Legal Issues – Staffing

What You Need to Know About Your Staffing Agency’s Compliance

by Jeanne Knutzen | June 26, 2018

0 Blog, Flexible Staffing Strategies, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing, Temporary Staffing.Best Practices get connected

As your co employer, how your staffing agency manages its employer and compliance responsibilities can impact you. Here's how.... … Read More »

How Long Can a “Temp” Be on Assignment?

by Jeanne Knutzen | June 21, 2018

0 Author-Jeanne, Blog, Flexible Staffing Strategies, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing, Temporary Staffing.Best Practices get connected

While there are no legal reasons to shorten a temporary assignment, other factors should be considered. … Read More »

Washington Employers Face New Paid Time Off Requirements…

by Jeanne Knutzen | January 25, 2018

0 Blog, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing, LOCAL NEWS AND TRENDS - EMPLOYMENT, STAFFING, What's New in Staffing? main whats happening

Are Your Temporary Employees Subject to Washington State’s New Mandatory Paid Time Off Policies? The short answer is yes.  And this article has the details about the new law and how it will impact you! … Read More »

Are Temporary or Contract Workers Eligible for Overtime Pay?

by Jeanne Knutzen | April 18, 2016

10 Author-Jeanne, Blog, Flexible Staffing Strategies, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing, Management.Supervision get connected

Are temporary employees subject to overtime pay? Am I at risk if my staffing agency isn't paying them overtime pay rates? … Read More »

First Steps in Tackling the Year of the FLSA

by Guest Author | September 9, 2015

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing bellevue staffing, Employment Agency Bellevue, Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, PACE Staffing Network, Seattle Staffing, Seattle Staffing Agency

Under the proposed rule, an employee will need to earn a minimum of $970 per week (or $50,440 per year) and meet the duties test in order to be exempt from overtime wages, increasing from $455 per week ($23,660 per year). … Read More »

Smartphone Usage After Hours

by Guest Author | July 14, 2015

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing

Many of our employees have smartphones. Do we have to pay them for every time they use it outside of regular working hours? While I tell them not to, many still respond to emails and texts outside of work hours. What do I do? … Read More »

New Rules to Expand Overtime Pay!

by Jeanne Knutzen | July 13, 2015

0 Blog, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing

After months of speculation, the US Department of Labor has just published its proposed changes in the regulations that govern how employees become eligible for overtime (time and a half) pay. … Read More »

How You Use Background Checks Can Make a Big Difference!

by Jeanne Knutzen | May 29, 2015

0 Blog, Hiring.Best Practices, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing

Your Background Checking Process Is Under Increased Scrutiny… …and some employers are already paying the price for processes that don’t line up with Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) regulations. … Read More »

Seattle’s NEW Minimum Wage Goes Into Effect April 1!

by Jeanne Knutzen | March 27, 2015

0 Blog, Human Resource Roles, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing

Beginning April 1, both large employers (501 employees or more) and small (500 or fewer employees) located in SEATTLE must pay their employees no less than a hourly rate of $11/hr. – or a base of $10/hr. … Read More »

1099 Worker Classification Audits on the Rise!

by Jeanne Knutzen | February 4, 2015

0 Blog, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing 1099 Worker, 1099 Worker Classification, Employer of Record, Employer of Record Service, W2 worker, Worker Classification Audits

As we have discussed on multiple occasions, the wrong classification of workers continues to be an audit target for federal and state unemployment agencies, impacting any employer who uses 1 or 20 independent contractors as a way of doing business. … Read More »

Transparent Wage Policies: Honest or Chaos Provoking?

by Jeanne Knutzen | January 9, 2015

0 Blog, INFO AND RESOURCES FOR EMPLOYERS, Legal Issues - Staffing, Temporary Staffing.Best Practices, What's New in Staffing?

A common policy found in many businesses is a prohibition against the disclosure of wage information. This type of policy serves the purpose of preventing workers from battling with HR and each other over who is getting paid what and why. … Read More »

Final Rule Issued for OSHA Recordkeeping Requirements

by Jeanne Knutzen | December 23, 2014

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing

By Nickole C. Winnett In a press release issued September 11, 2014, OSHA announced the final rule for Occupational Injury and Illness Recording and Reporting Requirements. For Federal Plan States, the regulation will go into effect on January 1, 2015; State Plan States will announce their dates independently but are encouraged to meet the same deadline. This regulation brings some major new changes for employers. Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health, cited the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report stating that 4,405 workers were killed on the job in 2013 to emphasize the importance of this new rule. Establishments in certain low-hazard industries are partially exempt from routinely keeping OSHA injury and illness records. Under the new rule, there will be a shift in the number of industries which are partially exempt from keeping these records. Previous regulations used the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system to categorize industries. The new rule now relies on the North American Industry Classification Systems (NAICS) along with injury and illness data from BLS from 2007 through 2009 to categorize the industry as low-hazard and exempt employers from OSHA recordkeeping requirements. As a result of this update, employers in several new industries are now required to keep OSHA injury and illness records. A list of these new industries can be found here. The new rule maintains the exemption for any employer with 10 or fewer employees from the requirement to routinely keep records of worker injuries and illnesses. The rule expands the list of severe injuries, which all OSHA-covered industries must report to OSHA regardless of size or partial exemption status. The current rule stipulates that when there is a fatality or three or more hospitalizations, the employer must inform OSHA within eight hours of the occurrence. Under the new rule, a fatality (within 30 days of the work-related incident) must still be reported within eight hours of the death. However, employers will now have a 24 hour window in which to report to OSHA all work-related inpatient hospitalizations that require care and treatment of a single employee, all amputations, and all losses of an eye which occur within 24 hours of the incident. The available methods of reporting by the employer have also been expanded. In addition to calling OSHA's confidential number (1-800-321-OSHA) or calling the local OSHA Area Office, employers will be able to go to the web portal, which OSHA is developing, and make a report electronically. OSHA has stated that not all reported incidents will lead to an inspection. OSHA noted, however, that hospitalization and partial body loss are significant events that indicate serious hazards are likely to be present at a workplace and that an intervention is warranted to protect the other workers at the establishment. OSHA said in its press teleconference that it sees a report as opening a dialog with the employer and that its decisions regarding whether an investigation will be opened will be case-specific. OSHA is most interested in knowing what caused the injury, what the employer intends to do as a result of the incident, and putting the employer on notice–all of which it expects will make an employer more likely to take the necessary steps to rectify the situation. Based on OSHA's conversation(s) with an employer, OSHA indicated that it may decide to take no further action, roll the employer straight into a consultation program, or conduct an inspection. Significantly and most troubling, OSHA also stated during its press teleconference that it will make an employer's report of all fatalities, hospitalizations, amputations, and/or eye losses publicly available on the OSHA website. OSHA stated that it believes that public disclosure will incentivize employers to ensure a safe workplace for their employees.


Nickole Winnett is a senior associate in the Washington, D.C. Region Office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and is a member of the Workplace Safety and Health practice group. She heads the Workplace Violence sub-specialty practice group and is a member of the Process Safety Management sub-specialty practice group. Winnett is also co-author of Jackson Lewis' OSHA Law Blog.

What’s New in Staffing and ACA Compliance?

by Jeanne Knutzen | November 24, 2014

0 ACA Affordable Healthcare, Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing

A Complimentary Webinar for the Clients and Friends of PACE Staffing Network! MARK YOUR CALENDAR – December 10, 2014 @ 9 AM (PST) After compliance, learn what comes next! Featuring nationally acclaimed ACA attorney, Alden Bianchi. The Affordable Care Act radically restructures how heath care is funded. In 2014, its mandates impacted individuals. In 2015, its mandates impact employers. For the staffing industry and its customers, Obamacare represents the biggest compliance challenge our industry has ever faced. It impacts all of us who do or utilize staffing services—agencies and customers.   The PACE Staffing Network, in conjunction with the Affiliated Staffing Group, has arranged for Alden Bianchi, a nationally recognized expert on the ACA and the Group Practice Leader for Mintz Levin’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice to present a complimentary webinar for PACE customers and friends on Wednesday, December 10 from 9am-10:15am PST. Click here to register! Webinar topics will include:

  • The increased costs of the ACA mandates and what they are likely to mean for your 2015 staffing budgets.
  • Staffing company costs and price adjustment strategies. What’s going on in the staffing services marketplace?
  • Risk Management – things to do to protect yourself from unforeseen fines and penalties
  • The “Variable Hour Employee” and what that classification means to the customers of staffing agencies
  • What are the strategy “don’ts” under the ACA? When might the IRS come calling?
  • Getting ready for the ACA’s discrimination provisions, and the next round of ACA impact.
  • Staffing Strategies you can use to contain the high costs of ACA compliance while focusing on your business needs
  • The ACA and your 1099 Workforce
  • And More!
If you have any questions regarding this webinar, please email infodesk@pacestaffing.com or contact Reilly Smith at 425-637-3312. Click Here to sign up for this complimentary webinar

Countdown to ACA Compliance – Part III

by Jeanne Knutzen | October 28, 2014

0 ACA Affordable Healthcare, Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing, Management.Supervision ACA and Temporary Staffing, ACA compliance, Affordable Healthcare – ACA Smart, Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Seattle, Hiring Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

The PACE Staffing Network has been preparing for the employer mandates of the ACA for well over two years. As members of the American Staffing Association (ASA), we provided input into several areas of proposed regulation, and attended countless hours of ACA related training. With the ACA’s employer mandates ready to launch January 1 2015, we wanted to share information on the specifics of how the ACA impacts your use of temporary/contract employees. For ideas on how to better manage your needs for staff in light of new ACA mandates, contact a member of our Partnership Development team by contacting infodesk@pacestaffing.com or calling 425-637-3312.

In what ways has the ACA already impacted your temporary and contract workers?  

The Individual Mandate has been in effect since 2014, requiring all temporary and contract workers to purchase ACA qualified insurance for themselves and their dependent children. While we do not know what percentage of temporary/contract employees complied with these mandates in 2014, we suspect that number will increase in 2015 as penalties for non-compliance increase.

What changes go into play in 2015?

The Shared Responsibility component of the ACA, known as the Employer Mandate, goes into effect on January 1, 2015. This provision requires that all staffing companies employing 100 or more employees offer affordable and ACA qualified insurance to 70% of its eligible employees or pay significant fines and penalties. The taxes/fines/penalties for not offering insurance are $2K/year ($167/month) per eligible full time employee—excluding the first 80; if the insurance offered does not meet ACA requirements or isn’t affordable, the fine/tax penalty is $250/month (up to $3K annually) for any employee going to the exchange for insurance and receiving a subsidy. This mandate will impact most but not all staffing companies in 2015.

Are most staffing agencies already offering insurance?

The short answer is YES. PACE along with most staffing agencies has been offering some form of health insurance for well over a decade. Unfortunately these health insurance products do not meet ACA requirements, so new products for our industry had to be developed over the last year.

What requirements must be met in order for a temporary or contract employee to become eligible for ACA benefits on January 1st, 2015?

There are several ways an employee can be qualified for coverage as of January 2015. Using a look-back period, any temporary or contract worker of a “large” staffing agency who has been on assignment through their staffing agency for at least 1560 hours during 2014 must be offered insurance. These look-back periods will continue on through 2015 so that all employees meeting the full-time requirement must be offered insurance within 30-days of the end of their look-back. For all full-time employees hired after October 1, 2014 they will become eligible for insurance on the first day of the month following the completion of their administrative period—no later than the first day of the fourth month from date of hire. Full-time employees are considered any employee intended to work 30-hours per week or more at the point of hire.

What must a staffing company contribute to the employee’s insurance costs in order to ensure “affordability?”

Staffing firms must contribute to the employees’ premium so that no employee is required to pay more than 9.5% of their base pay for their own personal coverage. For example, if an employee earning $10/hr. is offered an ACA compliant insurance plan that costs $400/month, the employee cannot be required to pay more than $123.50/month for their own coverage, requiring their staffing firm employer to pay $284.80.

How will newly assigned temporary and contract employees become eligible for coverage in 2015?

Starting in October, 2014, PACE will categorize all new hires as one of the following:
  • Full-time – working 30 or more hours per week and projected to work at least 1560 hours in the coming 12 months,
  • Part-time – working less than 30 hours a week, or
  • Variable hour – employees whose status as either full- or part-time can’t be determined at point of hire.
  • Seasonal – employees working 6 months or less at specific times throughout a calendar year.
While you might assume that all the employees we hire are either Variable Hour or Seasonal, there are very specific rules staffing companies must follow to put an employee into those categories. What’s at stake is that for employees categorized as Variable Hour, they are allowed to work for their employer for a defined “measurement period” (typically 12 months) without the benefit offer requirement. The IRS is not going to give this classification away easily.

How will most staffing companies decide to become compliantwill they pay or play?

To be ACA compliant, a staffing agency can either offer benefits or pay the $2000 per employee “did not offer” penalty. They can also offer a qualified benefit but not participate in its costs, running the risk of incurring the $3000 per subsidized employee penalty for not making their plan “affordable.” Each approach to ACA compliance has offsetting costs and risks, requiring each staffing agency to choose a strategy that meets their customer’s needs for cost containment and their positioning in the marketplace.  The American Staffing Association commissioned a study by Towers Watson (2014) which provides insight into the choices likely to surface over the next 60 days. According to the TW study, 54% of staffing companies will be offering some level of insurance to its eligible temporary and contract workers. The remaining 46% are either planning to pay penalties or are too small to be covered during the transition year. A popular compliance strategy used by many staffing agencies, including PACE, will be to offer two insurance options:
  • A plan that meets both the “minimum value” (MVP) and the “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) definitionswith a 60% actuarial value covering core services. This plan will meet all the requirements of the employer mandate.
  • A plan that meets only the “minimum essential coverage” (MEC) definition – A less costly plan that meets only individual mandate requirements.
This strategy provides a low cost way for our employees to become compliant with the individual mandate (avoiding their own fines and penalties), while protecting PACE from penalties stemming from employees taking subsidies because our plans don’t meet ACA requirements or are unaffordable.

Do you need to know if and how a company providing temporary or contract staff to your organization is ACA compliant?

Theoretically no. Provided you have the right contracts and agreements in place you will have no responsibility for your staffing vendor’s decisions regarding how they will get and stay compliant with ACA mandates. Thinking more pragmatically, the expertise your staffing vendor brings to the table to not only ensure their own compliance with the ACA but to help you with yours, can be invaluable. First of all, a vendor who hasn’t prepared to become compliant can easily find themselves facing fines and penalties of a size that can end their business. Secondly, like most overly ambitious legal undertakings, the ACA contains opportunities for smart employers to use the provisions in the ACA to create new and more competitive ways of doing business. If staffing agency does not understand the ACA and its nuances, they likely won’t be able to offer fresh ideas on ways to lower your ACA related costs!

What will be the” added costs” for staffing agencies to become compliant with the ACA in 2015?

There are two categories of costs associated with ACA compliance:
  • The increased costs of ACA related administration which will be considerable—starting with changes in point of hire administration, monthly reporting, annual reporting to both employee and the IRS, etc.
  • The increase in direct costs associated with either offering the required insurance coverage or paying the penalties associated with not offering.
The direct cost increases will be agency specific, depending on several factors:
  • How many "full-time" employees they have in their workforce relative to their total workforce?
  • What percent of their eligible full-time employees will take the insurance once offered?
  • The eligible employees rate of pay to arrive at the costs the agencies will incur to make their plan "affordable."
  • The costs of the insurance products they are offering.
Based on the costs we are currently projecting, PACE is anticipating a 3-5% increase in our direct costs with another 15% increase in our current administrative costs.

For staffing companies who elect to “pay,” are they subject to taxes/penalties on all their temporary employees?

No. The application of taxes and penalties for “not offering insurance” only applies to full-time employees (minus 80 in 2015). Excluded from penalties for unaffordable insurance are employees who either reject an offer of coverage, elect coverage that isn’t affordable or delivering minimum value, or who are enrolled in state Medicaid programs.

What ACA related costs are still unknown/unclear?

Historically, the staffing industry has faced serious challenges finding a health insurance product that will serve their high turnover, low participation workforces. Six months ago there were no insurance products available to the staffing industry that would meet ACA actuarial standards. We now have insurance products, but it is not clear if these products will be attractive enough to our temporary and contract workers to incent their participation. We’ll all know much more in six months than we know now about what percent of the people being offered insurance will chose to take it.

How will the individual staffing company deal with their cost increases?

There are as many different pricing philosophies and strategies as there are staffing companies—with the key factors being geography, local business and government taxes, employee type, market positioning, and service offerings. While the pricing structures of staffing companies providing long term professional staff typically have room for premium level healthcare benefits, for staffing companies working in more competitive markets, there is little room to absorb any increased in direct costs. Some staffing companies will offer only the low cost MEC plans, taking the chance that the employees electing their insurance will not go out to the exchange and seek subsidies for better plans. We consider this strategy risky. The ASA study by Towers Watson study revealed that 91% of the staffing firms polled are planning on passing their ACA costs (penalties or insurance costs) back to their clients in the form of across the board increases in bill rates. Most (38%) are planning 2-5% increases. 9% are looking to increases of 16% or more. 19% are still not yet sure how much they will increase bill rates.

How will the price increase be handled?  

Most of the pricing programs we have viewed are designed to smooth out the costs of providing insurance to all eligible employees and spreading those costs across an entire workforce and customer base.
The Towers Watson study indicates that employers can expect their price increase to come in a number of forms. Some will simply do an across the board increase in bill rate; others will see increases in mark ups; some will be adding a line on each invoice for ACA Costs.

How will the increased costs of temporary and contract workers compare with the increased costs associated with the ACA for other types of employees?    

Since the passage of the ACA, actuarial firms have been predicting increases in overall employee costs to be in the area of 5-8%. If this projection plays out, the per hour increase in costs for a temporary or contract employee may end up being much less than the increase in costs associated with the same employee, hired directly. For example, an employee earning $15/hr. hired directly may cost an additional $3.25-3.75/hr. in healthcare benefit costs in 2015 compared to 2014. The same employee provided by a third party staffing agency, might cost $.45-.70 more per hour than they did in 2014. For a more detailed discussion of ACA related “staffing math” and to compare the relative costs of employees hired directly with employees placed through a third party employer, contact our Partnership Development Team at 425-637-3312.

What other cost increases will employers experience in 2015?

We anticipate ACA related cost increases will touch just about every part of our customers’ businesses in 2015. Administrative cost increases alone could be staggering.
Part of the services and costs savings we are delivering to customers in 2015 and beyond is full administration of ACA related compliance.

When it comes to managing staffing providers, are there other elements of the ACA that employers should be paying attention to?

Yes. It may be time to review your staffing contract or agreements. The ACA has its own common law provisions, reinforcing the notion that it is the common law employer who is responsible to offer and pay for ACA mandated benefits. In most temporary or contract staffing arrangements, there is clear legal precedence for the staffing company to be the common law employer, accountable for ACA compliance. That said, we recommend that employers consider adjusting agency contracts to clearly spell out each party's respective roles in managing ACA mandates. PACE is happy to provide language recommendations upon request. For employers purchasing payroll services from their staffing provider, the law is less straight forward and the need for contractual adjustments more important. Again, we recommend that the role of your third party payroll service provider be spelled out clearly and contractually in any ongoing payroll services agreement. We recommend that specific indemnifications related to the ACA liability should become standard clauses of all payroll service agreements and contracts. NOTE: A nuance of the ACA regs specifically requires that if there is a chance or a reason for a payroll agent to not be considered the common law employer, the costs of providing insurance to an ACA benefit eligible employee should be passed back to that client as an increase in rate for the particular employee. Between now and early January, PACE will be speaking with all clients to ensure the proper ACA compliant contracts are in place.

Do we need to be concerned about “abuse” clauses?

The IRS has been very clear that it will be looking closely at staffing firms and their clients to ensure that ACA benefit requirements are not purposefully skirted. For example, an employer who turns their entire 50 person workforce over to a staffing firm, so as to avoid falling into the “large employer” category, would be highly suspect. An employer who employees 48 people and regularly uses a staffing company to provide 5-10 employees for its peak busy periods, on the other hand, is likely not suspect, even though their use of temporary staff keeps them below the 50 employee benchmark. The difference? Their temporary staffing strategy was designed to address a business need—not to avoid offering benefits. Splitting employees between a staffing company and their client or between two staffing companies so that no one “employer” reaches the 50 employee benchmark has been specifically prohibited. While PACE will continue to be strong advocates for all of the business reasons to use more flexible staffing strategies, we will only recommend changes that are based on business need, not ACA avoidance.

Is there future ACA stuff that we should be thinking about for 2016 and beyond?

Yes.
  1. Discrimination Issues. Current thinking is that all the ACA specific regulations related to discrimination will come out in 2015 and be implemented in 2016. The ACA is clear that any plan or employer contribution that provides a differential benefit in favor of highly compensated employees will be specifically disallowed. This means that once discrimination regulations have been written and put into play, employers will no longer be able to provide special plans or higher levels of contribution to their higher paid employees—short of making them available via post-tax dollars.
  2. Special tax on Cadillac Plans. In 2018, employers will be taxed on Cadillac benefit that cost more than $10,200 ($850)/month per individual. The tax on Cadillac plans is 40%—making these plans prohibitive for most employers. Employers with Cadillac plans will likely look for alternative approaches.
We hope you have benefited from reading this primer on the ACA and how it will impact your use of temporary and contract workers after January 1, 2015. For more personalized consultation, please contact our infodesk@pacestaffing.com or by calling 425-637-3312 to arrange an appointment with one of our ACA Specialists.
jeanneThis article was prepared by Jeanne Knutzen, CSC, the President and Founder of the PACE Staffing Network. PACE remains committed to full compliance with the ACA and offers a variety of staffing products and services designed to ensure that our clients have options for containing the costs associated with ACA compliance. For a confidential discussion of how these services might be applied to your workforce, particularly your temporary and contract employees, contact a member of our PSN partnership team at infodesk@pacestaffing.com or 425.6376.3312.    

The Number of Employees Testing Positive for Marijuana Is Up Significantly

by Jeanne Knutzen | October 21, 2014

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing, Management.Supervision drug testing, Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, hiring, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Tacoma, Marijuana testing, Marijuana testing Colorado, Marijuana testing Washington, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

As reported by Allen Smith, Manager of Workplace Law for the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), in a mid-September announcement. Using data provided by Quest Diagnostics for calendar years 2012 and 2013, the increase reported represents the FIRST INCREASE in marijuana positives since 2003! After reaching a high of 13.6% in 1988, positive drug testing outcomes had been steadily decreasing. In 2013, positive test results were up 3.7%, following a 3.5% increase in the positive rate the year prior. The connection between this increase and the legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington did not go unnoticed. Positive results for marijuana use in Washington increased by 23% and in Colorado 20%, compared to a 5% increase among the US general workforce covering all 50 states. The PACE Staffing Network has been offering and then administering drug testing on our client’s behalf since the early 1990s. Initially, our clients got a lot of push back on their drug testing policies, but today, both pre-hire and random drug testing practices are considered the norm with only an occasional challenge from the ADA related to screenings for prescription drugs. While “for cause” testing is more frequently contested, according to Quest, it is the most common reason why workers are drug tested. At the current time, our clients range from zero tolerance employers who require all applicants for either permanent or temporary employment to be rigorously drug tested, to employers who openly request that we not drug screen, concerned that recruiting results will fall short of the numbers of employees needed—particularly when the workers are being used for short term, temporary assignments where product out the door is the driving factor in HR policy. Some employers claim that while some of their workers are known weekend marijuana users, they are amongst their best workers and don’t want an unnecessarily “restrictive” HR policy to interfere with their “business as usual” mentality. The type of drug testing our clients ask us to administer provides some clue as to their level of “tolerance” they are willing to enforce and at what cost. Employers who are serious about eliminating any type of drug use from their workforce typically require hair testing over urine or saliva testing because of its ability to uncover signs of drug use for up to 6 months. Unfortunately, we anticipate these will be the first types of drug testing methods to be legally challenged. While at the current time employers in both Washington and Colorado retain the right to restrict the recreational use of marijuana by employees and can impose sanctions on employees testing positive for marijuana whether it was ingested during a work day or on the weekend. Many believe that the court test of these “one size fits all” types of drug testing policies and sanctions are just around the corner.

Countdown to ACA Compliance

by Jeanne Knutzen | September 23, 2014

0 ACA Affordable Healthcare, Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing Employment Agency Bellevue, Employment Agency Everett, Employment Agency Kent, Employment Agency Seattle, Employment Agency Tacoma, Employment Agency Washington State, hiring, Hiring Bellevue, Hiring Everett, Hiring Seattle, Hiring Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Bellevue, Temporary Staffing Everett, Temporary Staffing Kent, Temporary Staffing Seattle, Temporary Staffing Tacoma, Temporary Staffing Washington

Part II. ACA Requirements and Penalties - 2015! Yes, the 2,300 pages it took to write the law, followed by the 10,000+ pages of regulatory interpretation can be daunting, but with the January 1st launch of our transitional year just around the corner, we are taking the time to boil down the complication into the “critical few”—things our clients MUST KNOW about what lies ahead. In Part I, we provided a complete glossary of ACA terms—just so you would have a playbook. In Part II, we are providing a simple outline of employer and employee requirements for 2015.

  • Employer (Shared Responsibility) Requirements: In 2015, employers with 100 or more full time employees (or full time equivalents) must offer a healthcare insurance plan that provides Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) to 70% of its full time employees and their dependent children or be subject to “failure to offer” penalties described below.
  • Individual (Shared Responsibility) Requirements: As in 2014, individuals must enroll in a healthcare plan that provides themselves and their dependents with MEC level coverage. If they do not obtain MEC insurance, either through their employer or Medicaid, they are required to purchase an ACA approved plan through a State or Federal Exchange—in Washington we have a “working” Exchange.
  • Employer Penalties: It is important for employers to distinguish between two important differences in mandated plans:
    • MEC/Minimum Essential Coverage plans are typically very low cost plans that meet both the individual and the employer mandates.
    • MVP/Minimum Value Plans are most costly plans that must meet ACA actuarial value standards in addition to “affordability” standards. Most MVP plans will meet MEC requirements, but not vice versa, making employers subject to two types of penalties.
1. Failure to Offer Penalties. Employers who fail to offer a MEC plan to 70% of their eligible employees (and their dependent children) will pay a monthly tax/penalty of $167 or $2,000/yr.—for each eligible fulltime employee. This tax/penalty is calculated on your entire eligible workforce and will include all those employees who have been offered and accepted coverage. Deductions: In 2015, you can deduct 80 employees from your count of eligible employees. In each year after 2015, you can deduct only 30. For example, in 2015 if you have 100 employees working for you in a month and do not offer coverage to at least 70 of those employees, your monthly penalty will be based on 20 employees (100 minus 80) calculated at $167 each for a total of $3,340 tax or penalty each month you fail to offer. 2. “Inadequate Plan” Penalties. If the plan an employer offers is either “unaffordable” or does not provide “minimum value” (MVP) the tax/penalty per month for employers increases to $250/month (up to $3K annually). This penalty is unique and much more complicated to administrate in that it is applied only to those employees who seek and are granted a government subsidy as a result of applying for insurance on a State Exchange. If an employee is offered both a MEC and MVP plan and EITHER refuses both, or ELECTS only the MEC option, they WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR A SUBSIDY. NOTE: Most employees are not aware of this special provision of the law and may enroll in a low cost MEC plan believing that by enrolling they will become compliant with the individual mandate while preserving the option of receiving subsidies at a later date. An employee who has been offered both MEC and MVP coverage and elects the lower cost MEC coverage, loses their eligibility for subsidy. 3. Individual Penalties/Taxes/Fees: For your employees, the penalty (technically referenced as a tax or fee) for failing to obtain the required insurance coverage is either a flat dollar amount per person or a percentage of household income. These penalties are already in effect for 2014, but go up significantly in 2015.
  • In 2014: the penalty is $95 per person, $47.50 per child (up to $285 per family) or 1% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2015: the penalty is $325 per person, $162.50 per child (up to $975 per family) or 2% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2016: the penalty is $695 per person, $347.50 per child (up to $2085 per family) or 2.5% of household taxable income, whichever is greater.
  • In 2017 and beyond: the penalty will be the same as 2016 with Cost of Living increases.
4. Your Employee’s Eligibility for Subsidies: Individuals with household incomes determined to be 100-400% of federal poverty levels may be eligible for government funded subsidies to buy their insurance. Employees become ineligible for these subsidies if:
  • They are already on Medicaid.
  • They have been offered and refused an employer’s offer of a healthcare plan that is both affordable and meets MVP requirements.
  • They purchase insurance through venues other than a “qualified” Exchange—in our case the Washington Exchange.
In 2014, the poverty level for an individual is $11,670, which means that for families of four, subsidies will likely be available if the family earns anywhere from $23,050 and $92,200 annually. The eligibility boundary for 2015 is not yet available, although current estimates are that in 2015 over 26 million people will be eligible for subsidies. 5. Discrimination. The regulations relating to the new discrimination provisions embedded in the ACA have not been written and the IRS has promised it will not enforce any of its discrimination provisions until regulations have been published. We know that sometime in the near future employer funded plans will become subject to tests ensuring that differential treatment not be awarded to highly compensated employees, but it is the nature of these tests that has not been determined. Employers need to be paying attention to these regulations likely to be published in 2015 as the challenge of avoiding discrimination will be a significant cost management issue for employers with diverse workforces and an historical pattern of providing unique benefit options to their highly paid employees. In the meantime, in 2015 employers will be able to offer different plans to different employee groups and can contribute differently to employees based on “their group.” If the plans offered meet MEC, MVP and “affordability” tests, typical tiered/pay up plans are allowable in 2015 without risk of penalty. 6. Record Keeping. 2015 adds several new layers of administrative and reporting requirements for ACA defined “large” employers (50 or more employees), regardless of whether or not you are subject to the employer mandates in the 2015 transitional year. Notices to Employees. Since October 2013, all “large” employers have been required to provide new hires with a statement of their eligibility for coverage that they can either obtain through you or the Exchange. The IRS has made this compliance requirement easy to administer by providing samples of required letters. They are available for download via the IRS website: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/regulations/coverageoptionsnotice.html Forms 1095 C. In accordance with section 6056 of the IRS code, employers offering a self-insured MEC plan AND employers considered “large” under ACA standards will be required to report annually on all employees who worked for them as a full time employee for at least one month during 2015 and each reporting year thereafter. These reports, using Form 1095-C need to be prepared monthly throughout 2015, but will not be submitted to the IRS until March of 2016 (if filed electronically). Form 1095-C must be submitted to employees by end of January 2016.
  • The data required, organized by month, includes:
  • The number of full time employees (each month).
  • The name, address, and SSN of each full-time employee (each month).
  • The months during which coverage was available.
  • A certification, month by month, of the employer size.
  • A certification, month by month, as to whether the employer offered the full time employee (and his or her dependents) the opportunity to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage.
  • The amount the employee would need to pay if they accepted the lowest cost monthly premium (for self-funded programs only).
  • The months, if any, during which the employee was covered.
Forms 1095 B. The ACA also added section 6055 to the IRS Code, requiring all insurers and self-insured employers providing minimum essential coverage (MEC plans) to submit annual reports (Form 1095-B) identifying the costs of their plan and who was covered. If you are an employer who offers a fully insured group health plan, your insurance issuer is required to submit the returns, but if you offer a self-insured plan, you are required to submit the returns (even though a third party may prepare the return). Employers are generally subject to penalties for failure to file Forms 1095 -B and C; although the IRS has said that in 2015 they will not impose penalties for incomplete or incorrect information if the employer made a good faith effort to comply. W-2 Reporting. The requirement to include the costs of certain healthcare benefits on the employees W-2 at the end of each year has been in effect since 2012, but has only been loosely enforced. From 2013 on, employers filing 250 or more W-2 forms annually are required to report the total value of certain employer-sponsored health benefits to all employees receiving this benefit. The amounts reported are strictly informational and have no impact on the employee’s taxable income. In Part III of our Countdown to ACA Compliance, we will be discussing the special provisions of the ACA that apply specifically to temporary and contract workers—our specialty. There are provisions in the law that you should know about to protect yourself from unforeseen fines and penalties. jeanneThis article was prepared by Jeanne Knutzen, CSC, the President and Founder of the PACE Staffing Network. PACE remains committed to full compliance with the ACA and offers a variety of staffing products and services designed to ensure that our clients have options for containing the costs associated with ACA compliance. For a confidential discussion of how these services might be applied to your workforce, particularly your temporary and contract employees, contact a member of our PSN partnership team at infodesk@pacestaffing.com or 425.6376.3312.    

Countdown to ACA Compliance

by Jeanne Knutzen | August 19, 2014

0 ACA Affordable Healthcare, Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing ACA and contract staff, ACA and temporary staff, ACA compliance, ACA Definitions, ACA glossary, ACA vocabulary, Affordable Care Act and temporary staffing, Variable Hour Employees

Part I. A Glossary of “ACA Speak” With the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act just around the corner (January 1st, 2015 for employers with 100+ FTEs), employers everywhere are facing the last round of ACA challenges. To make sure our clients and friends are tracking with ACA requirements, particularly those that impact their use of temporary or contract staff, we will be publishing a series of informational pieces about the ACA called “ACA Smart.” We will be identifying those provisions in the law that we know will drive up your staffing costs, but also the opportunities we see to drive down these costs by making adjustments in how temporary and contract staff are put to work. “ACA Smart” will also cover the operational policies we recommend employers put in place to protect themselves from unanticipated costs or penalties stemming from misguided co-employment protocols. In Part I of “ACA Smart,” we offer a dictionary of ACA terms - all those new words that will soon become part of the regulatory landscape. Key ACA Terms and Definitions Applicable Large Employer (ALE):  In 2015, refers to an employer with 100 or more full time equivalent employees. In 2016 will be adjusted to include employers with 50 or more full time equivalent employees. Only ALE’s are subject to the employer mandates and related penalties. Full Time Equivalent (FTE):  A term frequently used in the context of determining an employer’s size – the number of people they employee. When applied to a part-time or non-classified employee, it is used to determine what percentage of a full time employee each part-time worker represents. Employer Size:  The size of an employer’s workforce is determined by counting all full time employees and adding to that number a calculation of the aggregate number of FTEs stemming from part-time or non-classified (variable hour) employees. The FTE assigned to a part-time employee is calculated as a percentage of the number of hours actually worked during a month divided by 120 hours. For example, if a part-time employee works 110 hours, their FTE = .917 or 110 divided by 120. (Eligible) Full Time Employee:  Any employee who averages at least 30 hours per week (130 hours per month; 1560 hours per year). Only full time employees are required to be covered under ACA employer mandates. (Non-Eligible) Part-Time Employee:  Any employee who averages less than 30 hours per week (130 hours per month; 1560 hours per year). Part-time employees are not required to be covered by an employer, but must be included in a calculation of company. Seasonal Employees:  Employees working less than 120 days in a year for “seasonal” reasons. Seasonal employees are automatically excluded from ACA coverage. Variable Hour Employees:  Refers to employees who, at the time of hire, cannot reasonably be classified as either part or full time. Variable hour employees are classified as either part or full time depending on the number of hours actually worked during either an “initial” (IMP) or “standard measurement” period (SMP). Many temporary or contract workers, but not all, will be classified as “variable hour” employees depending on how the conditions of their assignment is described. Your staffing agency is responsible to classify each employee as full, part or variable hour at the point of hire. Ongoing Employee:  An employee who has been employed for at least one standard measurement period (SMP). Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC):  The requirement to be ACA compliant is a healthcare plan must cover certain healthcare basics – “the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.” All individuals are required to purchase MEC compliant plans, unless they are covered by Medicare, Medicaid, Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIPs) or a Veteran based plan that is automatically classified as MEC compliant. MEC plans are also referenced as “skinny” plans. Of note, is that most of the healthcare plans currently available for temporary or contract workers are “fixed indemnity plans” that do not meet MEC standards. Minimum Value Coverage (MVC):  The requirement to be ACA compliant is a healthcare plan must cover over at least 60% of the overall costs associated with, 1) physician and mid-level practitioner services, 2) hospital and emergency care, 3) pharmacy costs, and 4) laboratory/ imaging services. Of note, is that prior to the ACA, most employer plans had an actuarial value exceeding 85%. The lack of availability of 60% plans in the insurance marketplace is a significant issue for all employers focused on containing costs. Affordability:  Refers to the ACA requirement that the employee’s share of the costs associated with their purchase of a healthcare plan for themselves (not their spouse or family) can be no more than 9.5% of the employee’s gross income. If an employee earns $2,000 per month, (approx. $11.60/hr.), they cannot be asked to pay more than $190/month towards their healthcare plan in order for the plan to be considered “affordable.” A plan costing an employer $400/month will, therefore, require that employer to contribute $210/month. Play:  Refers to the decision an employer makes to offer a healthcare plan that provides Minimum Essential (MEC) coverage to 70% of its full time employees and their dependent children under age 26 in 2015, 95% in 2016. NOTE: 1) It is not mandatory to offer coverage for spouses, only dependent children under age 26 and 2) employers who “play” are still subject to penalties if:

  1. their plan is not affordable,
  2. they fail to offer the mandated coverage to the required percentage of eligible employees, or
  3. if they do not offer coverage that meets Minimum Value requirements.
Pay – “Failure to Offer” Penalties:  Refers to an employer’s decision not to offer a MEC qualified plans, making them subject to penalties for “failure to offer.” The “failure to offer” penalty is assessed on the basis of the number of employees in the employer’s workforce otherwise eligible to receive coverage. Pay – “Unaffordable or Minimum Value” Penalties:  Refers to the outcomes of an employer’s decision to offer insurance that is either “unaffordable” or that doesn’t meet minimum value requirements. This penalty is assessed against every employee who goes to a State Exchange and receives a subsidy. Administrative Period:  Refers to the days of employment within which an employer is required to offer an eligible employee the mandated benefits. For new full time employees the administrative period is 90 days. For ongoing employees in a standard measurement or look back period, the administrative period is 30 days. Initial Measurement Period (IMP):  References a period of time starting with the date of hire and ending at a defined date based on the length of the IMP. An IMP is applied only to “variable hour” employees where their classification as either a full or part-time employee is determined on the basis of actual hours worked during the IMP. Benefits, where required, are offered in accordance with the applicable classification at the end of the IMP. Initial measurement periods (sometimes referred to as look back periods) can be 3-12 months, with the specific length of the IMP set by the employer. Standard Measurement Period (SMP):  References a recurring method and time period used to determine whether an ongoing employee is full or part-time. The SMP is fixed, usually based on a calendar year and must be the same for all employees in the same category. Unlike an initial measurement period, the SMP is a reoccurring event that starts at a specified date each year, independent of hire date. IMPs and SMPs may overlap. The Stability Period:  The period of time from the point of benefit offer where the employee must be provided benefits/coverage regardless of how many hours actually worked. Stability periods can be no less than six months and must match the IMP or SMP if it is six months or longer. For example, if an employer elects a standard measurement period of 12 months, the stability period must also be 12 months. Exchanges:  The mechanism through which insurers will be able to offer small employers (less than 100 employees) and individuals the ability to purchase health insurance. If a state doesn’t provide an exchange, the federal government is required to do so. Washington State has an exchange. Subsidies:  The credits available to individuals who qualify for assistance in order to purchase insurance coverage through a state or federally operated Exchange. The subsidy is paid directly to insurance carriers as a way to lower the premium costs for eligible individuals. Employees earning anywhere from 100-400% of the “poverty” level can be eligible for subsidies depending on number of dependents. In part II of our “ACA Smart” series, we will be covering the specifics of the ACA penalties – when and how they are assessed. If you would like a personal conversation with a member of the PSN partnership team to better understand the ACA and its impact on your flexible workforce strategies, contact our info desk at 425-637-3312 or by emailing infodesk@pacestaffing.com. Make sure your subject line references the ACA or “ACA Smart.”  

Weed and Work – In Colorado? Soon to be Washington?

by Jeanne Knutzen | May 28, 2014

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing bellevue staffing, drug policies, marijuana policies, safety policies, Seattle Staffing Agency, staffing, stephen dehoff, tacoma staffing, washington, workplace

In statewide elections in November 2012, Washington and Colorado made headlines by becoming the first US states to legalize the non-medical use of marijuana. Colorado is leading the way while Washington’s law goes into effect later this year.

In both states, employees and employers are asking questions about the impact of marijuana legalizations on a variety of common workplace scenarios. Employees often get confused by what the legalization of marijuana actually means; believing that many of the corporate drug and drug testing policies will need to be changed. Employers are wondering if employees will be able to refuse drug tests. Contest personnel actions based on drug tests? Or avoid drug testing altogether – either as a prerequisite for hiring or ongoing employment?

Based on what is going on in Colorado NOW, the answers to these questions are a resounding NO. While it is expected that employers in both Washington and Colorado currently have the power to implement any anti-marijuana policy they want, what happens down the road, on the other hand, has some elements of uncertainty.

The following are excerpts taken from a recent article written by Stephen DeHoff, a business and employment partner at Fortis Law Partners, LLC, and published by our network affiliate, J. Kent Staffing headquartered in Denver Colorado. Mr. DeHoff outlines several factors that he believes will be considered by the courts as “zero tolerance” policies are tested.

1. Employers Need to Ensure Strong Workplace Safety Policies… which almost always includes some format for promoting and enforcing a drug-free workplace. Under current law, employers are still liable for acts of their employees that occur while on the job, which means that if an employee is impaired and makes a critical mistake that results in injury to themselves or others, both the employee and their employer are likely to be found liable for the injuries. Drug free policies are likely to be viewed as necessary to protect employers and their employees from management negligence.

2. Employers Are Not Required to Permit Employees to Use Marijuana – Even Outside of Work… at least not for now, not in Colorado. One of the biggest questions facing Colorado employers is whether or not they will be required to allow marijuana use “off-the-job;” an issue that comes up in the context of pre-hire drug testing policies. Employers who have pre-hire drug testing policies are by definition identifying “outside the workplace” marijuana users, theoretically not directly related to the use of marijuana on the job.

At the current time, this issue is resolved in the drug testers favor because at the federal level it is still illegal for people to use marijuana. This means that Colorado employers can continue to terminate or refuse to hire an employee if they test positive for marijuana or any other federally illegal drug – regardless of when, where and how the employee used the drug.

These rulings are currently under appeal and ultimately will be tested in Colorado Supreme Court. In the meantime, studies show that drug testing policies in Colorado are growing in popularity, not shrinking. Washington employers stay tuned…

3. Written policies regarding the company’s commitment to a drug free work environment are still vitally important on a number of fronts.

Mr. DeHoff outlines the following steps all employers should take with respect to their formal drug use policies:

  • Make sure your drug and alcohol policies cover all drugs considered illegal under state, federal, and local laws, and
  • …clearly prohibit any detectable level of any illegal drug.
  • Avoid policy statements that reference “impairment” or “under the influence,” which are difficult to enforce. Stick with the drug testing “detectable level” standard.
  • Make sure your policies apply to all your locations, regardless of state laws. Train your staff to deal specifically with issues involving marijuana so that issues will be managed consistently.

Thank you J.Kent Staffing for sharing your Colorado experience and asking for guidance from a trusted member of your legal community. Washington employers can take note!

At the current time, over half of our employer clients require some form of drug testing as a component of their compliance/onboarding process. The PACE Staffing Network administers all pre-assignment compliance requirements, including customized drug testing and background checks. For more information on how these new marijuana-use policies might impact your workforce and data on the incidence of marijuana use in non-drug testing environments, contact us at infodesk@pacestaffing.com.

Getting the Most from Your Gen Y Workers!

by Jeanne Knutzen | February 18, 2014

0 Blog, Legal Issues - Staffing Gen Y, Gen Y Workers, Generation Y, hiring, Management, marketplace, pace staffing, PACE Staffing Network, recruiting agency seattle, Seattle Staffing, Seattle Staffing Agency, staffing agency seattle, Supervision, Teambuilding

For the generation of people born in the mid 70’s to 90’s who have been entering the workforce for the last decade and a half, their experience of work has been quite different than the experiences of previous workers. According to a recent study by Yale Economics Professor, Lisa Kahn, the impact of these first work experiences, will shape how our Gen Y’s deal with their work environment for decades to come.      Unfortunately for most Gen Y’s, their first exposure to the economic marketplace has not been good. They’ve seen jobs lost, retirement funds destroyed, people losing homes and in some cases families—all because of economic realities that appear to be beyond individual control. While our Gen Y’s have been more sheltered by their parents than the generations of the past, they are also a generation who has  found itself working inside an economic environment where even the most  calculated risks and well thought out plans have not panned out. It is no surprise that our Gen Y’s are probably one of the most risk adverse generations of the recent past. Here’s how that risk adversity plays out in the workplace: ●  They are less likely to change jobs, IF you treat them right. Even if more difficult for your Gen Y workers to develop loyalty towards you as their employer, they will stay put at jobs and companies that meet their needs. While older generations have been told that when you are young, you are supposed to change jobs to find the right fit for you, the Gen Y folks are actually more hesitant to do so, even for an increase in pay. In fact, studies show that Gen Y’s are more likely respond favorably and stay put in jobs or work for companies and managers who provide the kind of work environment they prefer. ●  They value mentorship. If you are managing someone younger, you may want to consider over explaining your instructions and decisions—making sure your Gen Y folks are mentored at a level that meets their needs for knowledge, information, and praise. While lacking the experience and perspective to read between the lines, they are very eager to learn, and enjoy opportunities you can provide them to interact with you on decisions you are making. They love being asked for their ideas or feedback. The typical awards for good work—annual salary bumps, title adjustments, etc.—are often less motivating to a Gen Y worker than are ongoing opportunities for mentoring from someone they value and respect. ●  They distrust hierarchies and will challenge conventional thinking. In team meetings, they will look for all parties to be treated as equal team members. If you expect to be treated as “a boss,” think again, as it likely won’t happen and could get in the way of your goal to get the most out of your generation Y workers. If they challenge your ideas, don’t take it personally. If you experience them either unwilling or reacting negatively to your requests to “keep you informed,” it’s not that they want to be secretive about what they do; it’s that they see no value in “reporting up.” What Gen Y’s value most is mentoring and coaching from someone they respect, someone who looks and sounds more like a teacher than a manager. ●  They think of success as being about “luck” rather than planning. According to Paola Giuliano of UCLA’s School of Management and Antonio Spilimbergo of the International Monetary Fund, employees who started working during the last ten years, tend to believe that success is as much about “luck” and “being there” as it is about effort or planning. While they have seen government safety nets growing at a rapid rate, it has been amidst a growing skepticism about the government’s ability to do what it promises. This somewhat fatalistic attitude towards success has made our Gen Y’s good at compromising—accepting jobs or work that are very different from their planned careers, knowing that someone or something will always be there if their luck fails. For our Gen Y’s, planning for success seems more futile and less relevant to what they see as reality. ●  They VALUE HARD WORK. Even though luck is a component of the Gen Y mindset, it doesn’t mean they shy away from hard work when the job requires it. Many of our Gen Y-ers have never known job security and consider “being fired” a very real possibility if they don’t work hard enough. Managers shouldn’t be afraid to challenge their Gen Y workers with “more to do,” but give them lots of latitude in how/when to do it. The lines between work and play are much more blurred for your Gen Y workers than it has been for workers of the past. ●  They need clarity! Gen Y workers hate uncertainty and expect quick and clear answers, neatly defined goals and how to get there. They also want access to information that they can research on their own. Ambiguity at any scale is unsettling to our Gen Y workers; putting pressure on managers to provide them with more information than has been made available to workforces in the past. They LOVE scorecards that let them know exactly where they stand and they need to know what they must DO to improve their scores. Objective measures of success will ALWAYS trump your subjective commentary. ●  They love teams; they hate conflict; they’re talented negotiators.  Our Gen Y’s have been deeply engrained with the wisdom that teamwork is far more efficient than self-reliance and will look for ways to engage with others in and outside of formal team settings.  You don’t have to worry about Gen Y’s becoming mavericks as did our Gen X’s. Their affinity for and the skills needed to develop teamwork is unparalleled in the history of workforces. To get your Gen Y’s assimilated into your work group; put them on project teams, preferably with short turnaround times and clearly defined deliverables. And yes, when conflict arises, be prepared to experience their negotiation skills, they’ve been negotiating with their parents and peers for years! jeanneJeanne Knutzen is the owner and founder of the PACE Staffing Network, a 38-year-old staffing company headquartered in Bellevue Washington—a community just outside of Seattle. PACE places the full range of generationally defined workers from boomers, to X’s to Y’s and so on in a variety of work settings—interim project work, core teams, virtual work environments. “We regularly explore the mindsets and perspectives of employees and employers to assemble teams that work together effectively. Helping clients find, select, and then manage the right workers to deliver the highest levels of work performance, is what we’re all about.” For a private consultation about what is going on with the employees on your team and some ideas on how to manage each employee to optimal levels of performance, please feel free to contact Jeanne at jeannek@pacestaffing.com.