- Organizational Effectiveness

Pay Equity Which legislation addresses equal pay in my jurisdiction?

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:14:00 -0400

Pay Equity

Which legislation addresses equal pay in my jurisdiction?

In Ontario there are three laws which provide for equal pay regulations: the Employment Standards Act, the equal pay provisions of which apply to the private and public sectors, the Human Rights Code which deals with general discrimination and applies to the private and public sectors, and the Pay Equity Act which applies to the public and private sectors (i.e. employers with 10 or more employees).

How does the law measure equality of pay?

Each law in Ontario that address equal pay measures equality of pay differently.

Employment Standards Act – looks at rate of pay

Human Rights Code – looks at equal treatment with respect to employment

Pay Equity Act – looks at compensation for work (i.e., all payments and benefits)

How does the law compare different kinds of work?

Each law in Ontario that address equal pay compares work differently.

Employment Standards Act – compares substantially the same kind of work, requiring substantially the same skill, responsibility, effort under similar working conditions

Human Rights Code – is not specific

Pay Equity Act – compares work of equal or comparable value. Determination of value is based on the composite of skill, effort, and responsibility normally required and conditions under which work is normally performed

What reasons does the law consider acceptable for differences in pay?

Employment Standards Act – seniority system; merit system; quantity or quality of production; any "factor other than sex"

Human Rights Code – special program designed to relieve economic disadvantage, or to assist persons to achieve equal opportunity; reasonable or bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment

Pay Equity Act – seniority system; temporary training or development assignment equally available to male and female employees; red circling; merit compensation based on formal performance ratings; skills shortage causing a temporary inflation in compensation; differences resulting from bargaining strength, once pay equity has been achieved; some casual employment.

How do I make a complaint about equality of pay discrimination?

Employment Standards Act – An employment standards officer investigates and decides the case. He/she may determine the amount of money owed, and such amount is considered to be unpaid wages. The unpaid wages recovery procedures of the Act can be applied. If no complaint is filed, civil action is possible.

Human Rights Act – A complaint may be filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission which may also initiate it. The Commission investigates the complaint and may endeavor to effect a settlement. If it does not, the matter may be referred to the board of inquiry whose decision may in turn be appealed to the Divisional Court.

Pay Equity Act – A review officer first investigates objections and complaints, and endeavors to effect a settlement; the review officer may monitor the preparation and implementation of pay equity plans and assist the parties; appeals may be lodged, or referrals made to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal; review officers and Hearings Tribunal are invested with sufficient powers to correct a situation in order that pay equity be achieved.

Are there restrictions on recovering wages if my complaint is successful?

Employment Standards Act – Assessment by employment standards officer is limited to $10,000. Normally, the recovery is limited to money that became due not more than six months before the facts came to the knowledge of the director.

Human Rights Act – The Commission may decide not to deal with a complaint if the subject of the complaint occurred more than six months before the complaint was filed. There is no limit on the amount.

Pay Equity Act – Employers are required to make annual adjustments of at least 1% of annual payroll until pay equity is achieved. Specific timetables for achieving pay equity are set out in the Act and apply to various categories of employers with 10 or more employees.

Navigating complex pay equity legislation

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:00:00 -0400

One purpose of Pay Equity is to redress differences in compensation due to systemic gender discrimination suffered by persons who occupy positions in predominantly female job categories. Only the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have pay equity legislation that covers the private sector. The Pay Equity Act in each province requires employers with 10 or more employees to provide equal pay for work of equal value.

This is the law, so I was amazed to find out how challenging the state of non-compliance is.

In Quebec, in 2008, ten years after the Pay Equity Act was enacted, women still earn 11 percent less than men. Those were the findings of an economic analysis study conducted by Analysis Group, Economic, Financial and Strategy Consultants on behalf of the Ordre des CRHA et CRIA du Québec (ORHRI). According to the Quebec government, more than half of companies had not implemented the required pay equity plan and measures, and several had not maintained their pay equity plans as required by law.

As a result, the Quebec government modified its pay equity measures last May, and these changes have repercussions for all employers. The law was amended to address several issues, including that of non-complying companies.

Companies with 10 or more employees who still find themselves in non-compliance have until December 31, 2010, to rectify the matter and implement their pay equity plan. If your company has complied but not maintained your plan up to date, new maintenance rules have been introduced. Consequently, the formal evaluation of the maintenance must be done every five years, the first being due December 31, 2010.

Any company that is not yet subject to the law must calculate the annual average salary of its workers, retroactive to 2008.

The results of the maintenance must be posted in conspicuous places at the company (notice boards, intranet, etc.). Finally, the employer must complete a statement and send it to the Quebec Pay Equity Commission.

How about Ontario? According to the Equal Pay Coalition, women in Ontario, on average, still earn 29 percent less than men. Indicating that the law in Ontario is not faring any better than in Quebec. Employers are still not complying with the Pay Equity Act, 21 years after enactment (1988). However, the Ontario government has not taken any drastic measures to enforce the law.

It may be that employers find the law very complex and not easy to comply with. Nevertheless:

Employers who have not yet complied with the law should proceed to take measures to comply to avoid very costly adjustment plans.
Employers who have complied should look closely at their pay equity plans to ensure that they have complied with the maintenance requirements.
Employers are required to make annual adjustments until pay equity is achieved.

The provincial governments have various tools and resources to help you achieve pay equity.

In Ontario, the tools can be found in the Library of the Pay Equity Commission website at www.payequity.gov.on.ca/peo/english/pubs_tools.html.

In Quebec, the tools can be found under Publications on the Pay Equity Commission website at www.ces.gouv.qc.ca/asp/publications.asp

Note that Quebec’s and Ontario’s Pay Equity Acts do not apply to employees of the federal government, federal agencies or federally regulated companies. The pay equity sections of the Canadian Human Rights Act cover employees of these employers.

In other Canadian jurisdictions, human rights legislation includes equal pay provisions based on the prohibited ground of sex or gender. And in some jurisdictions, there are also equality of pay provisions under the employment standards laws, which are very different from pay equity legislation.

Ontario set to enforce new violence and harassment requirements

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:57:00 -0400

Ontario’s Ministry of Labour inspectors have likely already written orders for employers who have not met the requirements under Bill 168. “I will be disappointed if they have not,” says Wayne De L’Orme, a provincial coordinator with the ministry’s Occupational Health and Safety Branch.

L’Orme, the implementation lead for these new provisions, told Workplace in an interview on June 15th, the date the Violence and Harassment in the Workplace amendments to the province’s Occupational Health and Safety Act came into effect, that checking on compliance with Bill 168 will now be part of their normal inspections.

MoL inspectors are going to ask employers if they have the policies, risk assessment and programs in place. And, says L’Orme, they will ask workers what Bill 168 is and whether they have been trained. When they find an employer not in compliance, they will suggest resources that the employer might pursue to comply with the legislation.

L’Orme notes that there are basically two categories of employers when it comes to these violence and harassment provisions. There are those who have been thinking and dealing about these issues for many years. They are generally finding that the legislation does not go as far as their own policies already do.

Then, there are others not really thought about what workplace violence or harassment might mean to their workplaces. The good news for these latecomers, says L’Orme is that there is “tons of material” available to use as resources to get their programs up and running. In particular, he points to the MoL website (www.labour.gov.on.ca/english), as well as to those of the various safe workplace associations.

“Violence can happen in any workplace,” L’Orme notes. “It’s difficult to predicts what any one individual can do. Employers need to look not only at their own workplaces, but situations and programs in similar types of workplaces for ideas.

“Setting up violence and harassment policies and programs is similar to setting up an emergency plan for something like a fire,” he says. “No one really expects to have a fire in their workplace, but they still have a plan, just in case.”

Determining the potential for violence
A provision that might be causing some confusion is the one dealing with domestic violence. This addresses a situation between two people intimate relationship that is brought into the workplace. L’Orme believes that Ontario is the first province to mention this in its legislation and was formulated to deal with situations like that faced by Lori Dupont.

Dupont was killed by her ex-boyfriend, Dr. Marc Daniel, in 2005 at Hotel-Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, Ont., where they both worked. The hospital was aware Daniel had been harassing Dupont and that the situation was getting worse, but it did not discipline him.

The new provisions tell employers that they have policies and procedure to deal with general, but they also may have to take specific precautions to deal with individual situations, such as the one faced by the Windsor hospital. L’Orme noted that an employer doesn’t have to go out and question staff directly about violence, but if an employer or its managers and supervisors notice problems, they cannot ignore them.

As employer, if they know it may enter workplace, have to deal with it, L’Orme says. The legislation trying to deal with times when employers knows about the potential of violence – and then, they are required to only give enough info to protect workers – e.g., in the case of psychiatric patients in a hospital, it would be reasonable to tell employees to take specific precautions; the same might apply if there is a troubled child in a school situation. Teachers at the school would have the right to know about the potential for violence.

“Employers don’t have to disclose any more information than necessary,” says L’Orme. “You don’t have to go snooping into background to see if there is a risk. “It’s similar to a situation in which a piece of equipment is not quite working right – workers need to be working in a heightened state and report back about any issues, and supervisors need to be monitoring the situation.”

workplace violence, threat assessment, bill 168

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:45:00 -0400

Ontario workplace violence bill demands good behavioral threat assessment processes

Many questions have been raised about the provision in Ontario’s new workplace violence legislation that requires employers to disclose information about individuals who may cause physical injury to workers. My take on the provision is that the actual disclosure duty is fairly narrow, and that the provision is most significant because it requires good behavioral threat assessment processes. I’ve laid out my reasoning below.

The section everyone’s talking about is section 32.05(3). It reads as follows:

(3) An employer’s duty to provide information to a worker under clause 25 (2) (a) and a supervisor’s duty to advise a worker under clause 27 (2) (a) include the duty to provide information, including personal information, related to a risk of workplace violence from a person with a history of violent behaviour if,

(a) the worker can be expected to encounter that person in the course of his or her work; and

(b) the risk of workplace violence is likely to expose the worker to physical injury.

The first question asked about this provision is, “How do we know if a person has a history of violence?” The language of the provision is strict: it does not say “known history of violence.” Does this mean that employers must be omniscient? No.

Health and safety legislation is typically drafted in onerous language to encourage behavior that maximizes protection for workers. Though claims by employers of over-breadth and vagueness about such language are typically unsuccessful, even by promulgating meaningless language that seems to set an absurdly high standard of conduct (such as omniscience), the government cannot preclude a due diligence defence. So the government can encourage employers to act upon knowledge of an individual’s history of violence (as it has done), but can’t sustain a charge based on a failure to be omniscient if it is reasonable to protect a worker by knowing less about another individual’s history.

What is reasonable then? This is certainly a point that will be litigated, but there is a wealth of available literature on threat assessment to give employers guidance today. If I can simplify, this literature requires organizations to (1) have access to the right people (who can assess a threat based on reports about individual behavior); (2) who can be provided with the right information (including all known behaviors about a threat plus information that can be gathered through reasonable threat inquires); (3) so they can assess threats and take appropriate action at the right time.

What about human rights and privacy concerns? Regarding human rights concerns, threat assessment is not about “profiling” an individual based on a stereotype but, rather, is about gathering facts about behavior to understand a potential threat. Performed properly, it should be defensible. Regarding privacy, threat assessment requires access to information about threats. Employers may have a duty to gather information in the course of conducting an assessment, but the more fundamental duty is to “know what you know” by having a system in place for reporting and recording concerning behavior in the workplace, including all violent acts. This conception – know what you know and conduct threat inquires as necessary – seems to strike a fair balance between workplace health and safety and personal privacy.

Challenges & Complexities of Complying with Bill 168

Tue, 18 May 2010 09:12:00 -0400

By David Whitten - Whitten Lublin LLP
& Janet Candido - HR-on-Demand

Beginning June 15, Bill 168 requires that all Ontario employers have policies in place to protect their employees from workplace violence and harassment.

The Bill amends Ontario's Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) by designating workplace violence and harassment as health and safety hazards. It’s a direct response to recent acts of workplace violence, including Lori Dupont's murder at a Windsor hospital at the hands of her boyfriend in 2005 and Pierre Lebrun's shooting rampage at OC Transpo in 1999.

Previously, the OHSA required employers to take “all reasonable precautions” to protect employees. However, in the absence of a specific legislative definition of “reasonable precautions”, charges were rarely laid. Bill 168 now expressly imposes obligations on employers and employees to protect against workplace violence and harassment.

By definition, workplace violence and workplace harassment is the actual exercise of physical force; an attempt to exercise physical force; or a statement or behaviour that can be reasonably viewed as a threat of physical force to cause physical injury. Unfortunately, the terms “physical force” and “physical injury” are undefined, leaving employer obligations unclear.

More significantly, the definition of workplace harassment has been borrowed from the Human Rights Code, where even perceived mistreatment can form the basis of a lawsuit or human rights complaint. Since harassment is often viewed in the eyes of the beholder, a tough or assertive boss could easily be seen as a personal harasser. The concern is that employees will use these new definitions to support constructed dismissal claims or complaints to the Ministry of Labour, based on little more than legitimate performance management.

By far the most alarming requirement is that employers must now provide information to all employees, including personal information, about a colleague’s history of violence. The legislation doesn’t outline what should be considered violent behaviour or an employer’s obligations to inquire into a person's history. It’s also unclear how much information must be divulged to fulfil this requirement while balancing the importance of maintaining that person’s privacy rights.

Actions all employers must take to be compliant

The following are the five steps that employers must take to ensure Bill 168 compliance:

Create compliant policies, post them in prominent locations (such as a lunchroom as well as on the company intranet) and review them every six months to reflect workplace or legal changes.

It may not be necessary to create new policies from scratch. Instead, a thorough review of existing Human Rights Code and Health and Safety policies may reveal that the necessary changes can readily be made.
Conduct risk assessments for violence in the workplace, share the results with health and safety committees and re-assess often.

Care must be taken when carrying out risk assessments because the results will shape policy. All organizations should look at comparable industry companies when conducting the risk assessment – for example, hospitals need to look at other hospitals – and create a rating tool that evaluates risk. As soon as risks are recognized, an action plan to defuse that risk is needed.
Develop and maintain training programs to implement workplace violence and harassment policies. These policies must include information on how employees can request assistance or report concerns.

A comprehensive process on how to file complaints is a key part of this legislation and we recommend that investigations always be conducted by two people – for example someone from Human Resources and someone from the Health and Safety committee. This process must give direction on protecting the person being investigated until the investigation is complete as well as protecting the person who filed the complaint.
Amend disciplinary policies to address failure to abide by workplace violence and harassment policies.

If no disciplinary action is deemed necessary and an employee is cleared, he or she must be allowed to return to their regular duties. However, the legislation states that employers must inform all other employees of the investigation and leave the door open for others to choose not to work with the investigated person. The difficulty is in determining how to convey this information to meet the legislated requirements without contravening privacy laws.
Train supervisors and employees to understand and administer the various workplace policies.

About the authors:
David Whitten is a founding partner of Whitten Lublin LLP, a respected firm of employment lawyers.
Janet Candido is a principal of HR-on-Demand, with 20 years of Human Resources expertise.

5 things in-house need to know about Bill 168

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 10:03:00 -0400

There are at least five important questions every in-house counsel with responsibilities in Ontario needs to answer with respect to legal compliance with Bill 168 — amendments to Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, becoming law June 15, 2010.

•   Has the organization done a written risk assessment for violence in the workplace?

•   Has the organization done a policy prohibiting workplace violence and harassment?

•   Has the organization prepared a program, prepared as a result of the risk assessment, responsive to the specific needs of the workplace?

•   Has the organization trained management and workers with respect to the organization’s violence prevention program?

•   Has the organization established an internal complaint procedure and investigation process?

The amendments require every employer regularly employing five or more workers to develop and post a policy addressing workplace violence and harassment.

The employer must also develop a program to implement that policy. It must include measures to control risk of workplace violence and harassment, emergency response procedures, reporting procedures to be followed by workers, and procedures for the investigation of incidents and worker complaints.

Under the changes, a Ministry of Labour inspector can also order an employer with five or less regularly employed workers to develop a policy and program respecting workplace violence and harassment.

Once all contributing factors are identified, the employer is obligated to assess the potential for violence at its workplace and implement appropriate controls to prevent and manage such risk.

The risk assessment must consider conditions of work at the employer’s workplace and those common to similar workplaces. The employer must share the results of the risk assessment with its joint health and safety committee or the workplace health and safety representative.

As with other serious incidents, the proposed amendments require the employer to notify the Ministry of Labour of an incident of violence as per s. 52 of the act.

Bill 168 also amends the work refusal provisions of the act to include workplace violence.

The existing process would apply with the exception that the endangered employee is required to stay only “as near as reasonably possible” to his or her work station.

The proposed changes do not alter the limitation on essential public sector employees, such as firefighters and police officers, to refuse unsafe work that is inherent to their profession.

Bill 168 places a duty on employers to take every reasonable precaution for the protection of a worker if the employer knows or ought to reasonably know there is a likelihood the safety of the worker may be endangered at the workplace by an act of domestic violence.

No other Canadian legislation has placed such a duty on employers to deal with domestic violence in the workplace. Although the language used for the domestic violence amendment under Bill 168 implies an objective standard, it is difficult to understand how employers will be able to prevent domestic violence from spilling over into the workplace. At minimum, the domestic violence provisions of Bill 168 create potential liability for employers while having questionable benefits for the prevention of domestic violence.

Bill 168 also puts employers in the awkward position of communicating to workers personal information of individuals with a history of violent behaviour.

The bill requires that employers not disclose more information than is reasonably necessary to protect the worker from physical injury. However, it is not clear how the information, in and of itself, will protect the worker.

In health-care or psychiatric workplaces, the status of a violent patient or client is generally addressed by internal policies and procedures. It is not clear the legislation is needed for those types of workplaces.

Statutory exemptions of the Personal Health Information Protection Act may have been sufficient, rather than amending the OHSA which potentially creates liability for employers.

If the source of the risk of violence is a co-worker, there are serious questions about the ability of employers to contain information about the violent history of a co-worker once it has been revealed to others who work in close proximity.

There are further legal concerns about the application of the Ontario Human Rights Code. For example, if an employer is aware that an employee has a criminal conviction for which they have been granted a pardon, are they still required to communicate the past criminal history to co-workers who work closely with that individual?

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the domestic violence and disclosure of information with violent histories is after a serious incident occurs, employers are often blamed, with the benefit of hindsight, by the Ministry of Labour for not doing enough.

There is no good-faith exemption for employers in Bill 168. In other words, no matter how well-advised and well-intentioned employers are, if their view of their duties with respect to these problematic issues differs from that of the Ministry of Labour, they are at risk of receiving orders, or worse, being prosecuted by the ministry after an incident of violence occurs at the workplace.

The object of Bill 168 is not to prosecute employers and impose substantial fines, but rather to reduce the risk of violence in the workplace. Therefore, positive incentives could be a more appropriate approach than merely the threat of prosecution, which looms when provincial inspectors investigate workplace incidents, including those relating to workplace violence.

With the recent conviction and $70,000 fine at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health relating to an alleged failure to prevent workplace violence before Bill 168 has been passed into law, one can only speculate that this proposed legislation will result in even further aggressive enforcement through orders and prosecution by the ministry.

Bill 168 is a substantial, if not radical, change to employers’ responsibilities under the OHSA to prevent and manage workplace violence and harassment.

The special responsibility and relationship in-house counsel have with respect to their corporate employer obligations under the OHSA makes it imperative for them to ensure legal compliance with Bill 168.

The risk assessment required by law is a critical starting point that in-house counsel must ensure has taken place prior to June 15, 2010.

Whether an outside provider completes the risk assessment or it is done internally, it is imperative it be specific to the workplace circumstances and risks that exist, and not some generic template that may apply loosely to some employers.

Finally, the development of the workplace violence and harassment policy, program, training, and investigating procedure will naturally flow from the risk assessment.

The five questions need to be answered, in the affirmative, by June 15 and should be monitored by in-house counsel.

Bill 168 offers chance of safer workplace

Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:47:00 -0400

Bill 168 offers chance of safer workplace - harrassment

Today is the fourth anniversary of the death of Lori Dupont, who was killed at her workplace, Windsor's Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital, by her ex-partner, Dr. Marc Daniele, a doctor in the same hospital.

An inquest into the murder recommended changes to the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Workplace harassment and violence is a serious problem in Ontario. Fortunately, the provincial government has finally recognized this and is committed to change.

As it happens, this anniversary coincides with the announcement of public hearings for Bill 168, an act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to violence and harassment in the workplace and other matters.

Bill 168 introduces enhanced protections against workplace violence, new measures to address workplace harassment and a pioneering measure to include violence and harassment that occurs as a result of domestic violence.

The proposed changes also come as a result of the inquest into the workplace murder of Theresa Vince in Chatham a decade earlier. In 1997 that jury recommended the province's study, including harassment and sexual harassment under Ontario's health and safety legislation.

Clearly, the changes are intended to bring greater safety and security for all members of Ontario's workforce.

Several attempts have been made in the past to amend the OHSA through private member's bills introduced by MPPs of both the Liberal and NDP parties. The Ontario government has demonstrated appropriate commitment to positive change through the introduction of Bill 168, freeing this latest attempt to improve worker safety and security from the vulnerable status of a private member's bill.

In its current form, the bill separates definitions of "workplace violence" and "workplace harassment" and then sets out separate provisions to address workplace violence, harassment and domestic violence.

The result is that the legislation continues to emphasize the risk of physical violence, rather than focusing on the continuum of behaviours that result in risk to safety, well-being and health.

A continuum of violence recognizes that violence is complex and multi-faceted. It acknowledges some acts of violence are clearly interpreted as violent, while others are "grey", confusing and misunderstood. A continuum of violence includes the notion that behaviours such as verbal abuse or unwanted attention that we have had a tendency to see as innocuous may act as precursors to more physically destructive violent behaviour.

Workplace harassment also leads to the deterioration of workers' physical health and psychological well-being due to stress-related illnesses and injuries.

Harassment may involve verbal or physical threats, intimidation or demeaning behaviour such as being followed, insulted, sworn or shouted at, threatened, criticized, made to feel bad or guilty, and includes passive-aggressive approaches and acts of neglect or failure to acknowledge contributions of others.

Sometimes these types of behaviour may seem relatively minor, but cumulatively they can become very serious.

If harassment is not part of the "workplace violence" definition, critical warning signs that physical violence and/or serious illness may occur can be more easily overlooked.

The most effective way to prevent workplace violence, including harassment and domestic violence, is to address all of these threats to workers' safety and security under one program in order to relay a new standard for cultural values in Ontario workplaces.

Separating harassment and domestic violence from the definition of workplace violence risks the inadvertent consequence of sending a message to workers and their employers that psychological or non-physical forms of violence are less serious, or that they can lead to less serious consequences.

The deaths of Theresa Vince and Lori Dupont are our most stark reminder that this is not true.

Many other examples that have not resulted in homicide could equally well illustrate the point that violence occurs on a continuum and we cannot assume that harassing behaviour will not escalate or cause serious harm in and of themselves.

It is also important to clearly outline where responsibility for implementing the amended OHSA will lie. In unionized workplaces, joint health and safety committees are best positioned to ensure that the provisions of Bill 168 are fully implemented.

We need a framework that is preventive and systemic, rather than one that is primarily reactive and remedial.

Bill 168 is an important step forward.

In order to truly honour the lives of women such as Vince and Dupont, we have to learn to recognize the warning signs of violence in the workplace, so we aren't left responding to the tragic and often irrevocable consequences of workplace violence.

Warning signs of workplace violence

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:34:00 -0400

What are workplace violence warning signs? Unfortunately, most employees probably think violence in the workplace involves some obvious threat of physical attack.

But, we must understand what workplace violence is before we can understand the warning signs. According to the (USDA) U.S. Department of Agriculture says "Workplace violence can be any act of physical violence, threats of physical violence, harassment, intimidation, or other threatening, disruptive behavior that occurs at the work site. Workplace violence can affect or involve employees, visitors, contractors, and other non-Federal employees."

The (OSHA) Occupational Safety Health Act says, "Workplace violence is violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths." Whatever the definition it is a big problem that's getting worse. Hello, I'm Yancey and as an employee I have witnessed certain behaviors that have lead to workplace harassment and violence.

The first thing everyone in the workplace should be aware of is it's not easy to know when someone is ready to go off! All people in the workplace will not show the following signs before it becomes violent.

verbal abuse
frequent arguments
foul and insulting language
threats of violent attacks

The causes of workplace violence may begin with "minor" things, then explode into psychological and physical attacks. However, an employee may show one or two of these job violence warning signs and never become violent. Since co-workers are sometimes completely surprised when an employee goes berserk, it's important for them and employers to look at a whole range of behaviors that could be the best warning signs of violence.

workplace violence warning signs

Someone who is "having a bad day" or brings their personal problems to work with them doesn't mean they will resort to job violence. Employees experiencing levels of high stress may be prime candidates for the aforementioned workplace violence. A violent incident is usually "sparked" by something that causes the employee in question to erupt. This is especially true if the individual is already feeling vulnerable or has low self esteem.

Career seekers and employees here is the BEST TIP I can give to help you recognize signs of potential workplace violence. As always, this involves learning your basic employee rights before seeking and accepting employment! The company you're working for or wanting to work for may allow or condone an atmosphere that actually encourages the possibility for workplace violence.

Research reveals that employers can actually create a potential "war zone" for violent behavior on the job. There are many workplace violence warning signs that make a company a prime target.

Here are some of the questions I would want answers to before I walk in the door as an employee.

Does the business have a history of violent incidents?
what does the Better Business Bureau have to say about the employer?
What info does law enforcement have on the company?
Is a culture of disparate or discriminatory treatment of certain employees tolerated?
Are true "problem" employees disciplined or are they protected?
Does the employer manage by intimidation instead of respect and cooperation?
What is the process for conducting an appropriate employee background check to validate prior employment character and performance?
Are the lines of communication from top management open to addressing employee concerns?
How are laid off or terminated employees treated in the exit process?
What are the results of any state human rights commission investigations of the employer?
What are the results of any (EEOC) Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations of the company?

Unfortunately, most job applicants and employees never think about the implications on their employment experience by not asking these and other questions when preparing for an interview.

workplace violence warning signs

Every employee who may exhibit workplace violence warning signs will be different. Managers and co-workers should be sure to observe any negative changes in conduct. How often these changes take place and are they increasingly becoming a problem? Because of the potential complexity of the issue, intervention and assistance for prevention may have to come from outside sources.

Many times its what the persons "body is saying" instead of what he or she is saying that is the best warning sign of violence. The following are examples of physical changes in conduct that could be warning signs of potential violent behavior.

*clenched fists*	*angry yelling*
*getting to close*	*sweating*
*heavy or fast breathing*	*foul language*
*shaking or trembling*	*frowning*
*threatening movements*	*finger pointing*

As I mentioned earlier there is no one specific indicator of "who will go off" and when. The full range of violence in the workplace warning signs include the manager or employee's personality, motives, actions and intentions. It also reveals the individual's state of mind in any given situation.

When employers and co-workers observe these traits occurring prior to the actual violent act they should with appropriate training be better equipped to keep the violence from occurring.

workplace violence warning signs

Here are some other patterns of behavior that may be present prior to an act of workplace violence.

High personal stress level: Is the employee dealing with trouble at home or with finances?
Is there a pattern of violence?: The employee may have a history of violent behavior. He or she may have an obsession with guns or other weapons. The person may throw or destroy things in fits of rage.
Frequent threats of violence: The employee routinely talks and writes about physically harming someone.
Attitude of intimidation: The individual is always uncooperative and loves to argue. "Goes off" at the drop of a hat. May display unjustified anger and hates authority.
Dark personality: He or she is always a "victim" and doesn't tolerate criticism. Co-workers and management are to blame for any mistakes the person makes.
Socially challenged: The employee is unable to get along with others and is the "classic loner".
Bizarre behavior: Your co-worker frequently makes irrational nonsensical statements. Extreme mood swings are evident with high anxiety. The employee may talk to themselves and show signs of depression. The individual may talk about suicide. Any of these behaviors could be indications of substance abuse and or mental illness.

workplace violence warning signs

As an employee I'm going to be really concerned when I see any combination of workplace violence warning signs in co-workers, managers, business owners and others in the workplace. Employees have options to deal with this problem.

Report your concern about anyone on the job to management or the human resource department.
Learn all you can about the company's workplace violence prevention program. If the employer wants to stay in business it should have one.
Your employer may also have an (EAP) employee assistance program to help employees deal with problems on and off the job.

Under (OSHA) guidelines the employer is bound by what's called the "General Duty Clause", which means it is required to provide a workplace that's free from any recognized hazard that may cause serious physical harm or death to employees. That's why every employer should have a well thought out workplace violence prevention program to minimize the risk of violence.

Anyone in the workplace should make it their business to learn all they can about workplace violence warning signs and preventing workplace violence.

Workplace Violence and Harassment Legislation

Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:04:00 -0400

On April 20, 2009, the Ontario Government introduced Bill 168, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act (Violence and Harassment in the Workplace) 2009. If passed, Bill 168 would amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to impose new obligations on employers with respect to workplace violence and harassment.

Under Bill 168, employers must devise workplace violence and harassment policies, develop programs to implement such policies, and engage in assessments to measure the risk of workplace violence. In addition, work refusal rights and the duties of employers and supervisors under OHSA have both been clarified to specifically apply to workplace violence.

The main features of Bill 168¹ are summarized below:

Definitions of Workplace Violence and Harassment

Bill 168 defines "workplace violence" and "workplace harassment" as follows:

"Workplace harassment" means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome.

"Workplace violence" means (a) the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker in a workplace that causes, or could cause, physical injury to the worker; and/or (b) an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker in a workplace that could cause physical injury to the worker.

What is notable about the definition of "workplace violence" is that it only deals with physical harm or injury.²

The definition of "workplace harassment" is very broad. Unlike "harassment" as defined in the Human Rights Code, the definition of "workplace harassment" under Bill 168 may include conduct that is not related to a prohibited ground of discrimination, e.g., sex, age, ethnicity, religion, etc.

Workplace Violence and Harassment Policies

Bill 168 requires employers to prepare written policies dealing with workplace violence and harassment. Workers must be trained on these policies, which must be posted in workplaces with more than five workers and reviewed by the employer annually.

A Program to Implement the Policies

Under Bill 168, employers are required to develop and maintain a program to implement workplace violence and harassment policies.

The workplace violence program must include measures and procedures to:

control the risks identified in the workplace violence assessment;
call for immediate assistance when workplace violence occurs or is likely to occur, or when a threat of workplace violence is made;
report incidents or threats of workplace violence to the employer or supervisor; and
establish how the employer investigates and manages incidents, complaints or threats of workplace violence.

The workplace harassment program must include procedures for reporting and investigating incidents of workplace harassment.

Workplace Violence Assessments

Bill 168 requires employers to assess the risk of workplace violence that may arise. In addition to taking into account its own workplace conditions, an employer’s assessments must also take into account the conditions of other similar workplaces.

The employer must advise the joint health and safety committee or the health and safety representative of the results of the assessment. If the assessment is in writing, a copy must be provided. If the workplace does not have a joint health and safety committee or a health and safety representative, the workers must be advised of the results of the assessments and of how to obtain a copy of the assessment (if the assessment is in writing).

Workplace Violence Reassessments

Bill 168 requires that employers reassess the workplace for workplace violence risks "as often as is necessary" to ensure the workplace violence policy and program protects workers.

Domestic Violence

Bill 168 has specifically addressed the issue of domestic violence in the workplace by requiring employers to "take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances" to protect workers from domestic violence that would likely cause physical injury to workers in the workplace. This obligation on the employer arises only if the employer is aware, or ought reasonably to be aware, of the situation. What constitutes "domestic violence" is not defined.

Disclosure of Persons with a Violent History

One aspect of Bill 168 that may prove contentious is the obligation on employers and supervisors to provide information, including personal information, to a worker about a person with "a history of violent behaviour" if:

the worker could be expected to encounter that person in the course of his/her work; and
there is a risk of workplace violence likely to expose the worker to physical injury

Bill 168 contains no guidance on who would be a person with a "history of violent behaviour." However, it is interesting to note that the person must have a history of "violent" behaviour (and not necessarily "harassing" behaviour) in order for the disclosure obligation to be triggered.

Work Refusals

Bill 168 clarifies that a worker may refuse to work where he/she has reason to believe that he/she is in danger of being a victim of workplace violence. The normal work refusal process would be triggered (i.e., the employer would investigate the refusal, followed by a Ministry of Labour inspector if necessary).

What Should Employers Do?

If Bill 168 passes into law, employers need to be diligent and develop a plan to address the risk of workplace violence and harassment in the workplace. For example, Employers should:

create written workplace violence and harassment policies;
train employees on such policies;
undertake risk assessments to determine the possibility or prevalence of workplace violence or harassment;
disclose incidents of workplace violence and harassment with the joint health and safety committee and any risk assessments undertaken;
provide ways for employees to report instances or risks of workplace violence and harassment;
discipline employees for not following workplace violence and harassment policies or for committing workplace violence or harassment;
offer a confidential employee assistance program to allow employees subject to workplace violence or harassment, or those with personal problems, to seek help;
ensure that proper security measures are in place at the workplace to protect workers from members of the public or customers; and
keep detailed records of any workplace violence or harassment, investigation or work refusal.

Given the Ministry of Labour’s increased focus on workplace violence and harassment, and the fact that Bill 168 is a Government Bill, it is very likely that some version of Bill 168 will pass into law. Therefore, it is advisable for employers to review their current policies and procedures and consider how to address issues of violence and harassment in their workplaces in order to be well-positioned to implement changes that may be required under Bill 168 when it becomes law.

¹ Bill 168 appears to be the Government’s response to Bill 29 – a private member’s bill introduced in December 2007 dealing with workplace violence and harassment, which has remained stalled in the Legislature. Therefore, it is very likely that, as a Government bill, Bill 168 will be passed while Bill 29 will not.

² Unlike Bill 29, there is no reference to "psychological" harm or injury as a form of workplace violence.

Employees Are Out of Control, And It's Costing You Money

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:00:00 -0400

1 in 3 Canadian workers report they are in serious financial distress and are dissatisfied with their personal finances. A survey by the Canadian Payroll Association says nearly 60 per cent of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque and they would be in trouble if one paycheque were to come one week later.

"We were shocked by that number. So many Canadians are now living so close to the line that, if they miss a single paycheque, a majority will find themselves in financial difficulty," said Janice MacLellan, chair of the Canadian Payroll Association.

This issue of personal debt and poor finance is present in all socioeconomic circles. It does not matter if your employees make $150,000 or $35,000 per year. Personal financial distress affects millions of Canadian workers and it is costing employers thousands of dollars each year. Researchers have found that financial distress spills over into the workplace, contributing to such work-related occurrences as personal finance-work conflict, lower commitment to the organization, less satisfaction with pay, work time wasted dealing with personal finances, more absenteeism, and poorer health. Employees with money problems are like sharks swimming around the work place taking bites out of the bottom line.

Financially unhealthy employees do not make the best decisions for themselves or their employers. They do not manage their personal finances very well. They do not save and invest enough for a financially successful retirement. These things contribute to lower productivity as well as higher health care costs. Work Place Research shows that your employees are worried about their money more than any other aspect of their life, more then their work, family, marriage, or even friendships.

Employers often recognize the issue but do nothing about it. The new trend at many companies is to provide Financial Literacy seminars at the work place. Financial Literacy is not another trendy catch phrase. It is a movement that is supported by all sectors of society and it is based on the belief that people can’t do better if they don’t know better. The definition of financial literacy is “The ability to understand financial choices, plan for the future, spend wisely, and manage the challenges that come with life events such as job loss, saving for retirement, or child education.” Large numbers of employees are not maximizing their retirement plans and do not have any kind of savings for emergency.

Providing employees with the tools to become financially literate about the basics—knowing how to manage personal savings, credit, and create a spending plan—helps improve factors that affect the organization’s bottom line, such as productivity.

The best way to help your employees financially is not to give them a raise. Instead provide them with workplace financial education.

Quality Financial programs rescue employees and employers. It is in the employer’s best interest to provide employees easy access to quality financial programs. It also is the right thing to do as stewards of the employee’s well-being. Employers do not realize they can improve profits –and prove it– by helping employees improve personal financial behaviors. Quality Workplace Financial Programs Reduce Employee Financial Illiteracy and can save employer’s $750 - $2,000 per employee. The Personal Finance Employee Education Foundation expects employers to receive a ROI of 3:1 (or more) annually for quality workplace financial programs. Example: Cost of Financial Literacy Program $500 per employee. The employer’s benefit will be $1,500 per employee.

Benchmark employee’s financial wellbeing by asking them to respond to the Personal Financial Wellness Analysis (PFWA). The PFWA consists of a 9-item pencil-and-paper questionnaire that in 3-4 minutes measures financial health. The PFWA is a valid, reliable, peer-reviewed, and published measure over 25 years in development. It’s not an issue of money spent on workplace financial education it’s an issue of it’s effectiveness!

Daniel Hanzelka
Special Report for HR-on-Demand

Employers to Reduce Pay Hikes Next Year

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400

A survey of employers shows Canadians can expect an average pay hike of 2.3% next year, according to survey results released by Hay Group yesterday.

While that's well down from the 3.7% bosses were planning to give in anticipation of 2009, it matches the actual average raise of 2.3% this year, the Toronto-based business consultancy said.

"The 2010 forecast and the actual adjustments of 2009 obviously reflect the impact of the recent economic downturn," Hay Group said in a statement.

The data were based on responses from 500 private-and public-sector employers. Karl Aboud, director of Hay Group's compensation-consulting division, said although there were economic headwinds a year ago when the previous survey was taken, there was still a great deal of optimism in the energy sector.

The survey also showed 15% of employers are planning wage freezes for next year, up from 2% in last year's survey.

Financial Post September 3, 2009

More Canadian Employers to Boost Salaries Next Year: Survey

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400

OTTAWA -- A report done by business research group Watson Wyatt Data Services shows that more Canadian employers plan to hand out raises next year than was the case this year or last.

The report said 92.2% of Canadian employers have budgeted to increase base salaries next year. That's up from 79.5% of companies that had planned to give raises this year and 91.4% who provided salary boosts in 2008. "Companies tend to feel . . . ‘If we held back salaries in 2009 and we laid off or we've done some restructuring . . . to reward our key players and to keep people on board and to keep them engaged, we have to budget something,'" said Cherie Langevin, director of survey operations for Watson Wyatt Data Services.

The average pay bump for the companies planning to boost pay is expected to be 3% in 2010 -- unchanged from this year. That's down from the average 3.7% raise in 2008, the report said. Liz Wright, Watson Wyatt's Toronto-based consulting head for compensation issues, said it's indicative of the apprehension employers still have over economic conditions that the raises planned for next year fall short of 2008. "There's certainly a lot of optimism, but we're just not out of (the economic difficulties) yet," she said. "Just because we had one month (June) showing positive GDP, it doesn't mean we've totally turned the corner yet."

The Watson Wyatt report shows working in the not-for-profit sector can be personally profitable, with the average salary hike there expected to be 3.8% compared to 2.9% in the for-profit sector. Ms. Wright said, as with most employers, the not-for-profit sector faces tight competition in attracting top talent. They tend not to provide the same level of performance bonuses seen in the for-profit sector, she added, and often have to put a greater deal of focus on base-salary increases for recruitment and retention purposes.

Only limited regional Canadian data was made available by Watson Wyatt on Tuesday, with more information expected to come out later in the week. Of the information available, Saskatchewan had the highest average planned salary hike next year at 3.1%, and Vancouver was the leader as far as cities go, also at 3.1%. The only other province for which results were released, Nova Scotia, was expected to see an average pay hike of 2.8% in 2010. For other cities, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg were all on track for 2.9% salary increases, while Calgary was slated for an average pay hike of 3%.

The data is based on surveys of 106 Canadian organizations between April and June. No margin of error was provided.

Financial Post September 1, 2009

HR Outsourcing Trends and Insights 2009

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0400

HR Outsourcing Trends and Insights 2009

At a time when the majority of companies are under increasing pressure to reduce costs due to the weakened economy, HR departments expect to maintain their current strategies toward outsourcing HR services, according to Hewitt's HR Outsourcing Trends and Insights 2009 survey.

Hewitt recently surveyed 104 companies on how they are using outsourcing to improve the delivery of their benefit and HR programs and also how their strategies might be affected by the current economic environment.

From the survey results, it's clear that outsourcing does play an integral role in HR's ability to deliver programs to employees. Overall, 82 percent of companies that have measured their outsourcing programs said they realized the benefits they had hoped to gain by outsourcing.

There are a number of reasons why companies choose to outsource HR services, including:

Reducing costs: Sixty-five percent of organizations that indicate cost savings is a primary outsourcing objective reported they achieved their expected cost-reduction targets through their outsourcing programs.

Gaining access to outside expertise: In addition to needing specific domain expertise, companies also want to be relieved of the burden of making large investments in technology to maintain in-house systems and dedicating resources to meet challenging regulatory guidelines.

Improving service quality: Considered the most common measure of success for outsourcing, 81 percent of respondents indicated that they met or exceeded their service quality targets.

Realigning/focusing on strategic HR priorities: Outsourcing helps remove the day-to-day administrivia of managing HR programs so HR can focus on supporting on their most important business challenges.

by Hewitt Associates

Human Resource Outsourcing Outlook 2009

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Human Resource Outsourcing Outlook 2009

In a recession, all arrows point to outsourcing. The Human Resources Outsourcing (HRO) industry projects growth at five percent in 2009 amid the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. Some of the industry changes driving this growth promise to translate into improved ROI for HRO clients. Find out which behind-the-scenes strategies will save you money in 2009.

To reach a projected $3.2 billion in sales, HRO intends to drive new business through several strategic initiatives.

A La Carte Service

Industry analysts are predicting more componentized deals, allowing companies to select specific services to outsource while retaining others in-house. HR outsourcing suppliers are building greater flexibility into service agreements, allowing clients on-demand service changes and pay-as-you-go pricing. With cost reduction a top priority, new clients will target transaction-intensive processes for outsourcing. Human resources outsourcing services include:
- Payroll and benefits
- Recruiting
- Performance management
- Compensation
- Learning

HRO clients can trim expenses by accessing available resources only as needed, scaling outsourced services to meet changing needs. In a volatile economy, this sort of flexibility is crucial to maintaining a lean business.

Human Resource Management System (HRMS) Technology

Human resource management system (HRMS) technology has hitherto served as something of a competitor to HRO. HRMS facilitates in-house human resources, providing a global view of human capital and automating tasks such as payroll, benefits, recruiting, training, and performance tracking. A technological solution can increase in-house efficiency, rendering outsourcing unnecessary.

In 2009, however, analysts predict an increased adoption of HR technology by outsourcing providers. By making this technology available to clients on a Software as a Service basis, HRO suppliers present an attractive proposition for companies looking to avoid a large capital outlay. Clients benefit from subscription-based access to both the state-of-the-art technology and the providers outsourced human resources team.

Consolidation in the HRO Industry

Consolidation among HRO suppliers will bring better value to clients outsourcing multiple processes or implementing a large-scope human resources solution. Industry analyst Everest Research Institute expects to see consolidation via mergers and acquisitions as well as via partnerships among independent suppliers. Providers will consolidate in order to broaden their expertise into new processes and technology; widen their geographical footprint; and expand their market share.

For HRO clients, consolidation promises greater efficiency and access to broader services, as well as a reduction in the cost of multi-process service contracts. Continuity between services alone produces greater value. For example, a global HRO supplier might partner with a specialized Recruitment Process Outsourcing (RPO) provider to deeper recruiting services in specific geographies. Their clients benefit from both the reach and economy of a global HRO and the local recruitment relationships of the partner.

The coming year offers a promising outlook for human resource outsourcing suppliers and clients alike. As the market for outsourcing human resources matures, the industry will drive growth by increasing the efficiency and breadth of its services. In a climate of pessimism and gloomy forecasts, companies finally have something to cheer about.

by VendorSeek.com

Ottawa Paves Way for Phased Retirement

Sat, 30 May 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Ottawa Paves Way for Phased Retirement

In March of this year, the Federal Government enacted legislative changes to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, enabling pension plan sponsors to offer phased retirement as a means to retain mature workers. Phased retirement programs allow employees to receive a portion of their accrued pension while continuing to work reduced hours.

This allows companies to keep key personnel active in their business, while still allowing them the benefits of retirement. A phased approach to retirement can allow significant breathing room in transitioning roles and experiential knowledge critical to company success.

In Canada, the most recent census indicates that what has previously been viewed as the "core" working age population between 20 and 55 years of age, is decreasing while the population above 55 is increasing. Phased retirement offers employers an option to manage the retirement patterns of employees, to manage these demographic changes.

Preparing for Shortage of Key People

Sat, 30 May 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Preparing for Your Upcoming Shortage of Key People

Did you know that the cost of replacing retiring or departing employees in your business could be in the millions of dollars over the coming decade? And while hiring retirees as contractors can fill the skills gap, it will also slow your corporate adaptation efforts.

With the looming retirement of Baby Boomers, many companies are ill prepared for the accelerating talent shortage to follow. They haven't done enough to improve their hiring and employee retention practices, or establish succession programs. Consequently, they will struggle in attracting needed talent and sector skills in the competitive future. They will not stand out in comparison amongst employers and will find themselves unable to afford the replacement cost for comparable skills.

The time to act is now, since your hiring competitors may have already taken significant steps to position themselves as an attractive employer - an "Employer of Choice."

It's critical to recognize both the attraction and retention issues faced. Changing your internal practices to become a competitive employer will be a significant undertaking. Board members and shareholders must be alerted to the issues and make the choice to enable you to successfully compete for talent and retain proprietary information.

The first step is generally to craft the business case which highlights the risk to the company and proposes an action plan to make your business a desirable employer - which boards and shareholders

must consider seriously. Backed up by research and best practices, identify what your company needs competitively to be a more attractive employer, together with an appropriate budget for this effort.

Here are some of the areas such a presentation might address (customized to your business, its location and priorities):

• The cost profile of replacing retirements/departures
• The upcoming labor force demographics in Canada and specifically your region
• The folly of relying on contracted retirees as a stop gap
• What today's employees are looking for
• What other similar or competitive businesses are doing to attract and retain employees
• Human resource costs - direct and indirect
• The training costs of training up internal and external candidates based on the difficulty in replacing critical skills in a more competitive marketplace
• Financial and other implications arising from inability to service your customers until internal knowledge base is replace
• A plan for transitioning your business to becoming a more competitive employer
• Proposed budget and how to pay for the transition
• Measurable success criteria

Everyone knows that a few key people can make a huge difference to your business. If you have those people now - it's important to ensure that you don't lose them. If you need to add those people, you need to be their most attractive option.

About the Author:
David Boyle, president of HR-on-Demand, has over 30 years experience in designing and implementing strategies and tactics for outsourced human resources expertise.

- Organizational Effectiveness

Pay Equity Which legislation addresses equal pay in my jurisdiction?

Pay Equity

Which legislation addresses equal pay in my jurisdiction?

How does the law measure equality of pay?

How does the law compare different kinds of work?

What reasons does the law consider acceptable for differences in pay?

How do I make a complaint about equality of pay discrimination?

Are there restrictions on recovering wages if my complaint is successful?

Navigating complex pay equity legislation

Ontario set to enforce new violence and harassment requirements

workplace violence, threat assessment, bill 168

Ontario workplace violence bill demands good behavioral threat assessment processes

Challenges & Complexities of Complying with Bill 168

5 things in-house need to know about Bill 168

Bill 168 offers chance of safer workplace

Warning signs of workplace violence

Workplace Violence and Harassment Legislation

Employees Are Out of Control, And It's Costing You Money

Employers to Reduce Pay Hikes Next Year

More Canadian Employers to Boost Salaries Next Year: Survey

HR Outsourcing Trends and Insights 2009

HR Outsourcing Trends and Insights 2009

Human Resource Outsourcing Outlook 2009

Human Resource Outsourcing Outlook 2009

Ottawa Paves Way for Phased Retirement

Ottawa Paves Way for Phased Retirement

Preparing for Shortage of Key People

Preparing for Your Upcoming Shortage of Key People

About the Author: David Boyle, president of HR-on-Demand, has over 30 years experience in designing and implementing strategies and tactics for outsourced human resources expertise.

About the Author:
David Boyle, president of HR-on-Demand, has over 30 years experience in designing and implementing strategies and tactics for outsourced human resources expertise.