Risk Insider: Terri Rhodes

The Struggles of ADA Compliance

By: | July 23, 2015 • 3 min read
Terri L. Rhodes is CEO of the Disability Management Employer Coalition (DMEC). Prior to returning to DMEC, Terri was an Absence and Disability Management Consultant for Mercer delivering strategic absence and disability management solutions to clients of all sizes, Director of Absence and Disability for Health Net and Corporate IDM Program Manager for Abbott Laboratories.

Twenty-five years after the passage of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers still struggle with making reasonable accommodation for employees with qualified disabilities. Making accommodations for employees under the original ADA legislation was easier. The ADA Amendments Act of 2009, however, has changed the process for employers, making it more difficult and time consuming.

Many individuals who were not qualified under the original ADA are now qualified and the law currently allows employees to remain off work (indefinite leave) under some circumstances instead of returning to work, which seems counter to the intent of the law. And employers have yet to see clear guidance on this from the EEOC.

Regardless of employer struggles, the purpose of the ADA is clear. The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer (“undue hardship”). An interactive process is mandated to determine if reasonable accommodation can be made for an employee with a qualified disability

Yet, here we are, 25 years after the passage of the ADA, and labor force participation by people with disabilities is actually lower than when this landmark law was passed.

Providing people with disabilities better access to transportation, public and private facilities and — above all — jobs, is something everyone should support. Greater job opportunities permit people to earn money to support themselves and thus diminishes their need for public assistance. Equally important, it affirms the dignity and the sense of self-worth that comes from making valued contributions to society.

Yet, here we are, 25 years after the passage of the ADA, and labor force participation by people with disabilities is actually lower than when this landmark law was passed.

Yet only a small proportion of disabled individuals are able to participate in the workforce. According to an online disability statistics data search tool maintained by Cornell University, 30 years ago 25.1 percent of people between the ages of 21 and 64 who had a work limitation were employed. In 1989, the year before the ADA passed, that proportion reached a high of 28.8 percent.

But by 2014, the percentage of people with a disability who were employed had fallen to 12.9 percent according to a Cornell study.

There are many reasons for the declining labor participation rate of the disabled. Overall labor participation has fallen, with especially large declines among older white males. But there is little doubt those with disabilities still face particular challenges in obtaining and maintaining a job.

As disability and absence management professionals, we have a special role to play in helping ensure they do. We need to do even more to educate colleagues and the larger public about disabilities, including those driven by behavioral health factors.

We need to work closer with those in other departments in our organizations to develop effective programs that not only comply with the law, but truly advance the goal of finding and keeping the best person for a particular position. And we need to make sure we’re doing all we can to keep pace with the creative and effective leave initiatives taking place in workplaces across the country.

Accommodating disabled workers is good for employees. It’s good for employers. And, most important, it’s the right thing to do. Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA, there’s still a lot of work to do.

Share this article:

Risk Insider: Dan Holden

Stoned is Stoned

By: | July 21, 2015 • 3 min read
Dan Holden is Manager of Corporate Risk & Insurance for Daimler Trucks North America (formerly “Freightliner”). He manages the risk management program in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. He can be reached at [email protected]

With a flip of the calendar, on July 1, Oregon became the fourth state in which recreational marijuana use became legal. For many Oregon employers, this status change from illegal to legal wasn’t a big deal.

Medical marijuana is already legal in 24 states, including the Beaver State, and possessing less than an ounce was decriminalized in Oregon 40 years ago. This is just a new twist on an old story.

All it really means is you can’t go to jail (or be fined) for smoking pot recreationally. However, this “non-event,” has made risk managers ponder the ramifications of recreational use, especially for their employees who work in the manufacturing industry.

Manufacturers have strict policies to ensure a safe work environment. It goes without saying that people who are under the influence at work in a manufacturing or an industrial setting are far more likely to be injured on the job.

It is predicted that in 2016 – the third election cycle in which marijuana legalization measures will be on ballots across the country – as many as seven more states could allow recreational use of marijuana.

Being stoned at work should be treated no differently than being under the influence of alcohol or prescription medication. You certainly can’t show up drunk for work.

The employer is responsible for that employee as soon as they walk on to the job. Any drug use that impacts an employee’s ability to perform their job should be a genuine concern for the employer.

The difficulty for employers is the fact there is no scientific method to determine a marijuana intoxication level, unlike a blood-alcohol level for alcohol. So until there is definitive scientific evidence, employers are being advised to err on side of safety and forbid an employee to be under the influence of marijuana.

To do that the employer needs a crystal clear, zero-tolerance policy. Unless the employer has been living in a cave the past 50 years, they already have such a policy. But it should be updated to specifically address marijuana use, both on-the-job and recreationally, in which case it could affect the employee’s job performance.

It is predicted that in 2016 – the third election cycle in which marijuana legalization measures will be on ballots across the country – as many as seven more states could allow recreational use of marijuana. As each state approves the recreational use of marijuana, there looms in the background the knowledge that under federal law, its use remains illegal.

Whether that will eventually force the feds to take a stand remains to be seen. Right now the feds have just rolled over to let you scratch their belly.

But as each state joins the ranks of approving pot use recreationally, what was a minor irritant to the feds could grow too large for them to ignore.

The bottom line is that a stoned CPA might drop a number or two, but a stoned assembly line worker might drop a few fingers. It doesn’t matter if it’s pot, alcohol, or prescription medication. Smoke cannabis at work – or show up stoned – and you’ll be disciplined. It’s not about a worker’s rights; it’s about workplace safety.

Share this article:

Sponsored: Liberty International Underwriters

Detention Risks Grow for Traveling Employees

Employees traveling abroad face new abduction risks that are more difficult to resolve than a ransom-based kidnapping.
By: | June 1, 2015 • 6 min read
LIU_BrandedContent

It used to be that most kidnapping events were driven by economic motives. The bad guys kidnapped corporate employees and then demanded a ransom.

These situations are always very dangerous and serious. But the bad guys’ profit motive helps ensure the safety of their hostages in order to collect a ransom.

Recently, an even more dangerous trend has emerged. Governments, insurgents and terrorist organizations are abducting employees not to make money, but to gain notoriety or for political reasons.

Without a ransom demand, an involuntarily confined person is referred to as ‘detained.’ Each detention event requires a specialized approach to try and negotiate the safe return of the hostage, depending on the ideology or motivation of the abductors.

And the risk is not just faced by global corporations but by companies of all sizes.

LIU_BrandedContent“The world is changing. We see many more occasions where governments are getting involved in detentions and insurgent/terrorist groups are growing in size and scope. It’s the right time for a discussion about detention risks.”

— Tom Dunlap, Assistant Vice President, Liberty International Underwriters (LIU)

“Practically any company with employees traveling abroad or operations overseas can be a target for a detention risk,” said Tom Dunlap, assistant vice president at Liberty International Underwriters (LIU). “Whether you are setting up a foreign operation, sourcing raw materials or equipment overseas, or trying to establish an overseas sales contract, people are traveling everywhere today for so many reasons.”

Emerging Threats Driven By New Groups Using New Tools

Many of the groups who pose the most dangerous detention threats are well versed in how to use the Internet and social media for PR, recruiting and communication. ISIS, for example, generates worldwide publicity with their gruesome videos that are distributed through multiple electronic channels.

Bad guys leverage their digital skills to identify companies and their employees who conduct business overseas. Corporate websites and personal social media often provide enough information to target employees who are working abroad.

LIU_BrandedContentAnd if executives are too well protected to abduct, these tools can also be used to identify and target family members who may be less well protected.

The explosion of new groups who pose the most dangerous risks are generally classified into three categories:

Insurgents – Detentions by these groups are most often intended to keep a government or humanitarian group from delivering services or aid to certain populations, usually in a specific territory, for political reasons. They also take hostages to make a political statement and, on occasion, will ask for a ransom.

In other cases, insurgent groups detain aid workers in order to provide the aid themselves (to win over locals to their cause). They also attempt prisoner swaps by offering to trade their hostages for prisoners held by the government.

The most dangerous groups include FARC (Colombia), ISIS (Syria and Iraq), Boko Haram (Nigeria), Taliban (Pakistan and Afghanistan) and Al Shabab (Somalia).

Governments – Often use detention as a way to hide illegal or suspect activities. In Iran, an American woman was working with Iranian professors to organize a cultural exchange program for Iranian students. Without notice, she was arrested and accused of subversion to overthrow the government. In a separate incident, a journalist was thrown in jail for not presenting proper credentials when he entered the country.

“Government allegations against detainees vary but in most cases are unfounded or untrue,” said Dunlap. “Often these detentions are attempts to prevent the monitoring of elections or conducting inspections.”

Even local city and town governments present an increased detention risk. In one recent case, a local manager of a foreign company was arrested in order to try and force a favorable settlement in a commercial dispute.

Ideology-driven terrorists – Extremist groups such as Boko Haram and ISIS are grabbing most of today’s headlines with their public displays of ultra-violence and unwillingness to compromise. The threat from these groups is particularly dangerous because their motives are based on pure ideology and, at the same time, they seek media exposure as a recruiting tool.

These groups don’t care who they abduct — journalist, aid worker, student or private employee – they just need hostages.

“The main idea here is to shock people and show how governments and businesses are powerless to protect their citizens and employees,” observed Dunlap.

Mitigating the Risks

LIU_BrandedContentEven if no ransom demands are made, an LIU kidnap and ransom policy will deliver benefits to employers and their employees encountering a detention scenario.

For instance, the policy provides a hostage’s family with salary continuation for the duration of their captivity. For a family who’s already dealing with the terror of abduction, ensuring financial stability is an important benefit.

In addition, coverage provides for security for the family if they, too, may be at risk. It also pays for travel and accommodations if the family, employees or consultants need to travel to the detention location. Then there are potential medical and psychological care costs for the employee when they are released as well as litigation defense costs for the company.

LIU coverage also includes expert consultant and response services from red24, a leading global crisis management assistance firm. Even without a ransom negotiation to manage, the services of expert consultants are vital.

“We have witnessed a marked increase in wrongful detentions involving the business traveler. In some regions of the world wrongful detentions are referred to as “business kidnappings.” The victim is often held against their will because of a business dispute. Assisting a client who falls victim to such a scheme requires an experienced crisis management consultant,” said Jack Cloonan, head of special risks for red24.

Without coverage, the fees for experienced consultants can run as high as $3,000 per day.

Pre-Travel Planning

LIU_BrandedContent

Given the growing threat, it is more important than ever to be well versed about the country your company is working in. Threats vary by region and country. For example, in some locales safety dictates to always call for a cab instead of hailing one off the street. And in other countries it is never safe to use public transportation.

LIU’s coverage includes thorough pre-travel services, which are free of charge. As part of that effort, LIU makes its crisis consultants available to collaborate with insureds on potential exposures ahead of time.

Every insured employee traveling or working overseas can access vital information from the red24 website. The site contains information on individual countries or regions and what a traveler needs to know in terms of security/safety threats, documents to help avoid detention, and even medical information about risks such as pandemics, etc.

“Anyone who is a risk manager, security director, CFO or an HR leader has to think about the detention issue when they are about to send people abroad or establish operations overseas,” Dunlap said. “The world is changing. We see many more occasions where governments are getting involved in detentions and insurgent/terrorist groups are growing in size and scope. It’s the right time for a discussion about detention risks.”

For more information about the benefits LIU kidnap and ransom policies offer, please visit the website or contact your broker.

Liberty International Underwriters is the marketing name for the broker-distributed specialty lines business operations of Liberty Mutual Insurance. Certain coverage may be provided by a surplus lines insurer. Surplus lines insurers do not generally participate in state guaranty funds and insureds are therefore not protected by such funds. This literature is a summary only and does not include all terms, conditions, or exclusions of the coverage described. Please refer to the actual policy issued for complete details of coverage and exclusions.

SponsoredContent
BrandStudioLogo
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty International Underwriters. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.




LIU is part of the Global Specialty Division of Liberty Mutual Insurance.
Share this article: