Category Archives: Health and Wellness

Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

From Westeros to Government and Business, Women Have Less Voice

Posted on by

In the final, contentious season of HBO’s fantasy epic “Game of Thrones,” two powerful queens face off in a battle for control over the entire known world. Meanwhile, other formidable female characters outmaneuver their rivals to command entire kingdoms and (spoiler alert) strike the blow that saves humanity from eternal darkness. But looking solely at on-screen speaking time, you’d never know that women were main characters and, arguably, the show’s driving force. According to Statista, women on the show got just 22% of the speaking time in the last season, and only cracked 30% in one of the show’s eight seasons.

Of course, this kind of imbalance is hardly confined to the fictional world. Recently, Montreal city official Sue Montgomery made headlines for vividly illustrating the issue in the city’s monthly executive committee meetings. Montgomery tracked the difference in the amount of time that men and women spoke by knitting in red when men were speaking and in green when women did. The resulting product is overwhelmingly red with occasional smatterings of green. In response to questions on Twitter about the committee’s gender makeup, Montgomery noted that the committee is far more balanced, comprising 31 women and 34 men.

The concepts of “mansplaining” (when men condescendingly explain something to women) and acknowledging that men often talk over women in both professional and personal settings are now increasingly familiar and more widely discussed cultural issues. In fact, Merriam-Webster officially added “mansplaining” to the dictionary in March 2018. There is even a website called arementalkingtoomuch.com, which helps users track these disparities during meetings or social situations by clicking a button when “a dude” is talking and another when “not a dude” is talking.

A 2017 study by research company Prattle did just that, examining 155,000 business conference calls from the past 19 years, finding that men dominated the meetings by speaking 92% of the time. The study also found that women’s remarks in these meetings largely focused on investor relations staff introductions and not as much substantive contributions. While studies have shown that men far outnumber women in corporate leadership positions, as with the Montreal city meetings, Prattle CEO Evan Schnidman noted that the statistics on talking time do not necessarily correlate to the rate at which men outnumber women in the room. Indeed, Schnidman said, “Male executives provide significantly more verbose answers to analyst questions than their female counterparts.”

Gender diversity in corporate settings is hardly just about optics or legal requirements, it also offers broader benefits for employees and their employers that can pose critical advantages. For example, as discussed in “Pale, Stale and Male: Does Board Diversity Really Matter?” in Risk Management, McKinsey & Company found that companies with higher gender diversity in their board rooms are 21% more likely to have “above-average profitability” than those with lower rates. Efforts focusing on equitable representation particularly continue to lag with regard to women of color, who are the least represented group in every corporate setting except entry-level positions.

However, the cases above indicate that a balance of men and women in the room may not be enough, leading more people to discuss how their companies can promote both diversity and inclusion in their workplaces. In addition to focusing on diversity of those in the room, employers should be taking steps to ensure that they are facilitating a diversity of voices as well. Creating environments that encourage more women to voice their opinions can foster different perspectives and more innovation, and promote employee loyalty, engagement and well-being.

McDonald’s Sued for Sexual Harassment at Franchises

Posted on by

This week, 25 women in 20 cities across the United States brought sexual harassment charges and lawsuits against fast food giant McDonald’s with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that the company has neglected its duty to protect employees from harassment. In fact, the women claim, the company has often punished those who have spoken out against abuses, including cutting their hours and revoking promotion or training opportunities.

These are hardly the first claims that female workers have brought against the restaurant chain. In the past 10 years, the EEOC has filed multiple lawsuits against McDonald’s for allegations related to sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior at franchises across the country. In May 2018, 10 women filed harassment complaints, including “alleged groping, propositions for sex, indecent exposure and lewd comments by supervisors,” according to the Associated Press. They too alleged that they faced negative consequences when they objected to these abuses. Workers also launched strikes to protest against sexual harassment and other inappropriate treatment in May 2015 in Chicago and September 2018 in 10 cities.

These lawsuits correspond with a planned strike on Thursday, May 23, to protest low wages and the company’s refusal to get involved with franchises’ pay decisions and negotiations, as well as workers’ ability to create a union. The wider protest movement Fight for 15 (named for their demand for a $15 minimum wage) has backed the sexual harassment claims and lawsuits, as have the National Women’s Law Center’s Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, the ACLU, and several law firms.

Because it operates on a franchise basis, McDonald’s has said that it has no responsibility or liability for any abuses (or wage decisions) at individual locations—that it is not a “joint employer” with its franchises, and franchise employees are not direct McDonald’s employees. In April, the Trump administration announced that it would reverse Obama-era interpretations of what qualified as a joint employer, which had made chains more liable for labor violations at their franchises. The Trump administration change is still in the proposal stage, but could clarify who can be held responsible for sexual harassment and wage disputes, relying on four factors: who can hire/fire the employee, who has control over work schedules, who sets pay rates and who maintains employment records. This change could make chain companies significantly less responsible for conduct at their franchises.

McDonald’s has stated that it provides comprehensive policies and training to help franchises prevent sexual harassment. The company also said that it has brought in experts to help “evolve” those processes, and set up an anonymous hotline to report harassment. However, advocates say that without visible enforcement of its policies, these steps are not enough. Workers at low-paying jobs, including fast food, are uniquely vulnerable to harassment and other workplace abuses. One 2016 study found that 40% of female fast food workers had been sexually harassed in the workplace, and that this was “substantially higher than in workplaces overall.” Additionally, the study found that 42% of female fast food workers who were harassed in their workplace “feel forced to accept it because they can’t afford to lose their job,” 21% said they faced negative professional consequences after reporting the inappropriate behavior, and 45% said they experienced physical and mental health problems as a result of workplace harassment.

As Risk Management has covered before, no matter what the industry, companies and their HR departments have the obligation to keep their employees safe from workplace harassment, and should implement strict HR policies to address it. These policies should include clear reporting guidelines (not just to tell an immediate supervisor, who is often the person harassing the employee) and strong disciplinary measures, as well as mandatory and regular anti-harassment training. For risk management and HR professionals reviewing their existing policies, these tips can help ensure they foster a workplace culture in which reporting harassment is encouraged and illegal or inappropriate conduct is swiftly and effectively investigated and punished.

Japanese Companies Look to Cut Costs by Curbing Smoking

Posted on by

Concerned about lost productivity and higher employee healthcare costs, many employers are taking serious steps to eliminate smoking among employees. In Japan, a number of companies and educational institutions are now even basing hiring decisions on whether an applicant smokes.

Some scientific evidence suggests that employers’ concerns about the added costs costs are valid. A 2018 study conducted by Ohio State University found that smokers in the U.S. cost private sector employers an average of $5,816 extra per year, excluding additional costs that the employees themselves may pay. These employer costs include “excess absenteeism,” “presenteeism” (lower productivity on the job), “smoking breaks,” “excess healthcare costs” and “pension benefits,” with time devoted to smoking breaks making up the majority of costs. Stopping smoking eliminates lost time for smoke breaks entirely, unlike other high-cost factors like healthcare and absenteeism, which could continue after an employee stops smoking.

Smoking is more prevalent in Japan than in the United States, especially for men.

online pharmacy lipitor with best prices today in the USA

Although the rate has been falling steadily, a 2018 national study showed that 28.2% of men and 9% of women in Japan smoke, compared to 15.8% of men and 12.2% of women in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In April, more than 20 Japanese companies signed onto a corporate partnership to promote anti-smoking steps. Starting in spring 2020, for example, insurance company Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Himawari will not hire any new employee who smokes, and will require its high-level officials to sign a document pledging not to smoke during work hours. The private sector in Japan is not alone in pushing for less employee smoking—Nagasaki University announced last month that it would stop hiring faculty who smoke and banned smoking on campus, and Oita University has “put priority on nonsmokers” when hiring.

Part of this effort is incentivizing quitting.

online pharmacy periactin with best prices today in the USA

Employees who quit smoking at Japanese company Rohto Pharmaceutical Co., for example, get tokens they can use at the company cafeteria or for other benefits. Marketing firm Piala Inc. is also offering an extra 6 paid days off to non-smoking employees, and 4 of its 42 smokers have reportedly quit smoking thus far.

While programs to incentivize quitting may seem intuitive, according to Ohio State’s Micah Berman, lead author of the school’s study, these efforts may also be pricey for employers. “Employers should be understanding about how difficult it is to quit smoking and how much support is needed,” he said.
buy flagyl online https://royalcitydrugs.com/flagyl.html no prescription

“It’s definitely not just a cost issue, but employers should be informed about what the costs are when they are considering these policies.” These can include the costs of direct incentives like the ones noted above, or the additional healthcare cost of prescription drugs or counseling to help quit. However, in the long-term, companies that implement cessation programs—especially those that have a large number of smoking employees to start—are likely to see the benefits outweigh initial investment costs within 4 years.

Companies may save money by encouraging employees to quit smoking, especially in lost time and healthcare spending, but they should examine the costs and benefits of instituting formal or informal policies to change their employees’ habits. Running afoul of legal protections, as well as making workplaces unfriendly to employees who smoke, being perceived as interfering with employees’ activities outside of work and other considerations may outweigh employers’ concerns for their workers’ health and excess spending.

Japanese companies have stated that they believe these steps are legal, and some U.

online pharmacy solosec with best prices today in the USA

S.-based companies, including Scotts Miracle-Gro and Weyco, Inc., have reportedly made similar efforts to discourage their workforces from smoking. Some companies in the U.S. may be unable to explore such potential programs, however. According to legal experts, “around half of [U.S.] states currently legally protect employees from being denied positions, or having employment contracts terminated, due to tobacco use.”

Understanding Insurance Coverage for Traveling Employees

Posted on by

BOSTON—The odds of dying in a terrorist attack: 1 in 9.3 million. The odds of getting sick while traveling: 1 in 2. But both should concern companies sending their employees around the world for business, panelists Kathleen Ellis of CNA International, Erin Wilk of Facebook and Andrew Miller of International SOS said at a RIMS 2019 panel titled “Is Insurance Enough When Employees Travel?”

The answer to this question, the panel agreed, was emphatically “no.” But, as Ellis and Wilk noted, insurance coverage is an important part of the equation for many of the biggest things that do go wrong. Even though the risk of catastrophic incident is minor compared to seemingly mundane travel concerns like weather and petty theft, companies should still prepare for the worst in advance.

This is true whether employees are going to common destinations within the United States traditionally thought of as safe or to less familiar places.

buy zydena online https://ozgurmd.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/zydena.html no prescription pharmacy

It is also true, Wilk said, whether the employee is an experienced traveler (who can be over-confident) or a novice (who can over-prepare and miss warning signs around them).

The panelists repeatedly stressed that companies should approach travel risk with protecting employees as their priority. Not only do companies have a “duty of care” (a legal responsibility to mitigate the risks traveling employees face), but they also need to be cognizant of the “standard of care” and “duty of loyalty.” Standard of care is the industry standard for employees’ travel risk protection, and companies’ obligation to meet that standard.

Duty of loyalty is the employees’ responsibility to abide by the safety measures the company has put in place. As recently discussed in Risk Management, this is largely on the employee, but the panel noted that employers also have a critical role to play in creating a culture that enables and encourages their people to take the necessary steps to protect themselves while traveling. As Wilk said, “Policy is a piece of paper. Employee practice is what actually matters.”

When it comes to insurance, companies should make sure they are covered, but not over-covered. For example, Miller discussed cases in which companies’ benefits, HR and legal department have all purchased travel coverage without communicating their purchases to the other departments. Businesses may also be unfamiliar with the coverage they have and pay to remediate travel problems themselves when their insurance policies would actually cover those issues.

Key insurance options include:

  • Foreign voluntary workers compensation, which covers workers traveling on business in a way similar to traditional workers’ comp, paying for disease, or repatriation or evacuation
  • Business travel accidental death and dismemberment coverage, which works like life insurance and covers both work-related and non-work-related incidents, and is an option for covering employees’ spouses and dependents
  • Kidnap and ransom coverage, which provides pre-trip support, crisis management services during an incident, and reimburses for ransoms paid for kidnapping extortion, wrongful detention and hijacking
  • Expatriate medical, which is an option for employees who are traveling long-term, and
  • Defense base act coverage, which handles government contractors overseas at embassies and military bases

The panelists also emphasized that travel risk not only endangers employees’ well-being, but also the company’s bottom line. If an employee gets sick while traveling for business, for example, the company’s investment in the trip can be wasted. Additionally, traveling employees who feel unsafe or unprepared for the risks they are facing feel less loyal to their company, and can also be distracted, potentially derailing the important business they are traveling to conduct. The panel urged that pre-trip training and a thorough understanding of the company’s existing coverage are the best ways to mitigate these risks and help employees succeed when traveling for work.