Q&A: Is it a good idea to use Craigslist for recruiting and hiring?

by VigilantEditor 18. November 2011 09:33

Question: We use Craigslist to post job openings and accept resumes. Are there any legal or practical risks involved with hiring people off Craigslist?

 

Answer: Many companies are taking advantage of the ability to post job openings for free on Craigslist, but there are some things to think about before using the website as your main source of recruiting and hiring. If people are submitting their resumes via Craigslist, you may be missing out on gathering vital information about the candidate that you would generally get through the application process. For example, job applications often ask about criminal convictions, relevant work experience, technical skills or training, and other information specific to the job being filled. Along the same lines, an individual responding to a Craigslist posting may give you more information than you were looking for. Without any quality control on the information coming in, people may send responses containing information about marital status, religion, disabilities, or a range of other information that you simply don’t want from a job candidate.  If you’re just getting emails or resumes from interested job seekers, you may be missing out on useful information while at the same time subjecting yourself to potential legal exposure.

Perhaps a better approach would be to post the job opening on Craigslist, but direct all applicants to your company website where they can fill out an online application. That way you’re gathering the same information from all candidates rather than the inconsistent information you may get through the resume solicitation process.

 

Finally, you should also ask yourself whether you’re getting the best candidates for a position by posting on Craigslist. Posting in a single location may make sense for an unskilled labor or temporary position, but is it the best place to locate your next electrician or accountant? If you’ve been posting online but coming up short on quality applicants, try reaching out to your local employment office to see if they have any ideas on where to post your job openings to optimize access to the right job seekers. This is an especially important step if you are a federal contractor because posting all open positions with the state is a requirement of your affirmative action plan, other than exempt executive jobs and jobs lasting three days or less.
 
Still have questions about whether posting on Craigslist is right for your company? Call your Vigilant staff representative for more discussion.

 

IDAHO: Governor bars state agencies from implementing health care reform

by VigilantEditor 20. May 2011 08:17

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter recently issued an executive order prohibiting state agencies from receiving federal funding or otherwise taking steps to implement new programs or rules pursuant to federal healthcare reform law (Executive Order 2001-03, April 20, 2011). It also prohibits state agencies from assisting federal agencies in implementing the law. While the executive order bars the state from carrying out any part of the federal Affordable Care Act, it does allow state agencies to continue developing a state health insurance exchange.

Time to "fall back" on November 7

by VigilantEditor 5. November 2010 07:53

Remember to set your clocks back one hour when Daylight Saving Time ends Sunday, November 7, 2010, at 2 a.m. If you’re not working during the time change, enjoy your extra hour of sleep. For employees who normally work eight hours on the night shift, they may work nine hours that day (e.g., from 11 p.m. Daylight Saving Time to 7 a.m. Standard Time). Employers must pay employees for all hours actually worked, which may include overtime. As an employer, you cannot offset the pay for the extra hour worked on November 1, even if you voluntarily paid eight hours for only seven hours of work when Daylight Saving Time began in March.

IDAHO: Terminating WARNed employees violated act

by VigilantEditor 15. September 2010 14:32

A lumber company violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act when it terminated forty employees, after giving a notice of an impending plant closure to its 200 employees. The company was selling its mill and all employees were going to be terminated. But three weeks after issuing the 60-day notice of impending closure, the company terminated its night shift because of log shortages. The court found no evidence that the company was facing legitimate business reasons for terminating the employees prior to the 60-day notice time frame. Instead, the court said the company created the log shortage by failing to obtain and maintain an adequate supply because it was anticipating the mill’s closing. Under those circumstances, the company violated the WARN Act by terminating the employees prior to the 60-day notice period and owed the terminated employees back wages and attorneys’ fees (Clay Beach v. JD Lumber, Inc., D Idaho, Aug. 2010).

 

Tips: Ordinarily, terminating 40 employees wouldn’t meet the 50-employee threshold for liability for a covered plant closure under the WARN Act. The problem, though, is that in general you must aggregate employment losses by looking at a 90-day window. In this case, the two major downsizing actions occurred within 90 days of each other, and easily surpassed the 50-employee mark. Therefore the WARN notice should have been given 60 days before the first wave of terminations.

 

The WARN Act can be difficult to apply and very costly to misapply. When faced with a potential mass layoff or plant shutdown, be sure to consult your Vigilant staff representative sooner rather than later. Also check out our Legal Guide, “At a Glance: WARN Act” (5793).

Q&A: Do we need to pay for employee medical exams?

by VigilantEditor 24. May 2010 08:30

Question: We asked an employee to get a medical certification for her leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), but the doctor is charging $200 just to complete the paperwork. The employee can’t afford it and has asked our company to pay the bill; are we required to do so?

Answer: If your employee works in Oregon, yes. In Montana, maybe. In California, Idaho or Washington, no. In general, employers have no obligation to pay for medical costs associated with obtaining an FMLA certification, unless the employer has requested a second or third opinion. In Oregon, employers must pay for all out-of-pocket expenses for employer-required medical exams. Montana requires employers to pay for exams that are a condition of employment; it is unclear whether this extends to FMLA medical certifications. For more information, see our Legal Guide, “Employer’s Duty to Pay for Medical Exams” (3990).

Charging large fees for a doctor’s time to fill out paperwork is an emerging trend in health care. Even if the law doesn’t require you to pay the cost, you may want to evaluate whether your policy is working for you. Contact your Vigilant staff representative to discuss options. On a practical level, ask yourself if it’s fair for the employee to bear the burden of the expense, whether you truly need a medical certification in order to designate the leave as FMLA, and whether there are any other options available. For example, maybe you can contact the doctor to negotiate a reduced fee. Since medical costs aren’t likely to go down any time soon, you should develop your policy with the expectation that doctors will be charging large fees for the paperwork. 

Why office betting pools may be a gamble

by VigilantEditor 21. January 2010 11:52

Super Bowl is just around the corner and it’s time to get ready. Big screen TV? Check. Over-sized nachos? Check. Office betting pool? Not so fast.

 

Although many employers allow or even encourage a friendly wager over the big game, remember that betting pools may be illegal under state law depending on how they’re structured. For example, betting pools are allowed in Montana only if a randomly assigned grid is used. In Washington, sports betting pools are allowed only if using a 100-square grid and entrants pay $1 or less to play. In Oregon, office betting pools are generally illegal unless a city or county ordinance specifically authorizes it (ORS 167.117 to .121). In California and Idaho, office betting pools are always illegal no matter how they’re structured (Cal Penal Code 336.9 and Idaho Code 18-3802).

 

If you’re allowing employees to conduct an office betting pool, make sure you know your state’s law and how to comply. Clearly communicate to employees what will be allowed or prohibited, including whether any amount of company time can be used to participate, and make sure everyone understands that participation is strictly voluntary. With those worries behind you, sit back and enjoy the big game (and the over-sized nachos)! 

 

Powered by BlogEngine.NET 1.5.0.7
Theme by Tribe 2 Studios