TO GOOGLE OR NOT DURING THE HIRING PROCESS?

Thanks to the widespread popularity of social network sites like Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and LinkedIn, it's easier than ever to find personal information about an individual. There's little hesitation or forethought as users of these sites post everything from their vacation schedules and photos to the most mundane and taboo details of their personal lives. Such information might be intended for the user's friends and family, but, in many cases, anyone with access to the Internet can see it if they're looking.

The information an employer can uncover about an existing or potential employee from a simple Google search is often far more detailed and reflective of real life than a job application, resume, and interview combined. On the good side, an employer might find positive articles written by or about an applicant, marks from professional peers, and volunteerism efforts. However, on the bad side, an employer might find unappealing, profane language; graphic videos or pictures; derogatory comments about an employer; or text that clearly shows an unscrupulous demeanor. Good or bad, many of these finding will directly influence an employer's decision to hire or pass.

(...continued)

(...continued from previous page)

Although a quick Google search of a job applicant can be extremely revealing, many employers still wonder if it's wise for them to conduct one.

One complication would be an employer discovering information that would bias and complicate their hiring decision. Let's say an employer does an Internet search on a female applicant, discovers that she has several children, and therefore decides not to hire her because her status as a mother might interfere with her ability to put in extra hours at work. If the applicant was to discover that the search was done by the employer and decide to pursue legal action for discrimination, then the employer could be burdened with proving his hiring decision wasn't based on the applicant's status as a mother.

Another complication would be an employer using an applicant's off-duty, legal activities as a basis for discrimination. Let's say an employer does a search, finds that a male applicant is involved with a political or social cause they don't necessarily agree with, and therefore doesn't hire him. Many states actually have laws prohibiting such employer discrimination, meaning an employer can't legally deny an applicant a position based on political or social views that aren't relevant to his/her work duties and only take place during off-duty hours. There must be a legitimate business reason for the hiring decision.

Federal law requires employers to make a disclosure if they use an applicant's credit history to take adverse actions, and some state laws are similarly requiring employers to disclose any adverse information they find in public records about an applicant. Such disclosures are certainly a costly inconvenience to employers. There's also a question of just how reliable the information is since the information could be pertaining to a different person with the exact same first name and surname as the applicant. Furthermore, it doesn't take 30 minutes for a begrudged or vindictive individual to create a web page to discredit another individual by passing off false, misleading, or distorted information as fact.

The above points certainly show a liability risk for employers doing Internet searches. However, there's also a risk in not thoroughly researching potential employees. Let's say an employer fails to do an Internet search on an employer that later commits a workplace crime. Had the search been done, the employer would've found that the employee had a violent past and criminal inclinations. In such a scenario, the employer could face a lawsuit from the employee's victims for not conducting a thorough evaluation.

When it comes to hiring, the best approach in making an informed, legal business decision is usually to not use one or the other, but rather combine public Internet information with reference checks, interview processes, applications, aptitude testing, and any other credible source of information. Remember, the Internet can be an invaluable hiring tool, but only if used wisely.

DOES THE CGL OFFER ENOUGH POLLUTION COVERAGE?

When the Commercial General Liability policy was formed, the creators did not intend for pollution events to be covered. The effects of these events are very costly, and special policies are required for businesses facing such risks. These special policies are designed by companies that have expertise in pollution events. Routine events are what the CGL form covers. Falls, construction accidents and property damage are some examples of such routine events. Contractors who have accidents that result in irritants, fumes or other harmful substances being released may still receive some coverage from a CGL policy.

It is important for contractors to understand the extent of pollutant coverage. The CGL form extends coverage for pollutants released only on properties not owned, rented or occupied by the general contractor. However, coverage is not extended for personal property. For example, if a contractor accidentally cracks a gas pipeline at a fuel station, coverage may be extended because the contractor does not own, rent or occupy the station. However, if the same contractor knocked over a large oil drum on his own business property, the effects of the incident would not be covered by the policy.

Contractors also have coverage for any pollutants released on a job site that were not provided by them. Consider the previous example. Since the gasoline at the fuel station was brought by a supplier, it was already in the pipelines when the contractor arrived. However, if that same contractor had brought some chemicals to take to the next job site and spilled them while at the station, he would not be covered. Chemicals and pollutants brought by the contractor may only be covered if they were brought for that specific job. If the chemicals were brought for the fuel station job instead of the following one, the spill may be covered. For example, if a contractor is painting inside of a building and others get sick, he is covered. The policy also covers pollution from completed operations. If pipelines carrying damaging chemicals started leaking several months after being installed, the contractor would be covered.

In most construction contracts, the subcontractor's CGL policy must include the general contractor and project owner as additional insureds. The policy does not include pollution incidents occurring at places that were not owned, rented or occupied by an insured. However, exceptions are made for premises belonging to any entity named as an additional insured. This means that subcontractors would not have pollution coverage on most job sites without naming the general contractor and property owner as additional insureds.

Keep in mind that the CGL's pollution coverage is not complete. For example, if a contractor brought a front-end loader to a job site and fluid spilled everywhere, the cleanup would not be covered. In addition to this, the policy does not extend coverage for pollutants released in connection with a contractor's environmental remediation work. It also does not cover such work performed by hired subcontractors. For contractors and subcontractors who do this type of work, a special Pollution Liability policy is required. It is important for all contractors to discuss their operations with an agent. This will help the agent determine whether current coverage is sufficient. If it is not, an agent will be able to recommend insurance products that close any deficiency gaps. Pollution fines and cleanup expenses are very costly, so it is important to be prepared before an incident happens.

MANAGE YOUR WORKERS COMPENSATION CLAIMS

How can managing your Workers Compensation claims process protect every employee?

The first step is to file the claim right away. To this end, have claim forms available to all supervisors. Some companies keep forms near the first aid kit alongside the OSHA log. Management must acknowledge the problem to correct it, so keep good records.

Keep any information regarding preferred doctors networks or nearest emergency care facility with the first aid kit. Maps to these facilities help in crisis management.

Because of the privacy laws, keeping records of employee health concerns (hypertension, diabetes, allergies to medicines) at the ready is tricky at best. Without making the records readily accessible by anyone, they need to be available to supervisors in an emergency.

The insurance company has a depth of claims experience that no insured can have. If not treated properly, some injuries worsen over time. The company has a right to investigate and guide treatment and rehabilitation. A delay in reporting that causes the situation to worsen may create coverage problems. Dutifully report all claims immediately.

Allow the insurance company to investigate the claim. Usually, if the claim results in only medical bills and no lost time, the company will not spend time finding causation; but your company management needs to understand the progression of events that leads to any loss.

Uncover the cause. Were safety appliances, equipment, and personal protection in place and used properly? When the employee was drug tested after the claim, was that an issue?

Use any claim as an opportunity to discuss safety at your next scheduled safety meeting. Discuss the following topics as collateral to the claim:

Assure employees the injury is covered by Workers Compensation and the injured will be cared for properly. If the injured is at work, have them report on the level of care. Discuss the results of the investigation regarding the cause of the loss in neutral terms, but no personal information about the employee. This discussion is about future avoidance, not humiliation. Remind employees of the drug testing policy and explain the policy aims to protect everyone.

If the insurance company investigation implies fraud, fake injury, review safety rules or regulations in a more generic form. Perhaps discuss slips, trips, and falls prevention as opposed to that specific incident.

Risk avoidance is your best measure against Workers Compensation injuries. Maintaining a safety culture with training, meetings, and management leadership keeps a workplace safer. Having proper paperwork and first aid readily available reduces the lost production effect of injuries.

The more prepared you are to handle an injury professionally, the more you protect your workforce. Manage ahead of the crisis with proper planning.