text:
Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation Blog
See www.ebeclaw.com for further descriptions
Leased Employees and Employee Classification
Charles C. Shulman, Esq., LLC
Employee Benefits, Employment & Executive Compensation Law
www.ebeclaw.com
NJ Office & Mailing Address
632 Norfolk St., Teaneck, NJ 07666
NJ Tel - 201-357-0577
(rings in office & on cell)
NY Office:
Seventh Ave.
, 21 Fl., New York, NY
NY Tel – 212-380-3834
E-mail - cshulman@ebeclaw.com
Admitted in NY & NJ
As published in 36 Journal of Pension Planning & Compliance 21 (Winter 2010)
with minor additions – December 2010
Charles C. Shulman
Charles C. Shulman, Esq. has over 20 years of experience in ERISA, employee benefits and executive compensation law. Before starting his own firm, Charlie practiced at Paul Weiss, at Cahill Gordon & Reindel and at Skadden Arps. He is admitted in New York and New Jersey, and may be reached at cshulman@ebeclaw.com, 212-380-3834 or 201-357-0577.
An issue that has recently attracted attention has been misclassification of employees as independent contractors. Government agencies are auditing companies for worker misclassification. Leased employees from professional employer organizations (PEOs) are also subject to examination as to whether the leased employees are really employees of the client companies—with the client companies being either co-employers with the PEO or being the sole employer. This article reviews the state of the law of leased employees and what can be done to minimize any liabilities. The following issues are discussed: (i) examination of PEOs for worker misclassification; (ii) joint employment by client company and PEO or employees of just of the client company; (iii) main criteria for employee status, including under the Darden test whether the company has the right to control manner and means by which work is accomplished, or the criteria under the economic realities test; (iv) a 2002 revenue procedure with IRS presumption that employees of PEOs should be treated as being the employees solely of the client companies; (v) Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978—safe harbor where there was a reasonable basis for worker classification; (vi) whether workers are leased employees as defined in IRC § 414(n)—and impact of leased employee status on testing; (vii) Microsoft "inoculation" language; (viii) cases re worker classification in leasing organizations; and (ix) consequences of misclassification.
Much attention has been focused recently on misclassification of employees as independent contractors. A number of federal and state agencies are auditing and investigating companies for worker misclassification. To some extent, leased employees from leasing companies—often referred to as professional employer organizations ("PEOs")[1] —are also being examined as to whether the leased employees are actually employees solely of the client companies or are employees of both the PEOs and the client companies.
The main test for employee status is whether the company has the right to control manner and means by which work is accomplished, although other factors also play a role. A 2002 revenue procedure shows an IRS presumption that employees of professional employer organizations may really be the employees solely of the client companies.
Sometimes a PEO and client company will be found to be co-employers, in which case the impact on payroll tax should not be significant since the PEO already collected the payroll tax. Other times, however, the client company may be found to be the sole employer, in which case the amount of payroll tax already collected was not from the employer and could be collected (with penalties) from the true employer (although presumably by the nonemployer could file for a refund).
Even if leased employees are not found to be common-law employees of the recipient company, if they are leased employees as defined in IRC § 414(n), they would also have to be aggregated for nondiscrimination coverage testing (but not for nondiscrimination in contributions or benefits, assuming the plans exclude leased employees). Leased employee under § 414(n) would include where services are provided pursuant to agreement, person has performed such services for the service recipient on a substantially full-time basis for a period of at least one year, and the services are performed under the primary direction or control of the service recipient.
Consequences of misclassification could include payment for retroactive FICA, FUTA, state unemployment and workers compensation if the leased employees are found to be employees only of the client company and not of the leasing company. Overtime pay may be required if the reclassified employee is non-exempt. Retroactive union benefits may be required where applicable. In terms of having to retroactively include reclassified employees in the client companies' employee benefit plans, this can often be avoided by specifically excluding reclassified employees from retroactive inclusion in the plan. If determined to be leased employees as defined in § 414(n), the company would have to retroactively test its qualified plans for nondiscrimination coverage, although leased employees would not have been included in the plans, assuming the plans exclude leased employees .
See detailed discussion below.
1. Increased Focus on Employee Classification
Crackdown on Employees Misclassified as Independent Contractors
Over the last few years there has been increased focus on employees misclassified as independent contractors. The IRS has increased its audit activity and has also announced that it would conduct audits of 6,000 randomly selected companies in 2010.[2] President Obama's fiscal year 2011 budget allocated almost $25 million for IRS and DOL audits and enforcement regarding misclassified workers.
New York established in 2007 a Joint Enforcement Task Force on Employee Misclassification coordinating efforts between six agencies, and has uncovered in its first 16 months approximately $157 million in unreported earnings, $5 million in unemployment taxes, $12 million in unpaid wages and in excess of $1 million in workers' compensation.[3]
Leasing Organization (PEO) and Client Company May Be Reclassified as Joint Employers or Client Company Alone May Be the Employer
Most of the audit activity is focused on workers classified as independent contractors, as this involves significant revenue because of the loss with respect to independent contractors of social security/Medicare tax, unemployment tax, state workers' compensation, overtime payments, etc. For workers employed by leasing organizations, the above taxes and expenses will presumably have already been paid by the leasing organization. Thus, even if determined that the recipient company is a co-employer with the leasing company there would not be significant liability, since the leasing organization as employer has presumably already withheld income tax and paying FICA, FUTA, state unemployment and workers compensation.[4] However, even in a leased employee context, the workers may be losing out on benefits (unless misclassified employees are specifically excluded from benefits in all events) and the workers may be unfairly excluded from joining or forming a union at the recipient company.
In certain instances, however, worksite/leased employees will be reclassified as employees solely of the recipient company and not of the leasing organization at all.[5] In such cases the government may seek payment with interest and penalties from the real employer, with the leasing organization required to file for refund of such payments.
2. Reclassification as Employee - "Darden" Standard; Microsoft Case
"Darden" Standard—Common-Law Definition for ERISA—Right to Control Manner and Means by Which Work Is Accomplished
The Supreme Court in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Darden,[6] has ruled that for purposes of ERISA employee is defined as a "common-law" employee, and that "[i]n determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished."
The Court lists the following other factors that are also relevant to this inquiry including: (1) the skills required; (2) the source of the instrumentalities and tools; (3) the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; (4) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; (5) the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work; (6) the method of payment; (7) the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants; (8) whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; (9) whether the hiring party is in business; (10) the provision of employee benefits; and (11) the tax treatment of the hired party.[7] Thus, one must examine an arrangement primarily to see that the recipient company does not control or have the right to control the manner and means by which the work is accomplished. The other factors listed are not dispositive, but should be evaluated to see if the contemplated arrangement will have favorable or unfavorable factors.[8]
Common-Law Definition Also Adopted in Payroll Tax Regulations
See Treas. Reg. § 1.3121(d)-1(c) which applies the Darden standard, as well as other factors to FICA (Social Security/Medicare) tax. It provides:
(1) Every individual is an employee if under the usual common law rules the relationship between him and the person for whom he performs services is the legal relationship of employer and employee. (2) Generally such relationship exists when the person for whom services are performed has the right to control and direct the individual who performs the services, not only as to the result to be accomplished by the work but also as to the details and means by which that result is accomplished. That is, an employee is subject to the will and control of the employer not only as to what shall be done but how it shall be done. In this connection, it is not necessary that the employer actually direct or control the manner in which the services are performed; it is sufficient if he has the right to do so. … Other factors characteristic of an employer, but not necessarily present in every case, are the furnishing of tools and the furnishing of a place to work, to the individual who performs the services. (Emphasis added)[9]
20 Factors in Rev. Rul. 87-41 Which Has Been Combined Into Three Categories
The IRS in Rev. Rul. 87-41, regarding payroll tax, provides twenty factors that have been identified in rulings or cases as indicating whether sufficient control is present to establish an employer-employee relationship, including: whether an employee must comply with instructions about when, where and how to work; training; integration of the person's services into the business operation; services rendered personally; hiring, supervising and payment of assistants; continuing relationship; set hours of work; full time requirement; doing work on the premises; order or sequence set by employer; oral or written reports; payment by hour, week, or month; reimbursement of business or travel expenses; furnishing of tools; significant investment; realization of profit or loss; not working for more than one employer; services not available to the general public; right to discharge; and right to quit.
These twenty factors have been broken down in IRS guidance to three categories: behavioral control (whether there is a right to direct or control how the worker does the work, i.e., receiving extensive instructions on how work is to be done and training about required procedures and methods), financial control (whether there is a right to direct or control the business part of the work—having significant investment in the work, not being reimbursed for business expenses and ability to realize a profit or incur a loss all point to being an independent contractor) and relationship between parties (what does the contract say; are there employee benefits).[10]
If the worker classification is unclear, Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding can be filed with the IRS.[11]
Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 Relief—Where Reasonable Basis for Worker Classification
Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978, as amended[12] provides an employer with relief from Federal employment taxes with respect to workers who have been reclassified as employees, if (1) the employer has consistently treated similar workers as independent contractors, (2) there was a reasonable basis for doing so, and (3) federal tax returns including Form 1099s are consistent with such treatment.[13] Reasonable basis requires reasonable reliance on case-law, prior audits and industry standard.
On audit the IRS will often challenge whether there really was reasonable basis for the classification and will examine closely to see if Form 1099s were filed and whether similar workers were always treated the same.[14] Also, an audit of employee classification can lead to an expanded IRS audit of other issues with the employer.
Section 530 is not directly applicable to leased employees, but it does show a Congressional intent to not reclassify employees who are classified on a reasonable basis, and this can apply to leased employees as well.
Vizcaino v. Microsoft—Employees Reclassified Will Require Retroactive Benefits Unless Have Microsoft Inoculation" Language in Plans
One of the major risks of employee misclassification is that the employee may be retroactively entitled to employee benefits. In Vizcaino v. Microsoft,[15] , the Ninth Circuit held that freelancers at Microsoft who were found by the IRS to be misclassified as independent contractors but were in fact common-law employees, and were therefore entitled to benefits under the company's retirement savings plan, employee stock purchase plan and stock option plan which were provided to all "employees."[16]
In light of this Ninth Circuit case, recently plans have added "Microsoft inoculation" provisions which state that persons originally classified by the company as independent contractors are not eligible under the plan even if later reclassified by the IRS, until the date of the reclassification determination. Similarly, with regard to leased employees. The client company plans should specifically exclude leased employees from participation even if they are aggregated for nondiscrimination coverage testing purposes.
4. Case-Law and Rulings Regarding Professional Employer Organizations
Ninth Circuit Case—Where PEO Exerts Only Illusory Control over Leased Employees They Are Not PEO's Employees and Cannot Remain in its Plan
In Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner,[17] the Ninth Circuit ruled that where a leasing company hired employees, covered the employees under the leasing company's benefit plans and leased their services to various recipients, for purposes of the exclusive benefit rule of IRC § 401(a)(2), the employees were not employees of the leasing company, primarily because the leasing company exercised no meaningful control over them. The court based its conclusion on the facts including that: (1) the leasing company never exercised its right to reassign workers; (2) the leasing company had no reason to reassign or fire a worker unless a recipient complained, an unlikely scenario because most workers had some control over the recipient to which they were leased through employees' equity ownership in the recipient; (3) the leasing company's control over the workers' salaries was illusory, because any change required approval by either the recipient or the worker; and (4) the leasing company did not conduct any screening of the workers except to verify their licenses to practice.
The court also noted that the recipient companies rather than the leasing company, provided the equipment, tools and office space for the workers, furnished the workers with malpractice insurance, and controlled the details of how and when work was to be performed.
Therefore, the court held that the employees were really employees of the recipient companies and not the leasing company, and therefore participation by such employees in the leasing company's retirement plans would violate the exclusive benefit rule of IRC § 401(a)(2) that a plan of an employer must be for the exclusive benefit of its employees.
If a leasing company exercises meaningful control over the workers, the workers are not significant shareholders of the leasing company, the leasing company has control over salaries and screens the workers as any company hiring an employee will do, workers would probably not be a common-law employee of the client company.
Six Factor Economic Realities Test Used in Second Circuit Co-Employer Case
In a 2003 Second Circuit case, Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co.[18]—which involved a garment company which hired subcontractors who in turned hired garment workers to stitch and finish pieces of clothing, and whether the company was a "joint employer" with the subcontractors—the court applied a six factor economic realities test to determine if the company was a joint employer of the subcontractors' workers:
(1) whether the company's premises and equipment are used for the workers' work; (2) whether the subcontractors that hired the workers has a business that can or does shift as a unit from one putative joint employer to another; (3) the extent to which the workers perform a discrete line-job that is integral to the company's process of production; (4) whether responsibility under a contract between the subcontractors and the company could pass from one subcontractor to another without material change; (5) the degree to which the company or its agents supervise the employees' work; and (6) whether the employee works exclusively or predominantly for the company.[19]
Rev. Proc. 2002-21—Employees of PEO Are Actually Employees of Recipient Company, and Each Employer Must Sign Onto Leasing Company's 401(k) Plan
Rev. Proc. 2002-21, as amplified by Rev. Proc. 2003-86, provides that professional employer organizations (PEOs) that maintain a defined contribution plan must treat the plan as a multiple-employer plan. Citing the cases of Darden and Professional & Executive Leasing, the IRS acknowledges the complexity involved in the determination of whether a leased employee is the common law employee of the PEO or of the client organization, and provides a framework under which plans sponsored by PEOs will not be treated as violating the exclusive benefit rule solely because they provide benefits to the leased employee. The relief offered is for the PEO either to terminate its plan or to convert its plan into a multiple employer plan IRC § 413(c), and avoid possible violation of the exclusive benefit rule of IRC § 401(a)(2).
This revenue procedure evidences the IRS' bias towards finding employees of professional employer organizations to be employees solely of the service recipient companies and not of the PEOs. However, if a leasing company maintains primary control over the employee and the Company does not maintain the primary control, and some of the other criteria also point to ownership, the presumption of Rev. Proc. 2002-21 should be negated. Note also that the revenue procedure only deals with retirement plans sponsored by the professional employer organization and not retirement plans of the service recipient company.
PEO Health Plans as MEWAs
If employees of a PEO are characterized as common law employees of the client companies, the PEO health plan would be a multiple employer welfare arrangement ("MEWA"). MEWAs have limited ERISA preemption under ERISA § 514(b)(6). MEWAs are subject to state insurance laws regarding required reserves and contributions. This can create an issue for self-insured plans. With insured plans, however, the insurance company presumably already meets the reserves and contributions requirements.
See, DOL Information Letter (Mar. 1, 2006),[20] that the PEO and its clients would not be considered a single employer even if the PEO had agreements with each of its clients under which the PEO has an option to purchase an 80% interest in each client company, since the options arrangements are really shams. Therefore the MEWA issue was not avoided in that case.
For self-insured MEWAs the state insurance reserves and contributions laws would effectively shut down the MEWA. For insured MEWAs the insurance company already should be satisfying the reserves and contributions requirements, but a DOL Form M-1 filing would be required for both types of MEWAs, whether insured or self-insured. ERISA § 101(g) and DOL Reg. § 2520.101-2 require MEWAs to file annual Form M-1 with the DOL (with $1000 a day penalties under ERISA § 502(c)(5) for failure to file).
This is a very common area of noncompliance, as PEOs may be aware of Rev. Proc. 2002-21 but are often not aware of the MEWA requirements.
Right to Discharge Employee as a Factor in Determining Employee Classification
Note that Treas. Reg. § 1.3121(d)-1(c) regarding Social Security and Medicare withholding provides that: "The right to discharge is also an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is an employer."
However the legislative history regarding changes made by the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 to IRC § 414(n)(2)(C) (adding primary direction and control language to definition of leased employee) states: "Factors that generally are not relevant in determining whether such direction or control exists include whether the service recipient has the right to hire or fire the individual and whether the individual works for others."[21]
The above regulation and legislative history can perhaps be reconciled as follows. If the determination is whether the worker is an employee or independent contractor like in the FICA regulations, right to discharge is an important factor indicating that the person possessing that right is the employer. However, in the leased employee situation in determining whether the company is the employer or the leasing organization is employer, whether the service recipient company has the right to hire or fire the individual is not relevant because even a nonemployer client of a PEO would want the right to remove a leased worker if not satisfied with the work.
Case Holding that Leased Employees Were Legitimately Classified as Employees of the Leasing Company
In Castiglione v. U. S. Life Insurance Co.,[22] the court found that a leasing company, rather than the company to which the leasing company leased employees, was the employer for purposes of an ERISA plan. The company to which employees were leased had entered an employee leasing contract with the leasing company, wherein the leasing company agreed to ensure the recipient company's adherence to federal, state, and local tax laws, payroll, workers' compensation laws and to provide group health and life insurance. In honoring this agreement the leasing company purchased several insurance policies for employees. The court noted that ERISA § 3(5) merely requires a leasing agency to act "directly as an employer or indirectly in the interests of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan." The court found that the leasing agency was the employee's direct employer in relation to the employee benefits plan, even though it did not control the employee's day to day activities. In addition, in any event it would be no less than an indirect employer.
Leasing Organization for Only One Company
A professional employer organization that services numerous companies (e.g., Administaff, ADP, Paychex, Trinet, etc.) is less likely to be attacked as illusory, than an organization set up for solely one employer. It is easier to demonstrate that a large professional employer organization exerts sufficient control independent of the client company with respect to its employees when there are numerous clients and employees are sent on varying assignments for varying periods of time.
5. If Primarily Under Direction and Control of Company Then Treated As § 414 (n) Leased Employee and Must Be Aggregated for Testing
There are two ways that leasing company employees would be required to be tested together with company employees for nondiscrimination testing. First, if found to be a common-law employee of the company then the employee must be included in nondiscrimination testing (and for participation as well unless specifically excluded from the plan based on their status or based on the classification the employer gave to them at the time). Second, even if not a common-law employee of the company if they are leased employees as defined in IRC § 414(n) as described below, they would also have to be aggregated for testing (but not for participation, assuming the plans exclude leased employees). [23]
Leased Employees Under § 414(n) Must be Aggregated with All Company Employees for Nondiscrimination Testing
Under IRC § 414(n), a leased employee as defined in § 414(n) is treated as an employee of the service recipient.
IRC § 414(n)(3) requires that a leased employee as defined in § 414(n) be treated as an employee of the service recipient for the following requirements: (1) the general nondiscrimination requirements of IRC § 401(a)(4) and the ADP/ACP nondiscrimination requirements of IRC §§ 401(k)(3) & 401(m)(2) (unless the leased employees are specifically excluded by the document from participation); (2) the minimum participation requirements of IRC § 401(a)(26); (3) the minimum coverage requirements of IRC § 410; (4) the top-heavy requirements of IRC § 416; and (5) the maximum benefit and annual addition requirements of IRC § 415.
Leased Employee Under § 414(n) Defined as Service Provider for One Year or More Where Services Are Performed Under Primary Direction or Control of Service Recipient
"Leased employee" is defined in IRC § 414(n)(2) as any person who is not an employee of the service recipient and who provided services to the recipient company if: (1) such services are provided pursuant to an agreement between the service recipient and the leasing organization, (2) such person has performed such services for the service recipient on a substantially full-time basis for a period of at least one year, and (3) such services are performed under the primary direction or control of the service recipient.
Criteria for Determining Whether Services Are Performed Under Primary Direction or Control of Service Recipient—Similar to Common-Law Employee Definition
See legislative history to the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 § 1454, which provides: "Whether services are performed by an individual under primary direction or control by the service recipient depends on the facts and circumstances. In general, primary direction and control means that the service recipient exercises the majority of direction and control over the individual. Factors that are relevant in determining whether primary direction or control exists include whether the individual is required to comply with instructions of the service recipient about when, where, and how he or she is to perform the services, whether the services must be performed by a particular person, whether the individual is subject to the supervision of the service recipient, and whether the individual must perform services in the order or sequence set by the service recipient. Factors that generally are not relevant in determining whether such direction or control exists include whether the service recipient has the right to hire or fire the individual and whether the individual works for others."[24] Note that as defined by the Conference Report, the "primary direction or control" test of IRC § 414(n)(2) is similar to the common-law employee test that service recipient has the right to control and direct the individual as to the details and means by which the work is accomplished. However, it could possibly not be a common law employee because the recipient company does not have the right to control the details and means by which the work is accomplished, but nevertheless the worker is under the primary direction and control of the recipient company under § 414(n)(2).
6. Consequences of Misclassification of Leased Employees; Self-Audit
As discussed above, the consequences of misclassification of independent contractors would trigger obligations for income tax withholding, and payment of FICA, FUTA, state unemployment and workers compensation. However, in the case of worksite/leased employees, if the entities are treated as co-employers and in all events the government will receive payments from one of the parties, and the company recipient is treated as the sole employer, the government may collect from the employer and the leasing company will have to seek a refund for amounts paid.
If the IRS considers the recipient company to be co-employer with the leasing organization but not sole employer, since the government has already collected income tax withholding, FICA, FUTA, state unemployment and workers compensation from the leasing company, the government will generally not seek a duplicate payment from the recipient company since a co-employer has already paid the amount
The adverse consequences of reclassification of leased employees as employees of the recipient company or as § 414(n) leased employees is that there may be retroactive benefits claims under the company's benefit plans, although if the plans specifically exclude those misclassified (or determined not to be leased employees as defined in § 414(n)) until reclassified, this won't be a problem.
If reclassified or if determined to be leased employees as defined in § 414(n), the company would have to retroactively test its qualified plans for nondiscrimination taking into account that the leasing company employees have not been included in the plans—and since they are non-highly compensated employees the company would likely fail the nondiscrimination tests.
An additional, adverse impact could occur if the addition of employees to the company would bring it over the threshold for certain employment laws.[25]
A company that has leased employee arrangements where the company exerts a significant amount of control over the leased employee, such that the company may be the employer or co-employer, should conduct self-audit to determine if the treatment of the employees as employees of the PEO is proper. The audit should be done with or under the direction of legal counsel in order to retain attorney-client privilege.
[2] 36 BNA Pen. & Ben. Rptr. 2736 (Dec 1, 2009).
[3] See http://www.labor.ny.gov/agencyinfo/MisclassificationofWorkers.shtm
[4] See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 66-162, (sales clerks were employees of both the concessionaire who leased space at a department store and the department store); Chief Counsel Adv. Memo. 200415008 (PEO and clients were co-employers and where PEO went bankrupt, client company could be eligible for employment taxes); Chief Counsel Adv. Memo. 200017041 (FICA/FUTA wage base applicable to staffing company and clients as co-employers)
[5] See, e.g., Professional & Executive Leasing, Inc. v. Commissioner, 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988) (discussed below, and holding that where a leasing company leased employees to various companies, the employees were not employees of the leasing company at all and therefore the leasing company violated the exclusive benefit rule of IRC § 401(a)(2) by including such employees in the leasing company's plans.)
[6] 503 U.S. 318 (1992).
[7] 503 U.S. at 323–324 (emphasis and format added).
[8] See, however, Second Circuit Zheng decision below applying a six factor "economic realities" test in a co-employer case.
[9] The same definition is used in Treas. Reg. § 31.3401(c)-1(b), regarding income tax withholding, and Treas. Reg. § 31.3306(i)-1(b), regarding FUTA federal unemployment.
[10] See, e.g., Publication 15-A—Employer's Supplemental Tax Guide http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15a.pdf (page 6), and Publication 1779—Independent Contractor or Employee…) http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1779.pdf
[11] http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf Form SS-8 may be filed by either the business or the worker.
[12] Text at www.tinyurl.com/Sec530.
[13] There has been proposed legislation to repeal or amend Section 530. Recent proposed legislation regarding worker classification include the Taxpayer Responsibility, Accountability and Consistency Act (S. 2882), and The Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 (H.R. 6128), both of which would repeal Section 530.
[14] See 37 BNA Pen. & Ben. Rptr. 1519 (July 6, 2010).
[15] 120 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 889 (1998).
[16] The Microsoft case was settled for approximately $97 million.
[17] 862 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1988).
[18] 355 F.3d 61 (2nd Cir. 2003).
[19] The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
[21] Conference Report to H.R. 3448 (1996).
[22] 262 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (D. Ariz. 2003).
[23] IRC § 414(m) affiliated service rules could be applicable if the owners of the service organization are also employees or shareholders of the recipient company.
[24] Conference Report, 1982-2 C.B. 522, 679.
[25] For example, 15 employees are required for application of the Americans With Disabilities Act and Title VII, 20 employees for the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and COBRA, 50 employees for the Family and Medical Leave Act, 100 employees for WARN Act, etc.
Posted by moderator at 4:59 PM
cshulman
Roadmap to Employment and Change in Control Agreem...
Successor Liability Under ERISA
Temporary Payroll and Benefit Relief Under the Tax...
SUMMARY OF FOUR DIFFERENT RULES (OR PROPOSED RULES...
2011 Cost-of-Living Adjustments for Pension Plan a...
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PROVISIONS OF DODD-FRANK WA...
NOTICE 2010-80: RELIEF FOR PAYMENTS CONDITIONED ON...
Enhanced Executive Compensation Disclosure: A Summ...
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Annual ...
NEW YORK HEALTH CONTINUATION COVERAGE EXTENDED TO ...
SUMMARY OF THE PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008


In part one of this article we discussed the physical part of interviewing. Running all over a company building, meeting a dozen people, keeping your appearance clean and presentable and other considerations that depend on your stamina and ability to keep prim and proper but the really difficult part of interviewing is the intellectual part – using your mind to win over your interviewers.
Most articles on interviewing tips cover these points and it will do you well to read as many of these articles as you can. Question and answer time during interviews are a game. They are debates, saying the right thing, even when you don't truly believe what you must say to please the interviewer and playing the game by other's rules.
I'm not saying you need to lie because you must be true to your work ethics but you must impress the person to whom you are speaking. People may all be told the same thing, with the same words but they will interpret those words differently. The first part of reading your interviewer is to glance about their office or cubicle. Personal possessions say a lot about a person. Starting the interview by establishing a common ground, perhaps by discussing your common interest in collecting glitter unicorns that line an interviewer's shelf will put them at ease with you and make the conversation about yourself and your work ethics easier.
You may be able to prepare by researching the people with whom you will be interviewed. Places they had worked, clubs and organizations to which they belonged will give you a better idea of who they are and their interests as people. You can be sure they have looked you up on the internet (another reason to make sure embarrassing photos and political assertions are gone from your Facebook page and blog) and will have questions about your hobbies and that trip to Mexico.
Any article worth reading will mention that you need to research the company for which you will be interviewing. This isn't just for the questions you should ask during the interview but also for your own information on whether or not you really want to work there.
Using LinkedIn to research employees, both past and present, you can see what kind of turnover the firm has.
If people stay less than three years, it's a safe bet that the company has bad employee engagement.
You may also be able to find a past employee who will give you the lowdown on the company culture, problems, gossip and strengths.
In one case, being contacted by a recruiter for a position, I did a simple Google search of the firm only to find out they were about to be indicted by the Federal Fair Trade Commission…for the second time in the company's short history. Would I want to move to a new city only to be unemployed a few months later when the company is forced to close or worse, as happened to a friend of mine, move and then be told on his first day that the position couldn't be filled?
You will also want to look at the job history of those to whom you will report. Are those people top rate professionals or underachievers who have risen through the ranks purely because they were around long enough to be moved up because there was no one else around? The Peter Principle is rampant in business. No one knows why and no one really seems to want to stop it. Do you want to work for a manager who micromanages not because they are hands-on but because they are fearful you are moving ahead without them. How long would you be happy working in such a relationship?
If you are impressed with a company and excited at the prospect of becoming a member of their team, you need to know everything about their product or service and not only ask questions about how they go about providing it all but also to ask about future growth and show them you have an eye towards the company future.
When I interviewed for my last fulltime position, they were sorely behind in digital growth of their work process, exploring technology and web outreach. I had a digital portfolio and most of the people interviewing me didn't know the meaning of "double-click the portfolio icon to start the digital slide show." That was in 2001! The unfortunate situation I found over my time with the company is that they were hesitant to get into any new technology, preferring to wait for competitors to enter the market with new initiatives and then hoping to grab the market share afterwards. It was frustrating to me as a creative used to being a leader in innovation. That's important if you want to be engaged in your daily work and not feel that you cannot live up to your potential.
When you ask your interviewers about future growth, listen to their answers but also pick up on their body language when they give their reaction.
If they squirm and stutter about future plans, it means the company isn't comfortable with change.
Some people like it that way but stagnation is slow death in the business market and that will affect your salary and possible length of employment at that firm.
There are some people who say you don't want to give away million dollar ideas when interviewing because some places interview solely to idea phish. That is always a possibility but if you show you have ideas that will make the company money, you will be an attractive candidate.
There is also the argument against bringing up work process changes as a way to save money. No one wants to hear they are doing it wrong. A friend of mine once told me, while I banged my head against a wall about the "two-step forward, one step back" way our employer had for workflow, that I had to introduce innovation not it huge floods but as little, everyday unnoticeable bits. He was right.
During the interview process, most probably in a preliminary phone interview, you will be subjected to certain questions hiring managers use to test you. Above all, it's important to be completely honest without any anger, backstabbing, nay saying or bitterness. However, that doesn't mean you can't spin the answer to your best advantage. Answers can contain the truth but still be put in such a way that you sound human but still be a top viable candidate.
The following are the standard questions you will be asked. The first is the most common. The second, is also common, especially these days is difficult to answer. How would you answer these?
Exactly why do you want to work here?
Why should we hire YOU? What can you do for us that someone else cannot?
Have you ever had problems with a supervisor or a coworker? Describe the situation for me.
Describe some times when you were not very satisfied with your own performance. What did you do about it?
Give me an example of an important goal you had to set and tell me about your progress in reaching that goal. What steps did you take?
What was your role in your department's most recent success?
Describe a time when you were faced with problems or stresses at work. What did you do?
How do you deal with competition? Are you a competitive person?
What would you consider an ideal work environment?
What are your long-range career objectives, and what steps have you taken toward obtaining them?
Describe a situation when working with a team produced more successful results than if you had completed the project on your own.
What do you do when people disagree with your ideas?
Describe a situation where you found yourself dealing with someone who didn't like you. What did you do?
Can you tell me about an important written document you were required to complete?
Describe a situation where you messed up, or your results were not up to your supervisor's expectations. What action did you take?
Give me an example of a time when you tried to accomplish something and failed. Did this discourage you? What did you do about it?
What do you really want to do in life? What do you see yourself doing five years from now?
What does it mean to be successful? According to your definition, how successful have you been so far?
You don't have the right kind of experience.
You may be overqualified or too experienced for the position.
How much $$$ do you expect if we offer this position to you?
Let's go over a few of these. Did you think about how you would answer leaving a company or being fired? If you haven't been fired, you still have a difficult answer to the question of leaving. If you "weren't challenged," then it might be viewed that you didn't step up to look for challenges. A new question hiring managers are starting to ask is, "what do you do when you are finished with your work?" It's a trick question.
It seems, as I found out later, is that going off on your own is a negative trait. Ask for more work, ask permission to do something, get wound up in the red tape, report to idiots, do everything in triplicate and be a mindless robot. Surprised? Welcome to the new business acumen!
Every answer should be how you worked with the team, how you let the boss micromanage a project, how you let other departments walk all over you, etc. Basically, how you are a team player by not so much as mumbling one complaint.
The last two questions are probably the easiest of the entire list.
Save any numbers for a final interview.
Put it off by saying that you expect a competitive salary commensurate with your experience but what's really important to you is the company culture, the chance to contribute to the team, what benefits are offered and where they see you fitting into the team.
There are salary guides all over the internet, so you should be prepared to go in with a range and if pushed, state the range you have seen and wait for the offer and THEN negotiate.
As for expectations for salary increase and promotions, it's best to reply that you have the same expectations as any other team member, that you understand performance reviews and that it's the work that is more important than titles.
Most articles on interviewing claim you shouldn't voice any expectations of vacation, paid time off, promotions, or raises, so it's best to play that off by drawing the discussion to your achievements at past jobs and convince the interviewer that you can produce money for the company. If they believe you can more than pay for your salary by creating more income, you will be considered a viable candidate.
Every article agrees that you must send a thank you note or email after interviewing. Even if you write and mail a thank you note the very next day after an interview, it will take 3-5 days or never to arrive in the recipient's hands. There's no way of knowing if it arrives or not. Also, depending on your industry, design being mine, the quality of the stationery or card can destroy your chances.
When interviewing for a large greeting card company, I felt compelled to create a thank you card to send. I asked the recruiter if she thought it was a good idea and she related a story about another person who interviewed for the same position and created a card for a thank you. The recipient apparently hated the card and thought it was in direct contrast to the person's portfolio and she wasn't hired. That certainly put the pressure on me to create something special but safe. The recruiter agreed and asked I send her a jpeg of the card first. I complied and she put her stamp of approval on it.
I sent off the card and about a week later, the recruiter called to tell me that the creative director loved the card. I didn't get the position as it went to someone already employed by the company but I was hired to do a good amount of freelance work while the person who was promoted drove business into the ground. At least my card worked out well for me!
These days, most people believe an email is proper enough for a thank you note. It's immediate and usually garners a response so you know the person has received it. If you only have the email address of the hiring manager, write him/her a thank you and ask him/her to pass on your thanks to all of the people who you met that day. The message will usually be forwarded to all parties.
If you have gotten the interview through a recruiter, check back in a week and ask if there's anything else you need to provide. Then sit back and wait for word.
If you haven't heard anything, contact them again in three weeks and ask if there's any movement.
Usually offers are made within two weeks after the top candidates have been interviewed. That can take two or three weeks alone.
If you haven't heard anything after two months, there are two possibilities – at least two I have seen: You didn't get the position and the company hasn't told the recruiter yet or you didn't get the position and the recruiter forgot to tell you. Either way, it hurts.
I like to send another email, thanking the person(s) for their time and consideration and wish them luck. Then I connect with them on LinkedIn. Maybe you don't get the position but you've made some valuable connections. Maybe the person they hired won't work out and you will still be in the front of their mind or they will move on to another company and remember you if something opens up. An interview is also a chance to meet people and expand your network. Not getting the position isn't necessarily a failure – it's just a positive chance to advance you through first level connections! It is WHO you know that helps get you the position.


text:
By ak2themax@ak2themax Nov 8, 2018, 7:00am CST
Share All sharing options for: Houston Rockets vs. Oklahoma City Thunder game preview
This game reminds me of Josh Smith.
After the Detroit Pistons cut Smith midseason, the Rockets picked him up and proceeded to go 13-7 over their next 20 games. Smith looked like a rejuvenated player in Houston and the Rockets had another player who could create some offense when James Harden went to the bench. Houston was playing well and looked like a contender, and that was due to the addition of Josh Smith.
But that was only one side of the story. The Pistons reacted to the waiving of Smith by playing their absolute best basketball of the season. The 5-23 Pistons won their next seven games. They went 12-7 over the 19 games after Smith was cut. Detroit was playing well and looked like a playoff team, and that was due to the subtraction of Josh Smith.
The dueling narratives became difficult for most of the media to handle. On the one hand, the story of "Oh look the Pistons are playing so well now. Josh Smith must be a cancer for sure!" was some low-hanging fruit. And to be fair the connection was easy. Smith left and the Pistons started winning. So he was a cancer for sure, right?
Well, on the other hand, the Rockets were rolling too. They were dealing with some injuries and some back-to-backs, but they were winning too. And Smith was playing well! He was shooting a decent percentage from distance (33%), which was markedly better than the 25% he shot during his 18 months in Detroit. He was spelling Harden as the team's primary ball-handler and not taking too many shots.
So on January 31, with the Rockets 13-7 and the Pistons 12-7 since the Smith cut/signing, the teams met in Detroit. And boy were the Pistons fans excited about it. Detroit fans delighted in booing Smith every time he touched the ball. Dwight Howard was injured, so Houston started Joey Dorsey. As you can expect from just that sentence alone, the Pistons won comfortably. Pistons fans had the last laugh and got to point at the game as vindication for the waive-and-stretch. There was finally irrefutable proof. Josh Smith was officially a cancer!
Except, he wasn't.
Smith played fairly poorly in that game. He would play poorly again when the teams met a few weeks later. Houston won that game, handing the Pistons their fifth straight loss en route to a 10-game losing streak. But Smith was a key cog to the Rockets team during the slog that is the regular season, and it didn't take a genius to see it. He came off the bench for most of the season and did plenty of the dirty work for the Rockets on both ends of the court. Of course, his most famous moments as a Rocket would come later in the playoffs, but no one knew that at the time.
Detroit finished 32-50 and missed the playoffs. Houston finished 56-26 and made the Western Conference Finals after overcoming a 3-1 deficit against Chris Paul's Los Angeles Clippers.
Tonight's game against the Oklahoma City Thunder has its own storylines. Russell Westbrook is hurt. Ditto for Andre Roberson. Eric Gordon is questionable too. The Rockets are digging themselves out of the 1-5 hole they worked their way into, and the Thunder are trying to rise into the upper tier of Western Conference teams early in the season. James Harden used to play for OKC. Patrick Patterson used to play for Houston. (Okay, that last one isn't a big storyline.)
It won't matter. Tonight will be about Carmelo Anthony. The Thunder were a dysfunctional group last season and it showed. They grabbed the fifth seed before bowing out to Ricky Rubio and the Utah Jazz in six games. Their fans blame Melo. He came to the team late in the offseason. He refused to come off the bench. He couldn't lead the bench units. He had no chemistry with the team. He was a locker room cancer. He was just Josh Smith in a different uniform.
Except, he isn't.
Tip-off is at 7pm CT on TNT

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


For the first time in a while, we can begin to be optimistic about the stability of Greece – at least in the very short term. While the country edges ever-closer to a deal with creditors, preventing bankruptcy and a potentially abrupt fallout from the eurozone, official figures have also revealed the economy grew 1.5% in the second quarter of the year, a rise of 0.8% from the first quarter.
There are of course caveats to this optimism. The long-awaited deal still has to be agreed upon by Germany and the Greek parliament. Alexis Tsipras, the Greek prime minister, is still yet to convince opposition members and from within his own party, with the loudest voice coming from ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis, repeating his claim that the deal will not work and that Syriza, the governing party, should return to its election promise and reverse spending cuts and tax rises.
What's more, capital controls were imposed two days after the second quarter of the year – which means they don't show up on latest growth figures. In any case, Greece has an even greater problem to come, which will make any agreed deal redundant and an economic recovery – if we can even really call it that – wholly unsustainable: the lack of any significant job creation in diverse sectors.
Since the financial crisis, unemployment in the country has hit workers hard. The rate of people out of work rose from 7.7% in 2008 to 27.8 as of 2013. Some 75% of job losses occurred during 2010 to 2013, after the European institutions began directly imposing policies on the country as terms for bailout packages.
All the while the largest number of jobs lost came from wholesale and retail, manufacturing, agriculture and construction. With the latter, which had added 1,500 jobs between 2008 and 2010, 157,600 workers lost their jobs between 2010 and 2013. Wholesale and retail trade, and manufacturing eliminated around 145,000 positions each, while agriculture lost 57,700 jobs.
As one representative of a Greek trades union body recently put it: "Greece has weak exports, does not invest in research and development, the culture of innovation is absent and in fact entrepreneurship is not familiar with innovation. Even if the private sector recovers in the country there are still many challenges we face."
The result has been a nationwide mismatch of skills to jobs and a mass exodus of workers – both of which negatively impacts upon a country that needs to grow its economy or face financial insolvency.
When I spoke to Passas Costas and Nasos Koratzanis, representatives of the General Confederation of Greek Workers, they told me that without the ability to devalue its currency, a rise in productivity was seen as the only way to bring Greek wage levels up to the cost of living in the country. But due to a rapid shift in types of employment, from high to low-skilled labour and low wages, the productivity rise didn't materialise.
According to ERE Media, the recruitment specialists, data from Greek job search engines found that in the first half of July 2015, an average of 32% of their searches were for employment outside of Greece, almost twice the share in the same time period in 2014.
In 21 occupation categories, over 50% of Greek job searches are outside Greece, compared with just three occupations in 2014, and a significant number of high-skilled workers – including mathematicians, computer scientists and educators – are leaving to take up employment elsewhere in countries such as Germany.
As it's widely recognised, workers emigrating to other countries, particularly within the eurozone, is not a bad thing at all. They can leave, work in environments unfamiliar to their home country, bring back those skills and pass them on to others. But in reality, highly skilled workers in Greece are not returning, fully aware that the jobs they want are not there.
Active labour market policies in the country have previously been enacted on the assumption that Greek workers don't have the correct skills. Initiatives have been set up to improve a person's employability and to give training for the acquisition of skills. But the problem is not that skills are absent, but that the right jobs are not being created.
According to the European Labour Force Survey, unemployment is higher for the 15 to 29-year-olds who have already acquired technical skills compared with the average unemployed. Graduates of Greek technical educational institutions are among the hardest hit by youth unemployment.
A jobs plan is absolutely vital. Apart from small talk about investment in start-ups, as part of the so-called "Juncker-package", there is limited mention of good job creation in the deal currently being debated. But this is vital.
Where jobs are matched to skills, productivity is sure to rise. With growing output, it becomes easier for Greece to meet primary surplus targets and grow its way to sustainability. This is why a blueprint on employment is so necessary today in Greece. The European institutions ignore this at their peril.
Carl Packman is an independent debt and finance researcher and the author of Payday Lending: Global Growth Of The High-Cost Credit Market (2014).


There's no warmer welcome than a Bajan welcome; where everybody's made to feel right at home from the moment you step foot on the island. If you're planning a dream holiday to Barbados, you're in for a treat.
Each coast offers something completely different; from the west coast's luxury resorts and fine dining options to the south's lively vibe and hotels to suit all budgets. We recommend taking the time to fully explore Barbados, taking in all the sights and sounds. Hire a car and head to Bathsheba if you're looking for secluded beaches and authentic island life, or pay a visit to one (or two) of the many rum shops you'll find lining the streets, selling the best Bajan rum you'll ever taste. If you're a cricket fan, this is the place to be with many making the pilgrimage to visit the Kensington Oval and watch a match.
Whether you're after relaxing paradise or a party to remember, Barbados has it all.
Flight Time Approx 9 hours; Direct flights from the UK are available.
Health Information No vaccinations required, Hepatitis A, Polio and Typhoid are recommended.
"When travelling to Barbados take Bajan dollars as opposed to US. It's approximately two Bajan dollars to one US dollar and your money will go further".
"The best way to explore Barbados is to hire a car – head over to Bathsheba on the east coast, it's easy and they even drive on the same side of the road as us".
"The Hawksbill and Leatherback turtles are two of the rarest sea creatures in the world, and they make their nests on the beaches of Barbados between April and November".
There's no question too small. Start planning your dream trip by talking to our Barbados Destination Specialists.
Flights to Barbados are approximately 8 hours and 30 minutes. There are currently daily direct flights from London Gatwick to Grantley Adams International Airport in Christ Church with either British Airways or Virgin Atlantic. Alternatively, there are direct and indirect flights from other UK airports.
Can I go island hopping in Barbados?


text:
Field Hockey: Girls getting back on track after slipping with losses
After a strong 2-1 start, the Patriots had a rough couple of games in recent weeks. The girls had five games in a two-week stretch in which they finished with a 2-3 record, putting them at 4-4 for the season.
On Sept. 16, the team faced off at home against Walter Johnson. The game was a tight battle, and both teams were evenly matched. Despite the Patriots having the advantage for possession and having the ball in opponent territory for the most part, WJ was able to capitalize off of a Wootton error, and the score would stay 1-0 for the rest of the game.
The Patriots had a doubleheader on Sept. 17. In the Invitational that the team holds every year, the games featured two dominant out-of-county private schools- McDonogh and St. Stephens & St. Agnes. The girls had a rough outing, losing the two games by a combined 9-1.
Although the score against McDonogh ended in a 5-1 loss for the Patriots, the team looked good early on. From the start, the girls took a 1-0 lead with a goal from junior Grace Llewelyn. However, that would prove to be the only goal of the game for the girls as they let up five goals to the overly dominant McDonogh squad. The opposing squad made it 2-1 at halftime, before piling on three more goals in the second half against the Patriots.
The second of the two games against St. Stephens & St. Agnes went much like the first, losing by a total of four goals. The Patriots let up two goals in both halves and lost by a final score of 4-0. Although the girls lost both games against two well-rounded squads, the team didn't leave with their heads down. After the three consecutive losses, the team came together and connected as a team in what was their best all-around game of the season. In a home game against Richard Montgomery on Sept 19, the girls finally were able to find the back of the net, and did so multiple times. It took well into the first half, but the goals finally started coming. The attack was led by senior Madeline Clark and junior Jordyn Taylor, who each chipped in with a goal in the team's 4-0 victory. The defense had a stellar performance in the team's victory and was led by junior goalie Amanda Jordan, who didn't let in a single shot.
On Sept. 21, the girls kept their streak going with another dominant victory, this one over Einstein. The team's defense put up another impressive shut out against the Einstein attack, and the offense kept rolling with what they did against RM. Clark led the team with two goals and was joined by senior Shannon Welty and junior Julia Stern, who each scored a goal of their own.
The Patriot's next game was Sept 28 against rival Churchill but was too late to be covered in this issue.
Geoff Pisarra
varsityfieldhockey


text:
est une espèce de coléoptères de la famille des Cerambycidae. C'est un insecte rare et apprécié des collectionneurs.

Description
Ce gros capricorne mesure entre 5 et .

Répartition
Il vit dans le nord de l'Amérique du Sud. On le trouve au Brésil, en Colombie, en Équateur, au Panamá, au Pérou et au Venezuela.

Références taxinomiques

Notes et références

Espèce de Coléoptères (nom scientifique)
Cerambycidae

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Diversity, Equity, Inclusion And Belonging At Work
in Education News
The Talk is Not Getting Walked
The "Break the Bias Hacking HR Lab" series is now over. Two sessions were held each day for the past four days. I have to say, thoughts were provoked! The theme of the conference, in keeping with Women's History Month, was #BreaktheBias. Each session had at least four panelists who were experts in human resources. From making the business case for diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging (DEI&B) to emotional intelligence skills, a lot was shared during these four days. However, a common note emerged: moving forward, human resources' emphasis is on the "human."
By now, breaking biases and DEI&B is not about political correctness or feeling like a good/decent human being. Allowing each person's humanity to shine brightly is simply a matter of alignment. It is not a new age thing, nor is it a concept best left for touchy-feely arenas, or a preferable way of organizing commercial endeavors. It is larger than that. It is life's vital force, aligning seamlessly in our shared human experiences such as work. Workplaces that honor humanity is where the next generations will choose to work. If you want continuity, then this is what needs focus and work!
DEI&B is the bridge to reach the organizational aspiration of having everyone's light shine bright. I call it aspirational DEI&B. It reaches every aspect of our lives and must become part of an organization's DNA. Now, is this what is going on in commercial organizations these days?
Well, during yesterday's #BreakTheBias sessions sponsored by the "Hacking HR Lab," panel members took an accountability lap. The panelists dove deep into the question, "why are we still talking about this?" It brought up the image of a wobbly, roly-poly toy moving back and forth, and from side to side, but never moving from the spot it was placed initially. The consensus was that if the talk is still getting talked rather than walked, it might mean that HR is still figuring out how to do this, or it might also mean that there is no organizational buy-in, or it might mean that there is a degree of passive-aggressive resistance in those called to execute the programs. Regardless, it is time to take accountability: breathe, examine the "stuckness," and then redo.
The panelists pointed out that we all know the DEI&B trending buzz words, phrases, and sentences. We know when to drop them. But…when we look around the office, we see that the C-suite might sound different with those new buzz words but still looks and feels very much the same. Now in 2022, women still earn 82 cents for every $1 that men make, and Lilly Ledbetter's speaking engagements are still a truly relevant and important thing 43 years after Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. So, there is concrete evidence pointing to the idea that the talk is not getting entirely walked despite decades and decades and decades of trying.
Why Are We Not Getting DEI&B Right?
But why are we not getting it right yet? Apparently, not everyone that knows better is willing to do better, even when, if nothing else, there is a business case for breaking the gender bias and implementing DEI&B. Decades of research has shown that bias against women, Black people, Latin people, and other minorities still exist in our institutions and culture as a whole today. The consequences of this bias range from unfair hiring to the lack of representation in leadership positions to diminished economic opportunities. Again, why? I do not have the answer, but I know it is a big tell. Is it that systemic biases are stronger than our will to discard them? What do you think?
Systemic biases inhibit society from changing for the better. The future of an inclusive society is at risk. We can do better by breaking down access barriers to opportunity, recruiting a more diverse workforce, and implementing workplace policies that create equal opportunities for all. But this is not enough. Our internalized biases influence our perceptions of others and how we interact with them. This can lead to unintentional bias, which can lead to unfair decisions that harm people.
Bias can manifest in unintentional, and seemingly harmless ways—like the female manager who discovered that her male colleagues were referred to by their first names, while she was called Ms. Smith (and one time even "the manager"). We cannot pretend that bias does not exist in the workplace when we all know that it does. How do we start looking at employees as individuals rather than members of groups or teams?
It takes a lot of courage to stand up to bias in the workplace or out in public. But it is just as likely that we ourselves are biased without noticing it, and this creates subtle resistances here and there that keep us in motion while standing in the same place. It is time for the talk to become the walk on diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging. Still only talking about it means HR did not get the "how" right.


We Invite all loyal customers and trades people, to our Milwaukee Cut The Cord Event!
Experience Milwaukee's VISION for a Cordless Jobsite!
With Demonstrations & Exclusive Event Day Offers!
See New Cordless Innovation vs Corded Alternatives and Leading Competitors.
Ask MILWAUKEE® experts first hand and see productivity enhancing technology first hand.
Your exclusive invitation contains a Passport to redeem for a free gift upon completion of our demo experience. Take our product Tour and Receive a FREE Gift!
Built for You at Calgary Fasteners & Tools!


text:
Updated July, 2021
This following document sets forth the Privacy Policy for the Olivo Health and Nutrition website, http://www.olivohealth.com.au.
Olivo Health and Nutrition is committed to providing quality services to you and this policy outlines our ongoing obligations to you in respect of how we manage your Personal Information.
We have adopted the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) contained in the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) (the Privacy Act). The NPPs govern the way in which we collect, use, disclose, store, secure and dispose of your Personal Information.
A copy of the Australian Privacy Principles may be obtained from the website of The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner at http://www.aoic.gov.au
Olivo Health and Nutrition is bound by the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which sets out a number of principles concerning the privacy of individuals.
Personal Information is information or an opinion that identifies an individual. Examples of Personal Information we collect include: names, addresses, email addresses, phone and facsimile numbers.
This Personal Information is obtained in many ways including [interviews, correspondence, by telephone and facsimile, by email, via our website http://www.yourbusinessname.com.au, from your website, from media and publications, from other publicly available sources, from cookies- delete all that aren't applicable] and from third parties. We don't guarantee website links or policy of authorised third parties.
We collect your Personal Information for the primary purpose of providing our services to you, providing information to our clients and marketing. We may also use your Personal Information for secondary purposes closely related to the primary purpose, in circumstances where you would reasonably expect such use or disclosure. You may unsubscribe from our mailing/marketing lists at any time by contacting us in writing.
When we collect Personal Information we will, where appropriate and where possible, explain to you why we are collecting the information and how we plan to use it.
There are many aspects of the site which can be viewed without providing personal information, however, for access to future Olivo Health and Nutrition customer support features you are required to submit personally identifiable information. This may include but not limited to a unique username and password, or provide sensitive information in the recovery of your lost password.
We may occasionally hire other companies to provide services on our behalf, including but not limited to handling customer support enquiries, processing transactions or customer freight shipping. Those companies will be permitted to obtain only the personal information they need to deliver the service. Olivo Health and Nutrition takes reasonable steps to ensure that these organisations are bound by confidentiality and privacy obligations in relation to the protection of your personal information.
Sensitive information is defined in the Privacy Act to include information or opinion about such things as an individual's racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, membership of a political association, religious or philosophical beliefs, membership of a trade union or other professional body, criminal record or health information.
Sensitive information will be used by us only:
For each visitor to reach the site, we expressively collect the following non-personally identifiable information, including but not limited to browser type, version and language, operating system, pages viewed while browsing the Site, page access times and referring website address. This collected information is used solely internally for the purpose of gauging visitor traffic, trends and delivering personalized content to you while you are at this Site.
From time to time, we may use customer information for new, unanticipated uses not previously disclosed in our privacy notice. If our information practices change at some time in the future we will use for these new purposes only, data collected from the time of the policy change forward will adhere to our updated practices.
Your Personal Information is stored in a manner that reasonably protects it from misuse and loss and from unauthorized access, modification or disclosure.
Olivo Health and Nutrition will not charge any fee for your access request, but may charge an administrative fee for providing a copy of your Personal Information.
In order to protect your Personal Information we may require identification from you before releasing the requested information.
Olivo Health and Nutrition reserves the right to make amendments to this Privacy Policy at any time. If you have objections to the Privacy Policy, you should not access or use the Site.
Olivo Health and Nutrition welcomes your comments regarding this Privacy Policy. If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy and would like further information, please contact us by any of the following means during business hours Monday to Friday.
Olivo Health and Nutrition,
Brighton, Melbourne, Australia
E-mail: luanne@olivohealth.com.au


Calhoun High School wrestlers participate in the Braxton County Invitationals on January 11 and 12.
The Red Devils placed 2nd in the 24 team tournament.
First place was 130 lbs. Cody Clark Second place was 215 lbs. Zac Yeager Third place winners were, 125 lbs. Sean Gungle, 130 lbs. Ben Laughlin, and 152 lbs. Jeff Goodrich.
Fourth place winners were, 112 lbs. Nick Stevens, 145 lbs. Aaron Yoak, and 160 lbs. Caden Arnold.
Sixth place winner was 171 lbs. Tim Sutro.


text:
Poecilimon jonicus är en insektsart som först beskrevs av Franz Xaver Fieber 1853.  Poecilimon jonicus ingår i släktet Poecilimon och familjen vårtbitare.

Underarter

Arten delas in i följande underarter:

 P. j. superbus
 P. j. jonicus
 P. j. lobulatus
 P. j. tessellatus

Källor

Vårtbitare
jonicus