right or fiduciaries, I should say.
And a lot of HR people probably don't even necessarily think
about their, their, their fiduciary liability, whether
they are managing plans for four O 1K or other types of pensions.
Not well, maybe pensions, but also any other types of
retirement funds or if they offload that.
Like I, I, I mean, there's so much there that plus the EEOC
plus the National Labor Review Board.
I mean, that's, it's a lot. And we already have talked about
the, the realities of being in HR and how we are already kind
of in this like moment of whiplash, like, OK, just tell
us, which way are we swinging here?
So the idea of having more of a pendulum swing is a little bit
terrifying, but we'll see, I guess, how it shakes out.
Yeah, we certainly will. And and I think that also kind
of says where we are that like I didn't even touch on the ERISA
stuff, which is hugely important.
And like you said, it's a, it's a massive potential fiduciary
liability for, for employers that are offering those
benefits. But that's where we are that
like this, this, this huge issue is actually secondary to another
even more massive potential potential issue from an HR
perspective. I I think it's just it, yeah,
it, it says a lot about where we are right now.
Yeah, totally. We're, we're kind of just
looking at the tip of the iceberg and the iceberg is vast.
These are, these are major agencies major with like tons
and tons and tons of oversight and regulation and, and things
that ultimately impact us every single day.
So I don't look forward to any possibility of any of those
major, major organizations having major changes necessarily
from some of these cases that ultimately could really reshape
the entire landscape of the workforce and and workplaces.
So thank you for giving us a, a taste of what may be to come.
We will see. And I can't even believe it,
it's we're already this is October.
So our next policy pulse will be November and then we'll have
probably one more after that before the end of the year,
which is insane. I know, right?
How is it? How is it the middle of October?
Insane. Where has the time gone?
I know I thought we were, I mean, September felt like a
really long month, but now October, it's like like just
flying by. It's a flash of lightning.
Well, Brian, thank you again for another fabulous Policy Pulse
segment. Thank you for being our resident
expert in all things that could ultimately impact us very
greatly. So for listeners out there,
don't forget to take a look at the show notes so you can
connect with Brian. Maybe we tap a shoulder if you
need some, some support or you need to, you know, maybe bring
some resources onto your team. Brian probably maybe is ready
and available. I don't know, Brian, I'm
offering you up, but I have no idea what your availability
looks like. But definitely connect with
Brian. Connect with the show, connect
with me and we will see you next week for a regular episode and
then in a month pretty much for our next policy policy episode.
Thank you so much. Hey, just before you go, don't
forget to subscribe to the show so that you are the first to
hear when an episode drops each week and maybe leave a five star
review and a comment about how much you love this episode.
Plus, if you have someone in mind who would really enjoy this
episode, make sure you share it with them.
Thank you so much for tuning in and I'll see you next week.