When I heard that I wondered what law requires equal for an equal day’s work?  What new standard is this?  Does this mean if you work eight hours you get the same pay regardless of responsibility level, performance outputs, experience, skill and knowledge factors, or working conditions, or even seniority?  The above factors are all legal and bona fide contributors to differences in pay.  Never have we used “equal day’s work”. 

Probably Obama just read the teleprompter wrong. 

Seriously though — we hear that there is a new task force established called “National Equal Pay Enforcement Task Force” so employers will want to find out what that is all about. 

As a consultant to employers on pay equity issues for many years I have found that employers want to pay equal pay for equal work, regardless of gender.  It is not in their interest to do otherwise.  Employers can use various job evalulation approaches to help them build an internal equity pay structure that pays employees based on legally compensable factors. 

Politicians and alarmists like to claim that women get paid 77.7% of what men do.  Senator Tom Harkin recently touted out that statistic.  However, when variables such as length of time in workforce, type of industry and work (especially jobs dominated by either men or women), and willingness to accept lower pay and many other legitimate factors are placed into the equation — the percentage is more like 95%. 

Equal pay for equal work was NOT created by Obama.  It has been the law of the land since 1963.  I recently heard Obama take credit for signing into law equal pay.  Well the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was indeed his FIRST piece of legislation signed.  It merely extended the time period after the supposed infraction took place that a woman can sue.  Which required employers to do more non-value busy work by adjusting how and length of time they keep their pay records.

There is no bigger advocate in the world than me when it comes to equal pay.  But seriously — enough already with the regulations, threats, task forces, and intimidating threats on employers.  

Mercer’s research reveals that:

• U.S. employers held cost growth to 5.5 percent in 2009, the lowest increase in a decade.

• Growth in the use of wellness or health management programs accelerated as large employers looked to hold down cost without cost-shifting.

• Small employers added consumer-directed health plans in 2009, helping to push up enrollment in these high-deductible plans to 9 percent of all covered employees.

Similar cost growth is expected in 2010, according to Mercer’s National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans. Employers predicted that medical plan cost would rise by about 9 percent in 2010 if they simply renewed their current plans without making any changes. However, they hope to achieve about a 6 percent increase after making changes to plan design or changing plan vendors.

 Information supplied by the Society for Human Resource Management.

Creating and managing a principled compensation program that rewards desired behaviors and outcomes and offers market-driven compensation levels to attract and retain talent should be the responsibility of an organization not the federal government.  Federal mandates satisfy the needs of small thinkers to be consistent and treat all entities and all people the same.  This is the road to mediocrity, stagnation, malaise and eventual failure. 

The pendulum is swinging left. 

Bottom Line:  the new law will not drastically alter the existing workplace landscape — it will reflect what employers are already doing.     

Begin the handbook with a welcoming statement to build a positive culture.  Keep legalistic words (such as:  whereas and forthwith and furthermore) out of the handbook.  Instead of listing all the do nots, describe the expectations and what ”to do”.  For any list of “do nots” there will always be another behavior, not on the list, that will inevitably surface, making the ”do not” list moot (sorry for the legal term).  Carefully choose words to avoid the “we vs them” culture. 

There should be clearly stated expectations against harassment and discrimination and also established steps to follow.  Good guidelines exist for this language.  However, the policy and procedures against harassment and discrimination should be kept in perspective.  Handbooks with many pages dedicated to this subject send the message “wow, this company has a problem”.  Be clear, be concise, be legal, be kind. 

Be careful when adding new wording for new laws.  A hastily slapped together and lengthy policy will stand out like a sore thumb and gives an impression that this is the MOST important policy.  Weave new policy generated by new laws in with other policies and practices. 

Supervisors like lists of actions subject to discipline; and they mistakenly think it will make their job easier.  It won’t.  Resist the list! 

Finally, don’t say you’re going to do something and then not do it.  If in doubt, leave it out.   Use words like “intend” or “may” to allow flexibility.  Arbitrary inconsistencies are bad, but the reality is there will always be the need for exceptions and flexibility.  Don’t mistake treating everyone exactly the same, regardless of circumstances, with fairness.  Fairness requires discernment and judgement.  Hard and fast rules with no room for recognizing the exception lead to trouble more often than not.  Managing from the heart will result in fairness; managing from the book will result in losing the good employees.  The fair manager will eventually have to say “no” to one to be fair to all.    

Contracts do have their place when two parties do not trust each other or do not know each other.  The handbook should be a communication tool that sets expectations, estalishes positive relations and builds trust.

The rule of thumb is for every fifty words of policy, there is one loophole.  So don’t try to build the perfect document with MORE words.  Build a document that sets standards and expectations, gives good guidelines and practical steps and information, sets a tone for a positive, respectful working environment for all and treats adults as adults — not felons or children.   

Bottom line, edit your handbooks for tone as well as for words.  Would an employee read the document and feel like a team member or would an employee read the document and feel like they need a lawyer?      

Workplace stress causes employee health disorders and increased accidents and mistakes at work.  Stress-related dysfunctional behaviors cause anxiety among coworkers resulting in disciplinary action, lowered productivity, contagious discontent among the workforce, and even violence.  These are high costs for employees and employers.

When practical, employers should consider offering additional self-care training and work life balancing seminars.  Perhaps some much needed downtime and fun get-togethers could help.  Offering alternative and flexible work schedules and offering an “extra” paid holiday to just ease the load and tension and show appreciation could be tried.  Communication is always key though to ensure employees know what the company is planning and the realities.  A company blog with employee feedback allows information to flow both ways.   

EAPs have been shown to be a worthwhile investment for employers.  In today’s uncertain climate, employees can seek assistance through EAPs for not only behavioral health issues but also for seeking financial, family counseling, stress mitigation support, improved work life balancing and planning and learning to deal with uncertainty. 

Many of the above ideas came from SHRM News.