What People Want
The key to more engaged employees

Terry Bacon is a founding partner and CEO of Lore International Institute, a global HR research and consulting group, and the author of What People Want: A Manager’s Guide to Building Relationships That Work (Davies-Black, 2006). A sought-after speaker and coach, Terry specializes in talent management, leadership development, and executive education. Over his 30-year career he has coached thousands of executives and designed and delivered hundreds of programs on leadership, management and interpersonal effectiveness.

The difference between good (which is to say, average) and exceptional organizational performance is the level of employee engagement. Engaged employees are passionate about their work, feel a deep connection to the company, are committed to the company’s success, and drive innovation and continuous improvement. Employees who are not engaged may comply with what’s required but don’t put additional time or effort into their work. Having checked out, they are essentially sleepwalking through their jobs. Finally, some employees are not simply unengaged; they are actively disengaged and let other employees know it.

According to Gallup, in the typical organization only 29% of employees are truly engaged. More than half (55%) are not engaged, and 16% are actively disengaged. So look around your company. If yours is typical, only three of every ten employees are highly engaged, five or six of the ten are neutral, and one or two is unhappy to the point of actively undermining what others are trying to accomplish. Imagine the impact on your business if you could turn those numbers around, if six or seven of ten were highly engaged, if only three or four were unengaged, and if one or none were actively disengaged. How much would your quality, productivity, and results improve? And how much more competitive would your company be?

Employee engagement is partly a function of hygiene factors like compensation and benefits, but it’s principally a function of the nature of the work (how challenging and inherently rewarding it is) and employees’ relationships with their boss. In fact, retention studies indicate that most people who voluntarily leave their jobs do so because the work was not challenging or because of a poor relationship with their boss. In today’s job market, employees have more choices than ever before. Good people are your most important asset, and they don’t have to work for your company. So ensuring that they are engaged is not a nice-to-have; it’s a must-have.

Enhancing employee engagement starts with the boss
To understand employee engagement better, I surveyed more than 500 employees in a variety of companies and industries and asked them what they wanted in their relationship with their boss. The results were enlightening. Employees’ top seven wants are virtually a recipe for enhancing employee engagement:

1. Trust. People want to feel that their boss trusts them (87% of respondents said this was highly important to them).
2. Challenge. People want to feel challenged, to feel like they are learning and growing (86%)
3. Competence. People want to feel competent and skilled (85%).
4. Self-esteem. People want to feel good about themselves (84%).
5. Excitement. People want to feel excited about what they are doing or what’s going on (82%).
6. Involvement. People want to feel involved in activities that matter to them (75 %).
7. Appreciation. People want to be appreciated for who they are and what they do (75%).

Although these findings are not earthshaking, they do remind us what’s important in creating the kind of working environment that helps good people thrive. They want to have real responsibilities and be allowed to do their work without trust-destroying oversight and nit-picking micromanagement. They want to have challenging and meaningful work to do, and they want to be appreciated when they do it well. They want to grow and learn. They want to feel that their work has meaning, and they are driven to feel good about themselves.

Qualities people expect in their manager
When asked what qualities people expected in their manager, more than 90% said honesty and integrity was most important. Next were fairness (89%), professionalism (86%), respect (85%), discretion (84%), strong work ethic (81%), and constructive feedback (81%). More than three-quarters of the people I surveyed also said they want their manager to listen to them, to be open and candid in communicating, and to be collaborative. They also wanted to know that their managers were responsible and dedicated.

What they don’t want
What people did not want from their managers was surprising. They are not looking for companionship (only 3% said this was important to them), friendship (7%), interesting conversation (14% ), shared interests (18% ), caring (24%) or emotional support (25%). We sometimes assume that people want their work places to be fun and their managers to have a good sense of humor, but fewer than three out of 10 of the people I surveyed said this mattered to them. People don’t want bosses as buddies; they want bosses who are professional, respectful, fair, and hardworking.

High performers don’t necessarily make the best leaders
Isn’t this how all managers are? Sadly, no. Many of the people who become new managers or supervisors are promoted to those roles because they were the high performers in their technical or professional jobs. The assumption is that because they are high performers they should be able to lead others, but this is often not the case. Management requires a much different set of skills, and many companies do not adequately prepare new managers for the challenges of leading people. Nor do the business schools. The curriculum in most MBA programs is biased toward economics, financial analysis, business strategy, project management, product development, and marketing. Most business schools, even the best ones, have few courses on managing people and dealing with real-world people problems in the work environment.

Moreover, many of the people promoted to management positions lack the people skills and emotional intelligence to be truly inspiring leaders. Some don’t even recognize when people-related issues are brewing in their groups, and a remarkable number of them don’t know what to do about it when they do recognize a problem. Some years ago, I coached one mid-life manager who was brilliant as a task manager but horribly inept as a leader of people. Turnover was unacceptably high in his group, employees were dissatisfied, and productivity was at an all-time low. His HR director asked me to coach him, and when we talked he said he wanted me to help him become more of a people person.
I told him that at his age that was unlikely to happen because our personalities and operating styles are fixed fairly early in our careers. But I said that he could learn to behave more like a people person. He just had to know what they do and then do those things - consistently and sincerely. I gave him three tips at a time and would not give him more until he’d mastered those three. Over a year’s time, he became far more proficient at managing people and was able to give his people much more of what they wanted from their relationship with him. (Many of these tips are covered later in this article.)

HR has a role in employee engagement
I think one of the most important roles of the HR function in a company is to ensure that employees are truly engaged—and thus ensure that managers are behaving in ways that enhance employee engagement. When manager behavior is the source of the problem, then managers should be assessed, trained, coached, and encouraged to improve their people management skills.

How do you know when employees are truly engaged? Here are the signs:

• They show a lot of interest in the company and take pride in what the company does.
• They volunteer for special assignments or task forces; they want to be involved.
• They contribute ideas, drive innovation, and continually look for creative solutions to problems.
• They perform at consistently high levels and act as though their performance matters—because they know it does.
• They voluntarily teach others, act as coaches or mentors without being asked to, and share their knowledge with others in the company so those employees will perform better.
• They want to know what is expected of them, and they consistently exceed those expectations.
• They are not content in their jobs; they seek more training and development and they want mentors and coaches of their own.
• They take pride in their job and exhibit the awards and other forms of recognition they have received.

We sometimes assume that the presence or absence of complaints is a sign of employee engagement. However, the employees who are most vocal about problems are usually the ones who are more engaged. The unengaged keep silent because they don’t care, and the actively disengaged are usually more passive-aggressive in their opposition.

Tips for managers to create an engaged workforce
So I coach managers to encourage the employees who are most vocal about what they would like to see changed. In fact, it’s good management practice to periodically ask everyone, “What’s working for you around here and what isn’t? What would you like to see changed?” Asking those questions shows that you care, that you value their opinions, and that you are open-minded in hearing about problems.

The most effective managers give their employees what they want in their relationship with their boss. They behave in trustworthy ways and establish a climate of two-way trust. They do this by keeping their commitments, owning up to their mistakes, respecting people’s work, giving credit where credit is due, being fair, maintaining confidences, and backing people up. Trust is the most important ingredient in a work environment that enhances employees’ levels of engagement. People will not be engaged if they don’t trust their boss or the company. It’s as simple as that.

The best managers also set the right tone in the work place. They do this by being positive, by remembering people’s names and the important facts of their lives (and inquiring about them from time to time), by respecting peoples’ space, by attending to people’s cares and concerns, and by making people feel important. They avoid cynicism and off-color jokes, and they respect diversity and the unique gifts and perspectives each person brings to the workplace. An old joke says that an optimist is someone who thinks the glass is half full, a pessimist thinks it’s half empty, and a realist knows the pessimist is right. As humorous as that might be, the fact is that pessimists and realists make poor leaders. What inspires people - and keeps them engaged - is hope.

The best managers are sensitive toward others, too. They behave gracefully toward others. They notice when someone is not acting normally (and sensitively inquire about it). They distinguish between an employee’s usual way of being and his or her current behavior, and they show empathy when people reveal their problems or feelings. They care about the people working for them, try to fix problems right away, and listen with their eyes as well as their ears. Lastly, they avoid being “brutally honest” if that will mean hurting people.

The best managers are respectful toward employees, and I differentiate inherent respect from earned respect. We should have inherent respect toward others because they are human beings—with all the hopes, dreams, ambitions, aches, and pains that entails. But people also have to earn our respect by doing a good job, living the company’s values, and being passionate toward the work they do. I often tell employees that they have to create demand for themselves, and they do that by doing great work. That’s how they earn respect from their manager.

Finally, to really keep employees engaged, managers have to “make it personal” in acceptable ways. Making it personal means they treat people like human beings rather than human resources. They celebrate employees’ birthdays or other special events in their lives. They take time to get to know employees and have one deeper level of curiosity about what they tell you. If an employee says, “I really enjoyed this assignment,” the manager asks what it was about the assignment they especially liked. If they always go one level deeper, managers will gain immeasurable insight into the people working for them.

These are just a few of the ways managers can create an engaged and thriving workforce. HR managers should keep their finger on the pulse of the organization and know whether employees are engaged or not and whether managers are behaving in ways that enhance or destroy employee engagement. The key is knowing what people want from their relationship with their manager and ensuring that managers give them what they want.

(Editor’s note: For information about obtaining Terry Bacon’s book, What People Want, A Manager’s Guide to Building Relationships that Work, or for information about his global executive development firm and his availability for speaking engagements, contact EG’s Editor Wendy Taylor, wtaylor@employersgroup.com.)

Josie Gonzalez is the managing partner of the immigration law firm of Gonzalez & Harris in Pasadena, and represents employers in all aspects of immigration law.

To keep you apprised of the latest information on immigration, this article covers the most recent legislative developments, as well as compliance advice for 2007 and beyond.

Promising 2007 legislative developments
Marking the perseverance of advocates of comprehensive immigration reform, within weeks of the start of the 110th Congress, two significant immigration bills were introduced. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 garnered strong bi-partisan support. More significantly, on January 4, 2007, Majority Leader Senator Reid (D-NV) introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S.9) (http://www.aila.org/content/default.aspx?docid=21361), announcing that comprehensive immigration reform was one of the Senate’s top 10 priorities and that it should include a path to earned legalization for undocumented immigrants.

Similar sentiments were echoed by the Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who said: “We should be daring about immigration reform - and act on it soon. The voters demand it. We have a duty to deliver.” With the nation’s top economists and two thirds of the American voters supporting comprehensive immigration reform, passage of legislation looks promising for 2007.

Vigorous worksite enforcement continues unabated
Over the last year and a half, serious criminal charges are increasingly being used to target businesses that employ illegal immigrants and investigations are resulting in numerous convictions nationwide.

As reported in the Washington Post on April 16, 2006, Julie Myers, assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), called the approach “the future of worksite enforcement” and predicted that, because such investigations are often lengthy, results would be more evident later that year and in 2007. “People are doing this for money, not for any other reason,” Myers said of those who employ illegal immigrants. “…so we really need to go after them where it hurts. If you’re blatantly violating our worksite enforcement laws, we’ll go after your Mercedes and your mansion and your millions. We'll go after everything we can, and we'll charge you criminally.”

Strong worksite enforcement, marked by criminal prosecutions and hefty fines, including asset forfeitures, rippled across the nation in 2006, and more of the same is promised by ICE. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was quoted in a CNN.com piece (April 21, 2006), as saying “[we] will use all the tools we have…to break the back of businesses that exploit undocumented immigrants.”

“During fiscal year 2006, ICE arrested 718 individuals on criminal charges in worksite investigations and apprehended another 3,667 illegal workers on immigration violations, more than a three-fold increase compared to 2005. For a summary of recent ICE worksite enforcement activity see www.ice.gov.

Perhaps the most controversial enforcement activity of 2006, dubbed “Operation Wagon Train,” involved raids at seven Swift Foods facilities in six states resulting in the arrest of 1,282 people – of whom 65 have been charged criminally for “identity theft.” Although Swift Foods had been participating in the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Basic Pilot Program, a web-based tool developed for employers by DHS to verify the validity of new hire work authorization documents, ICE investigations discovered that many employees who were run through the Basic Pilot, perhaps 30%, were assuming the identities of others.

The Swift raids represent ICE’s largest worksite enforcement to date, surpassing the April 2006 raids at IFCO, a pallet company, where 1,187 people were arrested. During Operation Wagon Train, ICE agents corralled employees into cafeterias for interrogation and arrest. The facilities were completely shut down as ICE agents surrounded the premises.

In a December 2006 press conference, DHS Secretary Chertoff signaled that Swift Foods, or perhaps rogue hiring managers and supervisors, are investigatory targets, stating: “…I emphasize that the investigation is continuing, particularly with respect to those who facilitated or conspired with others to allow this use of identity theft to support illegal work.” (http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1166047951514.shtm)

That identity theft is the Achilles heel of the Basic Pilot program is news to no one, including Swift Foods, who brought the problem to the attention of a House congressional subcommittee with these words:

“…As currently structured, the Basic Pilot Program cannot detect duplicate active records in its database. The same social security number could be in use at another employer, and potentially multiple employers, across the country. The underground market responded by replacing counterfeit documents with genuine identification documents obtained under fraudulent terms – for example, state identification cards obtained with valid copies of birth certificates. As an employer, we must accept such cards on face value. As you can see, employers have no foolproof way to determine if a new hire is presenting valid identification documents created under fraudulent circumstances. Furthermore, attempts to use additional means to determine employee eligibility place employers in jeopardy with law enforcement agencies.

“From our point of view, employers like ourselves who are trying to abide by the law are not the problem in the immigration reform debate - the current immigration system is the problem.” (Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment, and Govern-met Programs, House Small Business Committee, Mr. Jack Shandley, Senior Vice President Human Resources of Swift & Company - June 27, 2006.)

Ironically, Swift’s participation in the Basic Pilot contributed to an immigration-related discrimination suit that it settled for $187,000 in November 2002 stemming from an incident involving a Spanish speaking job applicant who presented a U.S. passport but whose data was rejected more than once by Basic Pilot.

Social Security No-Match letters - a keg of dynamite waiting to ignite
In January 2007, Donna Lake, a Human Resource Manager at PLASTRGLAS Inc. in Omaha, Nebraska was arrested for allegedly encouraging or inducing aliens to reside in the U.S. The ICE affidavit in support of the criminal complaint reveals that a wiretap was placed on a confidential informant/employee to whom ICE agents gave a “No-Match” Social Security letter and directed that he speak to Ms. Lake about the need to change his identity because of the letter.

On tape, Ms. Lake refused to allow the change because she said that it was company policy that individuals could change their information twice, but not three times. She stated that she gets the no-match letters frequently and forgets about them because it is voluntary for her to answer the letters and she chooses not to answer them; and that the letters cover a lot of people at the company. During the arrest, ICE agents seized a copy of the No-Match letter, which contained 26 employee names.

Profile of a targeted company and common pitfalls to avoid

• Company executives fail to understand the culture at the work site and are the last to know that problems are brewing.
• Hiring decisions are made by foreign-born personnel who might have mixed loyalties – with strong sympathies toward job seekers who are desperate for employment.
• I-9’s are maintained perfectly but there is only attention to detail, not to substance.
• Companies are reluctant to question the authenticity of employee documents for fear of discrimination suits.
• The pool of new hires comes mainly from the existing workforce – their relatives and friends.
• Management assumes that long years of residence in the U.S. and U.S. born children equate to legal status for the employee, or thinks that one can get a Green Card easily and quickly.
• The company has received Social Security No-Match letters and it believes that it has no responsibility to question employees over discrepancies.
• Management allows employees to change their identities and present new and different documents without questioning their authenticity.
• The company fails to realize that supervisors and lower level managers’ actions can be imputed to management; their sins are your sins.
• The company uses translators for I-9 completion and doesn’t know if the translation is accurate and complete.
• The company ignores complaints and rumors that employees are undocumented or are using the valid documents of another person.
• The company is unaware that there are no secrets in the workplace and some workers will cooperate with ICE when given the choice of a coveted work permit or threatened with jail and deportation.
• The company doesn’t check the validity of social security cards through any of the systems available to employers.
• Employees never take any vacations back home and there are rumors about their fears of returning to the U.S.
• Employees have been arrested for failing to have a valid driver’s license or in other ways have come in contact with law enforcement and have been questioned about their jobs.
• The company has failed to adopt a meaningful immigration compliance policy.

Operation Wagon Train illustrates the massacre that can occur if employers do not circle their wagons to protect themselves from marauding ICE agents. Employers who can identify with the above profile of the targeted companies need to take their immigration compliance policies to a higher level. Taking no action in the face of multiple warning signs may result in a relocation of the company’s executives to Boot Hill.

Preparing for an OSHA Visit

By Dagmar Muthamia, SPHR, Helpline Consultant

Violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act are expensive as you may learn if your organization is subjected to an OSHA inspection. (In California this will be conducted by Cal/OSHA.) The penalty for each minor violation may be up to $7,000 and a serious violation may result in a fine of up to $25,000 for each violation. Willful or repeated violations have penalties between $5,000 and $70,000.

Cal/OSHA inspections are almost always without warning. Although employers may delay an inspection by requiring Cal/OSHA to get a warrant, this is not recommended. The best protection is being prepared.

When does Cal/OSHA inspect the workplace?
One event that may trigger a Cal/OSHA inspection is a fatality or serious injury. The employer is required to report all fatalities and serious injuries within eight (8) hours. This usually results in an on-site inspection. For reporting purposes a serious injury or illness is defined as: (1) loss of a member of the body (e.g., amputation); (2) serious degree of permanent disfigurement (e.g., crushing or severe burn type injuries) or (3) in-patient hospitalization in excess of 24 hours for other than observation.

The second reason for an inspection is a complaint from a current employee, an employee representative, or a referral from a member of the public or other governmental agency. The name of the employee will not be revealed (California Labor Code Section 6309) and it is illegal to retaliate against him or her. The Division will not accept complaints that are determined to be willful harassment of the employer.

The third possibility is that the inspection is part of a regular or programmed inspection. Most inspections fall into this category. High hazard industries are targeted for inspections. The annual Cal/OSHA Performance Plan for 2007 calls for more than 2,000 construction site inspections with a special emphasis on residential construction. Another goal for the Enforcement Unit is the inspection of at least 50 food processing companies. Companies with a workers’ compensation Experience Modification rate of 125% or higher will be targeted for the on-site activities of the Consultation Service and may also be targeted for inspections by the Enforcement Unit.

Advance preparation for an inspection
Advance preparation is an employer’s best protection. The first rule should be to know what is required and comply. Most safety programs will begin with an Injury and Illness Prevention Plan. The IIPP needs to be more than a written document. It needs to have been implemented and followed.

Next, make sure the paperwork is correct, accessible and up-to-date. This includes the Cal/OSHA Log 300 for current and previous years, the workers’ compensation insurance “experience modification,” records of regular internal inspections, training records and Safety Committee Meeting minutes. The employer should also have a letter approving the contents of its First Aid Kit.

Other documents that are referenced in the IIPP, but require more extensive documentation also need to be current and available. Examples include: the Emergency Action Plan, the Fire Prevention Plan, the Hazard Communication Program (including MSDSs), a Respiratory Protection Program, Hearing Conservation Program and/or Bloodborne Pathogen Program.

Develop a plan
You need a plan for how to handle the actual inspection. Begin by creating a team of management representatives who will be responsible for overseeing the process as it occurs. The team should include the supervisors/managers of the areas most likely to be inspected and a representative of your safety department and/or HR department. You need enough people on the team so that it will be functional even when there are absences on the day of inspection. Cal/OSHA inspectors can be asked to wait for a reasonable amount of time (beyond one hour is not reasonable) while someone is called from home, but this should not have to happen.

Appoint one team member to be the head of the team and the principal spokesperson with, of course, back-ups in case this person is absent on the day of the inspection. This will protect you from having different individuals provide conflicting answers to inspectors’ questions. Other members of the team must know that they will be expected to assume specific roles such as, taking notes, taking pictures or taking samples.

Anticipate problem areas. Have documents ready or easy to get when needed. If appropriate make sure that there is a facility layout plan available to orient the inspector.

Train the team
Train the team so everyone knows how to play the role(s) that may be assigned on the day of inspection.

Become familiar with search warrant issues so that team members know whether or not to require one. Also train all members in relevant Cal/OSHA regulations and in the general duty to maintain a safe and healthful workplace. Remember if you have an unsafe process that is not covered by a standard, you can still be cited under the general duty clause.

If possible, have a designated person answer all questions, but make sure that all team members have been coached in how to answer questions. It is important for everyone who answers questions to:

• Give facts not opinions
• Answer only the question asked
• Not volunteer additional information

The day of the inspection
An inspection begins with a short opening conference. At this time or later the inspector will ask to review documents or may ask for copies. Following the opening conference the inspector will proceed to the area to be inspected. This is called a walk-around. The law limits the inspector to the area or operation where the accident occurred or where the complaint is centered, although sometimes a wider area may be inspected to protect the anonymity of the employee complainant. However, the inspector has the right to inspect what is in “plain view”, which makes a preplanned route to the area important. You do not want to walk the inspector through an area that may not be up-to-par if this can be avoided.

Representatives of employees are included in the group that accompanies the inspector during the walk-around. Inspectors may make videos or recordings and/or take photographs. They may also collect samples.

The well-trained team needs to accompany the inspector at all times and take notes. A team member should also take photographs, make videos and take samples whenever this is done by the inspector. Inspections may continue more than one day.

Employee interviews
Cal/OSHA inspectors can interview employees. Although the interviews can be impromptu, the employer can limit them to a reasonable time. Employers cannot be present for these interviews so the best protection is to be in compliance and make sure that employees know this. It also helps to have good employee relations because that will minimize the number of resentful or disgruntled employees bent on causing trouble.

After the inspection
After the inspection, but not necessarily on the same day, there will be a closing conference. At this conference the inspector(s) will discuss all conditions noted during the initial walk-around and any subsequent visits to the worksite. At the conference they may issue and explain any Citations, Notices, Special Orders, Orders to Take Special Action, or Information Memoranda, but these may be sent afterwards. They will explain the proposed penalties and explain the requirement that the employer must post a copy of the Citation, Notice, Special Order or Order to Take Special Action.
Following receipt of citations the company may request an informal conference with the District Manager within 10 days and following that may still appeal to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board in Sacramento.

(Editor’s Note: If you would like EG to help you with or review your IIPP or Emergency Action Plan, contact lhollis@employersgroup.com.)

Common Misconceptions

By Mark Nelson, J.D., Helpline Consultant

For non-exempt employees (i.e., employees who are not exempt from an employer’s obligation to pay overtime), when to pay overtime and how to pay it can consume HR’s every waking hour. More often than not, when answering the above questions, there is only one correct answer, despite the numerous assumptions in the business community about what is permissible. Below, I will cover a few of the more frequently heard misconceptions about how overtime may be administered.

In California, employers must pay non-exempt employees overtime at the rate of time-and-a-half their regular rate for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and double time for all hours worked in excess of 12. In addition, employers must also pay employees time-and-a-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Finally, if an employee works seven consecutive days in your defined workweek, there is also a premium that must be paid, discussed below. Of course, you will always want to refer to your handbook and/or past practice when administering your overtime policy. Such policies and/or practices may impose additional requirements above and beyond what state and federal law require.

The discussion here is not relevant for employers who have gone through the formal process of voting in an alternative workweek and certifying the results with the state. And multi-state employers will, of course, note this discussion is only relevant for their California non-exempt employees.

If an employee worked more than eight hours in a day, I do not have to pay that overtime unless they work more than 40 hours in the workweek as well.

Wrong. If an employee works more than eight hours in a day, they are entitled to daily overtime regardless of the total number of hours they work the remainder of the workweek. That said, there is one exception – make-up time – when an employee may work more than eight hours without incurring daily overtime.

Make-up time is designed for situations when an employee must leave work early for personal reasons one day and wishes to make that time up elsewhere in the same workweek. The employer has no incentive to permit this because to do so would mean incurring daily overtime expenses. Thus, as a work-around, an employee may submit a written request and work up to eleven hours in a single day to recover those lost hours. Absent a written make-up request (see EG’s website for sample forms), employees must be paid for all daily overtime worked.

I must count the total number of hours an employee works in a week toward weekly overtime, even if those hours were already attributed as daily overtime hours.

Again, wrong. If you’ve already logged hours as overtime due to daily overtime requirements, those hours do not also count toward your tally for weekly overtime purposes. Only straight time hours count toward the 40 hours, or, stated differently, only the first eight hours in a workday count toward weekly overtime.

If an employee moonlights for me performing work under an entirely different job title, I may treat the hours he works moonlighting separately for purposes of calculating overtime.

Absolutely not. The obligation to pay overtime hours is based on the total number of hours an employee works in a day and/or a week for their employer, regardless of whether the employee is working under two or more distinct job titles. Were employers allowed to attribute time an employee worked to the various job titles under which they performed that work, every nonexempt employee would necessarily have multiple job titles so the employer could avoid overtime altogether.

My obligation to pay daily overtime is driven by the length of an employee’s shift and not my defined workday.

There may be circumstances when an employee begins their shift on a Monday and does not stop working until Tuesday morning (say, at 2:00 a.m.). The employee may argue that because they worked sixteen hours straight, they are entitled to eight of those hours at overtime.

Not necessarily. If I define my workday to be midnight to midnight, then as soon as the clock strikes midnight, I may revert to counting any additional hours in that shift (in this case, from midnight to 2:00 a.m.) at their regular rate. Of course, if they are scheduled to work another shift later in the day on Tuesday, the hours the employee already worked (from midnight to 2:00 a.m.) will affect when I start counting overtime in the subsequent shift (i.e., six hours into their shift instead of the typical eight, since two hours have already been paid at their regular rate).

For the sake of ease, an employee and I may agree to pay overtime at a fixed sum, different than what the amount would be if I were to determine the regular rate and use that to calculate the pay for every overtime hour worked.

The rules are very rigid regarding how you calculate the amounts paid out as overtime hours. Determine the total number of hours worked each day and week. Determine the regular rate. (Remember, the regular rate includes “all remuneration” an employee receives and may exceed their hourly rate.) Pay the overtime at either time-and-a-half or double time for all overtime hours.

I must pay an employee the 7th-day premium if they worked seven consecutive days regardless.

Your obligation to pay the 7th-day premium (i.e., time-and-a-half for the first eight hours and double time for all hours after eight) is triggered if the employee worked all seven days in your defined workweek. If the seven consecutive days the employee worked span two defined workweeks – such that the employee did not work every day in any one of them – no seventh day premium is due.

If I require prior authorization to work overtime and employees work overtime without obtaining the requisite consent, I do not need to pay them for that unauthorized overtime.

Compensation and discipline are two entirely distinct issues and should always be treated separately. You must pay an employee for all hours worked, regardless of whether the employee failed to obtain the requisite authorization to work them. You may, however, discipline the employee for failing to follow company rules. Withholding payment for unauthorized overtime is never a permissible form of disciplinary action.

The hours employees do not work but for which they are paid as a holiday, count as “hours worked” for the purpose of calculating overtime.

Unless your handbook or past practice indicates differently, generally, hours for which an employee is paid but performed no work (such as vacation, sick pay, bereavement leave, etc.) generally do not count as “hours worked” for purposes of counting overtime. Employers are wise to ensure this is clearly communicated in their employee handbook.

2007 UI Forecast

By Sara Rios, Unemployment Insurance Manager

Recently the California Employment Development Department (EDD) projected the Unemployment Insurance (UI) Fund balance will end with $2.1 billion in 2006 and $2.3 billion in 2007. In 2005 the UI fund ended with $1.3 billion. However, even though the UI fund is getting stronger all California tax rated employers’ will continue to remain on contribution rate schedule “F” plus a 15 percent surcharge for 2007. The taxable UI wage base in California will remain at the minimum federal standard of $7,000 per employee whereas several states have increased their wage base.

For a copy of 2007 California & Federal payroll taxes go to: http://www.employersgroup.com/PDFFiles/PayrollTaxGuide2007.pdf

States 2007 UI Wage Base Increases:

States 2007 UI Wage Base Decreases:

States 2007 Subject to Changes by Legislature

Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Idaho
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New York

Revised EDD pamphlet
The Employment Development Department has recently revised the pamphlet “For Your Benefit” (DE 2320). The pamphlet must be distributed when an employer discharges or lays off an employee, or places an employee on a leave of absence (CCR title 22 section 1089-1). Employers can order a supply on line www.edd.gov.ca or call (916) 322-2835.

By Wendy Taylor, Editor and Legislative Coordinator

Health insurance may become the number one issue in California’s Legislature this year. Governor Schwarzenegger announced that it is one of his top priorities for the 2007 legislative session. Although several healthcare bills (nine at last count) have already been introduced, the Governor himself offered his own proposal to provide healthcare coverage for all Californians.

The Governor’s plan contains certain stipulations that impact employers, similar to those provided in last year’s SB 840 (Kuehl), a bill that he vetoed. He promised then, however, to address the challenge of the state’s health system, which he maintains is “broken.”

According the latest statistics quoted recently in various news articles related to the Governor’s proposal, a total of 6.5 million of California’s 36 million residents lack health insurance, by far the highest level in the country. In Los Angeles County alone, 25% of adults have no insurance coverage, which has prompted the closures of several emergency treatment centers due to financial pressures.

The Governor publicly stated in his speech in Sacramento on Monday January 8 that his proposal is based on his belief that a “comprehensive plan” is called for, whereby there will be “shared responsibility” for controlling costs and expanding health coverage among individuals, employers, the government and medical providers and insurers.”

How the plan affects employers
The Governor’s plan would require everyone to have health coverage for themselves and their children. Employers of 10 or more employees would be required to offer health coverage or contribute 4% of payroll toward the cost of employee’s health coverage.

This “pay or play” requirement means that employers who don’t provide health coverage must pay 4% of their total Social Security wages to a state fund, which would subsidize coverage for California’s working uninsured. The cost of this coverage would be measured on a sliding fee scale of what those employees earn.

Under his plan, the Governor also wants to create tax breaks for individuals and employers to purchase health savings accounts and calls for aligning state laws with federal laws by allowing individuals to make pretax contributions to HSAs. Also, it would require employers to set up Section 125 plans so that employees can make tax-sheltered contributions to health insurance, which would save the employer from making additional payments under the Federal Insurance Contribution Act.

How the plan affects insurers
Health insurers would be required to provide individuals with access to coverage. They would also be required to spend 85% of every premium dollar on patient care. And, it would force insurers to guarantee coverage regardless of pre-existing health conditions.

The affect on Medi-Cal
Medi-Cal payments to doctors and hospitals would be increased. Further, more adults would be eligible for Medi-Cal and the government would have to provide subsidies to low-income families to purchase insurance coverage.

Doctors and hospitals would also contribute
Doctors and hospitals would receive $10 to $15 million dollars in new revenue, but would be required to contribute a percentage of their revenue to help provide universal insurance coverage. Hospitals would have to pay the state 4% of revenues, and doctors would pay 2% of revenues.

Other healthcare bills
Among the other health care bills introduced in this year’s Legislature, Senate President Don Perata and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez have both announced conceptual proposals for universal health care. Speaker Nunez’s proposal would provide health insurance to all children in the state. Employers and employees would be required to pay their “fair share” of coverage.”

Senate President Perata’s bill would cover 4.2 million of California’s over 6 million uninsured. He also proposes the “pay or play” requirement – employers provide health coverage to employees or pay into a state pool that would buy insurance for them. Workers would be required to purchase health coverage or face tax penalties. More federal funding would be sought to expand Medi-Cal to an additional 1.2 million new enrollees. Perata’s proposal would provide tax incentives for individuals who can show proof of insurance for themselves and their dependents.

Employers Group will continue to “watch” the healthcare bills and keep you informed.

Religion at Work
Claims are on the Rise

By Tanya Butler, M.S., Helpline Consultant

Lawsuits relating to proselytizing in the workplace may be on the rise. Such cases present particularly tricky issues for employers, because not only does an employee subjected to unwanted proselytizing have a potential claim for unlawful harassment, but an employee who is disciplined for his or her workplace proselytizing may claim to be the victim of religious discrimination as well.

Legal commentator Brian Richard explains that “the role of religion in both the public and private workplace has become an embattled issue, challenging the boundaries of work and state, and resulting in a busy stream of litigation.”

Title VII and state laws seek balance
The general rule under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as under the majority of state anti-discrimination laws, is that while an employer must reasonably accommodate the religious views and practices of its employees, it need not permit employees to impose their religious views on their coworkers. For instance, what should an employer do, when one if its employees responds to the employer’s efforts to promote diversity in the workplace with postings in his or her work area challenging, based on religious teachings, the propriety of the alternative lifestyles of co-workers? (Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, (9th Cir. 2004). Thus far, courts seem to find that an employer’s obligation to protect its employees from harassment by co-workers generally trumps the rights of employees to express their religious views.

The decision of the Ninth Circuit in Bodett v. Coxcom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2004), is the most recent appellate decision applying federal and state antidiscrimination laws to proselytizing in the workplace. In that case, Evelyn Bodett, an evangelical Christian and longtime Cox employee, met on several occasions with one of her subordinates to express her disapproval regarding the subordinate’s homosexuality. Bodett also encouraged the subordinate to attend church, to pray with her at work, and to participate in a religious conference. At an exit interview after she was transferred to another job site, the subordinate stated to Cox that Bodett’s actions had made her uncomfortable, and Bodett was soon discharged for violating Cox’s general anti-harassment policy. Bodett sued.
The Ninth Circuit held that the termination of Bodett’s employment was non-discriminatory under both Title VII and Arizona law. After noting Bodett’s concession that she ignored Cox’s anti-harassment policy because “sometimes, there is a higher calling than a company policy,” the court held that Bodett’s actions “clearly fall within the gambit of harassment, particularly because [she] was in a position of authority.”

Although employers are not required to permit employees to impose their beliefs upon co-workers, they must nevertheless be sensitive to the issues presented by the expression of religious sentiments in the workplace. Essential to establishing an effective defense to religious discrimination claims by proselytizers is equal treatment regardless of the religious views being expressed. The strength of many employees’ emotions in this area makes the risk of litigation created by proselytizing in the workplace, and employer reactions thereto, particularly acute.

Essentially, proselytizing at work occurs when one employee tries to convince coworkers to change their religions. This presents an interesting set of legal issues, because some employees feel that proselytizing is a requirement of their religion. Therefore, they could perceive a prohibition on proselytizing at work as a discriminatory act against members of their religion. On the other hand, other employees may be offended by attempts to change their religious practices. These employees could perceive workplace proselytizing as religious harassment. Therefore, American employers have to adopt religious harassment policies that are much more complex than their sexual harassment policies.

When hired by Jacobs Engineering Group, Edna Ng received the company’s anti-harassment policy. As an evangelical Christian, Ng felt that her religion compelled her to share her beliefs to save her co-workers. After she began working, Ng invited co-workers to a Christmas party in one of the company’s conference rooms. Using an amplifier, Ng’s pastor sang carols with the participants at the event. Because of the noise, several employees complained.

She later held a Christian-based Easter party in a company conference room. She obtained no permission from the company to conduct these events. Following the Easter event, Ng was counseled by her manager not to distribute religious literature. Ng’s manager later told her not to use company resources or time for non-work purposes, or to present or distribute religious materials. The HR manager reiterated the company’s policy to her. Ng’s request to hold a prayer meeting on the “National Day of Prayer” was also denied.

Ng was terminated after she sent multiple e-mails to co-workers on several different occasions in which she quoted the Bible, and had continued to use company facilities for religious purposes despite the earlier counseling that she not do so. Ng sued in Los Angeles County Superior Court, but the court rejected her claim that she was entitled to accommodation for her religious beliefs and practices and dismissed her claim. On appeal, a California appeals court agreed with the dismissal of Ng’s claims and reasoned:

“If we were to require [the company] to accommodate proselytizing in the workplace ... it would violate its own policy and be subject to claims by other employees desiring to use company facilities to share their own religious beliefs.” Edna Ng v. Jacobs Engineering Group, Cal. Ct. App., No. B185838 (10/16/06). Impact: Particularly with anti-harassment policies, employers are free to prohibit employees from using the workplace to proselytize co-workers.

Religious discrimination and harassment
Federal, state, and local laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, just as they prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or race. For example, an employer may not condition hiring, promotion, a pay raise, continued employment, or other benefits of employment on an employee’s acceptance of a supervisor’s religious beliefs. (There are exceptions for employment by religious organizations.) Supervisors must be careful not to express their religious and moral beliefs to their subordinates in ways that might suggest that adherence to those beliefs is necessary to succeed in their jobs.

Part of the employer’s duty not to discriminate on the basis of religion is a duty to stop harassment because of religion. The definition of religious harassment is parallel to that of sexual harassment. A hostile work environment can be created by offensive conduct directed at an employee because of that employee’s religion if the conduct is so severe and pervasive that it affects a term or condition of employment and the employer fails to take reasonable steps to stop the conduct. However, conduct that is offensive to a person of religious sensibilities (such as frequent use of profanity) is not necessarily conduct directed at an employee because of the employee’s religion.

At the same time, private employers have no duty to prevent all expressions by employees of religious belief, and employees have no right to be free from exposure to all religious expressions. Nonetheless, employers remain free to establish nondiscriminatory rules against conduct, such as religious proselytizing, that could be disruptive to the smooth operation of the workplace.

(To be continued next month. Part 2 will cover demands for religious accommodations.)

Mid-Career Check-Ups
Claims are on the Rise

Peter K. Studner is a career counselor and former chief executive officer of international companies. He is the author of the award-winning manual, Super Job Search, published by Jamenair Ltd., now in its third edition with more than 300,000 copies sold. Studner is president of Peter K. Studner Associates, Inc., a California outplacement firm.

Johnny Garcia dreaded going to work since his new manager arrived. For the last 18 years, he had been in the Accounting Department of Global Entertainment, Inc., the world’s third largest licensing company. Starting out in general accounting, then moving into accounts payable, opportunities opened in the auditing of the company’s 2,000 licensees. Over the years, he identified millions of dollars in uncollected license fees, which made him a valuable team player, or so he thought.

Call it chemistry, communications or just plain personality differences, he felt that his new manager had it in for him. As time passed, the situation became more and more stressful. No longer was he being copied on department memos nor was he being invited to key staff meetings. He could feel pressure on him to resign. He was worried, where was he to go at the age of 57 if he left?

Unfortunately, the above true story is being repeated thousands of times in the workplace where seasoned, highly experienced employees are being pushed aside often times for the wrong reasons. How many times have we heard a new manager remark, “Hey, I would like to bring in my own team”? His “own team” may not be any better than the team already in place.

Transition management means not only helping people out of a company, it also means helping people adjust to changes within the company, while preserving its most valuable resources, trained and experienced staff. Employment attorneys can attest to the problems that can arise when, with no documented reasons, a manager opts to let a senior employee go who has been getting good reviews, often times for a younger and less expensive replacement.

In another case study, Mary Stevens is a firmware programmer for a large equipment manufacturer. As a result of a number of reorganizations, she was promoted seven years ago to manager of her department, a group of software engineers doing firmware programming. As time moved on, she found her job more and more administrative and managerial than programming, something she preferred. A new vice president came into the company and was critical of her management approach.

After several documented exchanges, the new vice president wanted to dismiss Mary. A mid-career counselor was engaged. After a number of sessions, he unraveled Mary’s feelings, the vice president’s needs and developed a solution that would permit Mary to give up the manager’s position and re-join the team of programmers without loss of benefits or salary. A new manager was hired and Mary was able to continue in the company. The company benefited by not losing a valuable programmer and Mary did not have to rebuild her career.

Benefits of the Mid-Career Check-Up
Salvaging executives and key employees who have veered off their career paths for any number of reasons can be a valuable practice, particularly in today’s tight labor market. A check-up can often prevent job loss and provide benefits to both the company and the employee.

The company benefits by (1) salvaging years of corporate experience; (2) preventing know-how loss to a competitor; (3) avoiding potential litigation; (4) guiding and assisting troubled employees; (5) gaining insight into a larger problem; (6) reducing the probability of costly workers’ compensation claims; and (7) eliminating dysfunctional situations.

The employee benefits by (1) obtaining a confidential career check-up; (2) re-establishing goals; (3) receiving assistance in untangling unresolved issues with a qualified counselor; (4) getting a chance to bring joy back into a career; (5) maintaining company benefits; (6) determining a changing value system; (7) identifying and rectifying unknown problems, e.g., stress and burnout; and (8) receiving training on how to sell talent.

The Mid-Career Check-Up is an opportunity to recreate an environment with increased productivity through employee cohesiveness and overall satisfaction. It is advised for employees exhibiting declining productivity, excessive absences or lateness and/or human relations problems – poor communication, low moral.

How the Mid-Career Check-Up works
With agreement from human resources, the employee’s manager and the impacted employee, counselors work at all levels in finding the real causes for lack of performance, loss of productivity and/or loss of interest. Counselors will examine:

• The employee’s mission and job description. Does it fit the requirements of the company? Has it evolved beyond current skills of the employee?
• The employee’s view of what has been going wrong.
• The manager’s view of what has been going wrong.
• What changes have occurred in the company that impact the employee’s work?
• What types of communications have been taking place to and from the employee?
• What are the priorities of the company and manager with respect to the employee’s work?
• Is the situation salvageable?

Needs, expectations, feelings of equity and levels of reinforcement all have an effect on performance. Preventing and remedying job stress and job burnout is one of the goals of the check-up. The counselor reviews with the employee where stress situations exist along with suggestions on how to alleviate each problem. Sometimes, after exhausting all possible alternatives, reassignment is the best solution.

Conclusion
It is difficult to predict the outcome of an assessment evaluation. If no solutions exist within the company, the employee will understand the value of leaving. The program can then lead into outplacement. The Mid-Career Check-Up can guide both the company and the employee through any conflict where greater insight and counseling are needed.

(Editor’s Note: Peter K. Studner Associates is a preferred partner of Employers Group. For more information on these services, please contact Katherin Scott at (213) 765-3949.)

Train your Supervisors and Stay out of Trouble

By Jeffrey Hull, Director of Learning Services

Supervisors and managers play a pivotal role in every organization; however, they represent the greatest amount of litigious risk for an employer. What a supervisory employee says or does or what they don’t say or do, can make both the employer and supervisor liable. Many supervisors think they are insulated from personal risk and are surprised to find out that they, as well as their employer, can be sued for certain actions or inactions.

In many organizations, supervisors are promoted from within. While this creates an organizational environment of possibility and opportunity for employees, the employer must be careful in selecting the most appropriate person for the position and then provide that individual with training for their new duties. Equally, when a supervisor is hired from another company, it should not be assumed that they have been adequately trained. The most effective way to keep both you and your supervisory employees out of trouble is to provide them with effective training.

Compliance training is first and foremost
There are many soft skill topics that supervisory employees must understand to be the most effective leaders they can be. These include such topics as empowerment, communications, motivating, coaching, performance management and teambuilding – to name just a few. This article, however, focuses on the compliance aspect of supervisory training. An effective supervisory compliance program should include the following themes:

No harassing, discriminating or retaliating
California employers need to be especially careful in terms of harassment. With the adoption of AB1825 (mandatory harassment prevention training for supervisors), this should be one of the first courses a new supervisor receives; however, the state stipulates they must receive this training within 6 months. For maximum impact and to meet legal requirements, insure that this program is interactive, and includes examples and discussion to ensure trainees are engaged in the subject matter.

Documenting
Most day-to-day events blur together after a week or two. Supervisors should not rely on their memories for documenting events or discussions. In addition, in a court of law, jurors typically side with employees unless evidence (documentation) is produced. Supervisors should be shown how to keep employee files, what to keep in them, and what types of events and discussions should be documented.

Consistency
Many supervisors want to be “nice” and try to accommodate all of their employees; however, making special exceptions for one may violate the rights of another. Accommodating one may set a precedent that your organization is unaware of and does not want to support. Supervisors need to be aware of policies and procedures and manage accordingly.

Questioning
Whether it is during an interview or a day-to-day conversation with a subordinate, supervisors need to understand that seemingly mundane, everyday questions may pose significant risk in the workplace. An effective training program will provide examples of such questions and how to avoid them.

Terminating
While at-will employment is the standard protocol for many employees, each individual termination needs to be scrutinized and legally assessed. Termination decisions should not be made in haste and human resources, employment counsel or executive support should be sought in contestable situations.

Discussing
Effective communication is imperative; however, supervisors need to be cautious and avoid making promises. These can be construed as verbal contracts even if the supervisor should ever leave the company. Additionally, threats should be avoided (don’t say X to Y or Z will happen). And, most importantly, treat everyone with respect and do not denigrate anyone based upon age, national ancestry, sexual orientation, gender, marital status, etc.

Supporting
Within their position, supervisors will be directly confronted with employee personal issues. These issues must be delicately and properly handled. Supervisors should be familiar with leaves of absence requirements, basic wage and hour laws, and other employment laws which will dictate how a situation should be handled.

Environmentally conscious
The work environment should be safe for everyone. When it comes to accidents, violence or safety infringements, new supervisors must be advocates for recognizing and taking action on anything that could cause injury or illness to someone else. Additionally, injury and illness prevention programs should be commonplace in many companies. Insure that this is a training program your organization institutes.

Additional help and support
Without saying, new supervisors should know they are not alone and that they do not need to make decisions in a vacuum. These individuals should be given the contact information of others they can ask questions of or, better yet, have someone serve as the mentor during the first few months of a supervisor taking their position.

Among all of these, two overriding themes are present: (1) first and foremost, manage others with the organization always in mind and (2) every person in the workplace should be treated with respect and fairness. Supervisors should not be fearful of their new position and the training program should reinforce this. For maximum effectiveness, the program should include ample time for questions, discussion and provide practical examples to demonstrate the major learning points.

(Editors Note: Employers Group offers the “Nuts and Bolts of Supervisory Laws” that covers all of the points noted in this article. EG encourages all new supervisors to attend. For more information, email training@employersgroup.com.)

Keep your Accounting Professionals from Jumping Ship

By Jennifer Shin, Research Marketing & Communications Coordinator

Although the recently published 2007 Professional Compensation Survey shows that salary changes for most exempt employees (non-management) have tapered, seasoned accounting and finance professionals will start off the new year with a kick. Those who know how to help businesses expand, as well as those who perform compliance work, will likely see a sharp increase in their paychecks in 2007. Employers will, however, have a harder time wrangling these professionals in.

According to Employers Group’s annual survey, finance and accounting professionals in California will see a 3.9% salary change this year from 2004/2005 (nationwide average is 3.8%). Monster.com reports that the biggest pay boosts will go to experienced compliance professionals, internal auditors, financial analysts and public accountants.

Those doing the day-to-day labor in accounting will be carried up on the rising salary tide in 2007. Bookkeepers, whether they're full-charge, financial statement, general ledger or generalists, can expect to make 6.2% to 6.7% more in 2007.

Why is accounting so hot in 2007?
One of the factors that may explain why finance and accounting professionals are in such high demand this year is that the low number of accounting graduates during the tech boom may be correcting itself, according to Monster.com. Between 1995 and 2002, the number of accounting bachelor's and master's degrees awarded nationally declined by about 27%, hitting a low of 44,695 in 2002. Yet by 2004, there were 53,760 accounting grads, due to a 70% increase in the number of master's degrees awarded.

The shortage in finance and accounting professionals, in addition to the nation’s current abundant job market, means that businesses need to intensify their recruitment as well as their retention strategies. As of April 2006, Southern California’s unemployment rate hit an all time low at 4.5%.

Also, according to the U.S. Labor Market’s survey of employers, non-farm job counts rose by 167,000 workers within the last month alone. About 40% of surveyed hiring managers recently said they plan to increase their number of full-time, permanent employees in 2007. Therefore, business expansion and compliance initiatives will continue to fuel the hiring of highly skilled professionals.

Rethink your recruitment and retention efforts
A shortage of candidates has intensified, and employers often must offer premium compensation to attract these individuals. It is important to evaluate and adjust the base pay for those currently on the job, as well as incoming employees, in order to remain competitive. Employers need to know what the compensation level is in their area for a particular specialty and be prepared to match or exceed that base salary. Knowing how your salary levels compare to the competition is imperative, as most employers are keenly aware that there is a talent shortage and an intense competition to fill these positions.

In addition to raising base pay, more and more employers are considering to offer signing and performance bonuses as well as enhancing their benefits packages. Other perks include providing relocation assistance, additional vacation time and offering a flexible schedule.

In other words, to keep finance and accounting professionals from jumping ship this year, employers will have to tailor their compensation practices to better fit their employees’ needs.

2007 Professional Compensation Survey
The 2007 Professional Compensation Survey is now available to members! A valuable tool, the comprehensive report will help you gauge the activity of your exempt-level salaries and compare this activity to a regional level. This study examines over 110 exempt classifications in finance, accounting, HR, advertisement, media, and other departments, and covers all major metro areas in California with breaks by county, industry, and employment size. The Professional Compensation Survey includes all the data you need to determine competitive pay levels for California’s most popular exempt jobs.

The survey includes the following job categories:

• Finance / Accounting, 20 classifications
• Legal, 3 classifications
• Banking, 5 classifications
• Human Resources, 22 classifications
• General Services, 12 classifications
• Creative Media Services, 6 classifications
• Production / Logistics, 17 classifications
• Science & Research, 6 classifications
• Sales / Marketing, 13 classifications
• Communications & Marketing, 6 classifications

To order or for more information on the 2007 Professional Compensation Survey, please email us at surveys@employersgroup.com.