So what’s going on? There are a couple of possible explanations. In many cases, the accommodation is a private residence, not subject to the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or its state equivalents. Because a private residence is not subject to the ADA, the accommodation in question may not be accessible to someone in a wheelchair or with limited mobility, and the rejection might be a legitimate and permissible act.
Sometimes, however, the rejection may be a matter of illegal bias. Although Airbnb as an organization may not be biased, its design allows individual property-owners to act on their biases. Airbnb is certainly aware of the problem and has taken significant steps to curb the potential for bias, including introducing a non-discrimination policy in September 2016, and taking steps to better handle complaints of discrimination. Nevertheless, discrimination persists because bias continues to exist.
What does this mean to you if you are an employer? For corporate travel programs learning to embrace the sharing economy, it’s important to keep potential discrimination issues in mind when developing travel policies. Although most workplaces don’t require employees to use Uber, Lyft or Airbnb, any such policies should be examined to ensure that no employee is forced to use a service they believe subjects them to discrimination. If your workplace does require employees to use a sharing platform for corporate travel, it is important to have procedures in place so that employees can seek help addressing any discriminatory treatment and assistance remedying any such problems. Finally, corporate travel managers may want to do their own research to provide employees with options. The website for Accomable, for example, says it has over 1100 listings for accessible accommodations in over 60 countries.
Taking affirmative steps to address bias and discrimination will go a long way towards demonstrating to your workforce that you take their concerns seriously, and will ultimately lead to a more satisfied workforce (not to mention keeping you out of hot water as well).
]]>Regardless of convenience or demand, organizations’ primary concern should be for the safety of their employees.
The evolving risks associated with this model raise the big question of liability, but additional complexities, such as regulatory issues, will create new legal challenges. This sector and its risks are certainly on the insurance industry’s radar, but so far the response has not been uniform.
Now, new exposures are on the horizon as these models move from the consumer space into the business-to-business (B2B) space. New applications are being targeted to the businesses class and business professionals, and these new offerings are likely to establish more formal relationships between organizations and service providers—thereby increasing the threat.
For example, an organization may be considering partnering with a rideshare program for business to save costs normally associated with car service and transportation. Or employees may be interested in using a home share service while traveling on business, rather than a company-approved hotel.
While the appeal seems obvious, these types of scenarios can raise the threat level for organizations today. Regardless of convenience or demand, organizations’ primary concern should be for the safety of their employees.
Before engaging these kinds of services, risk managers would do well to consider the following:
The challenges associated with the sharing economy may still in their infancy, but trends tied to technology and consumer behavior tend to move rapidly. The risk management community needs to collaborate to get out ahead of this emerging risk.
]]>Under Browning-Ferris, the NLRB has shifted the joint-employer standard and increased the risk that employers could be liable for claims and actions against the entities with whom they contract. In the decision, the Board “restated” that it may find that “two or more entities are joint employers of a single workforce” if they essentially share or co-determine matters that govern the essential terms and conditions of employment. After restating this general principle, however, the NLRB proceeded to expand the standard for assessing joint employer status, and to overrule legal precedent it had been following for the past 30 years.
The case involved Browning-Ferris Industries, which operates a recycling facility and staffs its operation with about 60 of its own employees and an additional 240 workers contracted through a staffing agency, Leadpoint Business Services. When a local union filed a petition to represent Leadpoint’s employees, it argued that Browning-Ferris was a joint employer with Leadpoint, and should, therefore, be required to engage in collective bargaining with the union with respect to the Leadpoint workers.
The Board supported the union’s argument, holding that the Board would no longer require that an employer actually exercise authority over workers’ terms and conditions of employment and that the mere possession of such authority was sufficient to make an employer a joint employer. Conditions of employment include such issues as hiring, firing, wages, scheduling, discipline, supervision and direction of work. The Board also overturned its prior requirement that a joint employer’s control must be exercised directly and immediately. Control reserved in a contract or exercised indirectly, through an intermediary, may now establish joint-employer status.
Why Does Browning-Ferris Matter?
Browning-Ferris does not mean that every employer who uses contract labor will now be found to be a joint employer. In fact, other agencies besides the NLRB apply varying joint-employer standards under particular statutes and regulations, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which addresses issues of discrimination, and the Fair Labor Standards Act, which addresses wage and hour issues. Those agencies and the courts may or may not be influenced by the NLRB decision.
But a company should care about Browning-Ferris and its implications for joint-employer status if it contracts with other entities, such as staffing agencies, subcontractors, and franchisees, to deliver, develop or manufacture certain of its goods and services or perform functions like those typically performed by the company’s employees. Under the new test, if the contract reserves the right to control or specify any of the terms or conditions of employment, even if the company does not exercise those rights, there is now a real likelihood that a company could be a joint employer, at least for collective bargaining purposes.
Hospitality is an industry that should be particularly attentive to the NLRB decision because many hotel operators supplement their workforce with, for example, temporary banquet staff, valet attendants, cleaning crews, or engineering staff for remodels and upgrades. Many owners seek to control some hiring and staffing decisions of the management company. Moreover, most hotels in the U.S. are operated by franchisees of the brands. In an effort to control quality, service, and uniform standards, operators or franchisors may wish to have input on which workers are hired or assigned to their worksites, staffing levels, or how work is performed. Such control may be reserved in the contract even if not enforced, and the NLRB has clearly stated that the mere reservation of these rights is sufficient to find a company is a joint employer.
To reduce the possibility of joint-employer status and liability, companies should consider the following suggested best practices when franchising or hiring a staffing agency, contractor or vendor to provide employees:
View the original article here.
]]>