PESH/OSHA Standards: Information for Workers

[Excerpt] Health and safety for union members on the job is a top priority for the Public Employees Federation. Our members face the risk of on-the-job injuries every working day. It is a known fact that the injury and illness rates for public employees far exceed that of private sector employees. Our union’s Health and Safety Department has prepared this handbook to assist PEF members in recognizing the workplace hazards that are most frequently cited by PESH and OSHA. This handbook gives you an overview of the standards related to those hazards as well as a reference guide to do any further research

2009 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Enacted in 2004, Public Law 108-375 also created an Office of the Ombudsman (the Office) and urged the Secretary of Labor to take appropriate action to ensure that it be an independent Office within the Department of Labor (DOL), including independence from the other officers and employees of the DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provision of the EEOICPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(d). The Secretary of Labor appointed an Ombudsman in February 2005, and the Office submitted its first report to Congress covering calendar year 2005 on February 15, 2006. When initially created, the duties of the Office only extended to Part E. On October 28, 2009, Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, expanded the authority of the Office to also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The day to day activities of the Office are driven by two goals; 1) to provide information and assistance to claimants and potential claimants regarding the EEOICPA; (2) to provide opportunities for claimants and potential claimants to express their complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance concerning this program. In achieving these goals, the Office: Engages in outreach – We sponsor town hall meetings, as well as attend other meetings, forums and workshops where we discuss the EEOICPA and its requirements. This year, with the assistance of the efforts of a task force comprised of many of the agencies involved with the EEOICPA we were able to attend 20 outreach meetings in 11 different cities. Clarifies/explains documents and procedures – The EEOICPA can be very complicated and decisions are oftentimes based on very technical medical, scientific and/or legal concepts. We are contacted by claimants who find it difficult to comprehend these concepts. In addition, there are a many nuances to this program – for example for many of the “rules” there is at least one exception. Some claimants need assistance “steering the right course” as they proceed with their claim. Receives complaints, grievances and requests for assistance – Individuals with pending claims; individuals whose claims were denied; as well as some individuals whose claims were awarded, contact the Office or attend our town hall meetings, to voice complaints and grievances with this program. We are also contacted on occasion by claimants who have complimentary comments concerning the program – usually complimenting the services provided by individuals associated with the program. Provides assistance – It is rare when we are contacted by an individual who simply wants to voice a complaint. Most individuals contact us because they are seeking assistance with their claim. In some instances, we are asked to explain a word or decision. On other occasions, we are asked to provide assistance locating necessary records, or our input is sought on how to proceed with a claim. Inasmuch as many claimants do not have access to computers, we also frequently provide public information such as copies the Site Exposure Matrices; Site Profiles; listing of the 22 cancers covered for purposes of Special Exposure Cohorts, etc. Within the limits of our authority and resources, we assist claimants however we can. The report that follows is a synthesis of the many e-mails, letters, telephone calls, faxes, and face to face conversations that members of this staff had over the past year

2012 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Public Law 108-375 not only repealed Part D and established Part E it also created the Office of the Ombudsman (the Office). The law urged the Secretary to ensure the independence of the Office within DOL, including independence from other officers and employees of DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provisions of EEOICPA. Public Law 108-375 also contained an express sunset date, terminating the requirement for the Office on October 28, 2007. On October 22, 2007, shortly before the sunset provision was to take effect, former Secretary Chao issued a Memorandum determining that the Department of Labor should continue to have an Office of the Ombudsman in the event that the statutory requirement expired. This Memorandum took effect on October 28, 2007. Subsequently, on January 28, 2008, Section 3116 of the FY08 Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 110-181, effectively reinstated the statutory requirement for the Office by extending the sunset date until October 28, 2012. On October 24, 2012, shortly before the October 28, 2012 sunset date, former Secretary Solis signed a Memorandum continuing the Office under the authority of the previous Memorandum signed on October 22, 2007. EEOICPA outlines three duties for the Office: Provide information about the benefits available under Part B and Part E and on the requirements and procedures applicable to the provision of such benefits; Make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the location of resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims under Part B and E; and Carry out such other duties as the Secretary specifies. See 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(c). In addition, 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(e) requires the Office to submit an annual report to Congress setting forth: The number and types of complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received by the Office during the preceding year, and An assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants during the preceding year

Managing Psychopathic Employees

[Excerpt] What if a small but definable subset of the employee population were responsible for a major share of corporate crime and ethical breaches? If so, then developing policies that target them would improve the firm’s performance, not to mention its ethical climate. In this article I claim that psychopathic employees constitute such a subset, and I suggest human resource policies that can help firms cope with them

Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Benefits and Financing

[Excerpt] Most civilian federal employees who were hired before 1984 are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). Under CSRS, employees do not pay Social Security taxes or earn Social Security benefits. Federal employees first hired in 1984 or later are covered by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). All federal employees who are enrolled in FERS pay Social Security taxes and earn Social Security benefits. Federal employees enrolled in either CSRS or FERS also may contribute to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP); however, only employees enrolled in FERS are eligible for employer matching contributions to the TSP

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA): Workers’ Compensation for Federal Employees

[Excerpt] The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) is the workers’ compensation program for federal employees. Like all workers’ compensation programs, FECA pays disability, survivors, and medical benefits, without fault, to employees who are injured or become ill in the course of their federal employment and the survivors of employees killed on the job. The FECA program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the costs of benefits are paid by each employee’s host agency. Employees of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) currently comprise the largest group of FECA beneficiaries and are responsible for the largest share of FECA benefits. The modern FECA program can trace its roots to 1916 but has not been significantly amended since 1974. Today, the FECA program pays a basic disability benefit equal to two-thirds of an injured worker’s pre-disability wage, which rises to 75% of the pre-disability wage if the worker has any dependents. Benefits continue for the duration of disability or the life of the beneficiary and in cases of traumatic injuries, beneficiaries can receive a continuation of their full pay for the first 45 days. Persons with specific permanent partial disabilities, such as the loss of a limb, are entitled to disability benefits for a set number weeks provided by schedules set by statute and regulation. All medical costs associated with covered conditions are provided by the FECA program without any copayments, cost-sharing, or use of private insurance by the beneficiaries. The survivors of employees killed on the job are entitled to cash benefits based on the worker’s wages and a modest benefit for funeral costs. Beneficiaries are also entitled to vocational rehabilitation services to assist them in returning to work. In the 112th Congress, several committees have held hearings on the FECA program. These hearings have identified several key policy issues facing the program, including the disproportionate share of claims and program costs attributed to postal workers, the payment of FECA benefits after retirement age, the overall generosity of FECA disability benefits as compared with those offered by the states, and the administration of the FECA program. To address some of these policy issues, committees in the House and Senate passed legislation that would make changes to the FECA program. In the House, H.R. 2309 would set financial conditions under which the USPS would be required to create a new workers’ compensation system for its employees. Additional bills, H.R. 2465, passed by the House, and S. 1789, would make changes to the FECA program for all federal employees with the Senate legislation reducing benefit levels for beneficiaries over retirement age and eliminating augmented compensation for dependents. This report will be updated to reflect major legislative activity

Are Exit Interviews Still Worthy for Companies to Invest Time, Money, and Efforts?

[Excerpt] 80% of employees dissatisfied with their supervisors are disengaged, and likely planning their exit (Dale Carnegie Employee Engagement Study). Developing a comprehensive retention strategy starts with assessing the different reasons why employees quit. Employees who leave are also a representative sample of the potential exits as well. Therefore, exiting employees provide insights into the preferences, expectations, and intents of current employees. The method of obtaining this information is equally important. Exit interviews serve as a tool for gathering information from the employees separating from the organization. Interviews are particularly appealing as a feedback instrument in that employees at this transitional stage of their organizational career are likely to be particularly candid about their perceptions of the organization

The role of problem-based learning in developing communication conflict resolving skills among selected non-government organisations in Pakistan

Communication conflicts among employees of the developing organisations in Pakistan have been one of the major issues over the years. The causes are numerous but the efforts to reduce and resolve these conflicts effectively are found to be rare. The objectives of this case study were to examine the nature of communication conflicts predominant among employees at the workplace, explore the role of culture in communication conflicts, identify the perceptions of employees of in-house training using Problem Based Learning (PBL) approach and finally propose a PBL-based training module for developing conflict resolving skills among employees at the work place in Pakistan. This study adopted a Case Study approach. Using purposeful sampling, it involved forty Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) employees from different parts of Pakistan. The data emerged from three instruments involving semi-structured interviews, surveys and observations to examine the nature of communication conflicts among employees and see the impact of PBL training on the soft skills of respondents. Interview and observation data were transcribed and analysed through thematic analysis while the data from the survey was computed through descriptive statistics using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The findings from this study show the existence of different type of communication conflicts among employees in the developing organisations. The result shows the substantial role of PBL in developing conflict resolving skills and other essential soft skills among employees as a whole. The finding concludes that PBL plays an instrumental and effective role towards improving the various soft skills and traits including among employees of an NGO sector

Analysis: Reversal of NLRB’s Certification of \u27Craft-Like\u27 Bargaining Unit, 1979

The case of lithographic production employees (craft employees) and printing companies