SHRMingham

George Bush is no Scrooge - Federal Employees off on Christmas Eve...

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

George Bush can't be called Scrooge this year.  He just gave all non-essential Federal employees Christmas Eve off...

From the Washington Post coverage:

"President Bush Thursday issued an executive order closing the federal government on 2007 Christmas Eve, a Monday.

Federal employees are "excused from duty" that day, except for those employees who agencies determine should be at work "for reasons of national security or defense or other public need," the order says.

E-mails have whizzed across the government in recent days as employees tried to figure out whether Bush would grant them a day off on Christmas Eve, as he did in 2001, when Dec. 24 also fell on a Monday. The topic even popped up Wednesday on Federal Diary Live, a discussion session on http://washingtonpost.com.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Carter also gave employees the entire day off when Christmas Eve landed on a Monday. Ronald Reagan approved three hours of excused absence, and George Bush the Elder gave employees a half-day holiday in 1990."

Good for Bush and the Federal employees.  Is there a day on the calendar where less gets done in the workplace than Christmas Eve?

I wonder how they handle this at CTU?  Is Jack Bauer off or does he have to work?  If he has to work, does he get a comp day off when his workload slows down a bit?

Why You May Add 7 Sick Days to Your PTO Policy in 2009...

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass. 

Went to last week's SHRM-Birmingham chapter meeting this week and heard Mike Aiken, a Governmental Affairs expert from the National Office of SHRM, talk about what was going on in Washington.  Great talk, very knowledgeable guy...

One of the things that caught my attention was the proposed Healthy Families Act (HFA), which would require employers with more than 15 employees to offer full-time employees seven days of paid sick leave.  The HFA would also mandate the sick time could be used for the employee's illness or to care for a child/parent/spouse/individual related by blood/domestic partner.   Here's some commentary on the merits of the bill....

It's a broad bill that is likely to get a lot of traction in 2008/2009, if Congress continues to be controlled by the Democrats and the White House goes "blue state" as well. 

My take?  Who can be against providing paid sick time for employees?  Most employers already do this.  My company offers 10 sick days a year that can be rolled over year after year, providing a nice cushion for those that have to go out on FMLA leave related to a health condition for them or their families.  Package the sick days with a benefit like Short-Term Disability, and you've got a great safety net for employees, in addition to what's required by law.   

Employers of choice already do this since they have to compete for talent.  Organizations with mostly entry level jobs - food service, poultry processing plants, etc., probably don't offer that type of leave.  You show, you get paid, you don't - tough - regardless of the circumstances.  That's harsh and worthy of trying to come up with a better way.

Here's the catch and why more government isn't always the best solution - the bill as currently written would also prohibit employers from eliminating existing leave coverage in order to comply with the Act.  That can get complicated.  Early readings suggest that if you are an employer trying to do the right thing by offering a Paid Time Off (PTO) plan, you couldn't adjust the total number of PTO days to reflect the legal requirement for a stand-alone sick-time policy.   You would have to simply add the seven to what you currently offer to be in compliance.  For those of us offering a great benefit, that's crazy talk...

Here's hoping someone gets to the bill's sponsors and explains that if an employer is already offering 3 weeks of PTO to new employees, they're taking care of people.   Otherwise, expect companies to start breaking out their PTO policies into vacation/sick designations, if it looks like the bill will pass.