Employee – HRM Now! by Top Hat

Independent versus Dependent

March 10, 2020 by rmcfadden

When HR professionals see the words “independent versus dependent,” it may give many of them vague flashbacks to a psychology or statistics course that they took, but all HR professionals should brush up on these terms, because they are vitally important in the new world of gig employment.

Let’s refresh our memory banks on what an independent versus dependent contractor is in the HR world. According to the Ontario Ministry of Labour (MOL), an “independent contractor” is defined as the following:

“An independent contractor is someone who is in business for themselves. An individual may be considered an independent contractor, and not covered by the [Employment Standards Act], when at least some of the following applies:

the business can end the individual’s contract for services, but cannot discipline the individual
the individual:
- has the opportunity to make a profit and has a risk of losing money from the work
- determines how, when or where the work is performed
- decides whether to subcontract some of the work”

It is important that HR professionals know the status of individuals doing work or providing services for their organization. They need to determine if the employees are independent or dependent contractors, as each category has significant laws and liabilities that pertain to them.

According to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA), a “dependent contractor” is defined as:

“A person who performs work or services for another person for compensation or reward on such terms and conditions that the dependent contractor is in a position of economic dependence upon, and under an obligation to perform duties for, that person more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.”

The key wording to note from the definition above is “more closely resembling the relationship of an employee.” It is that wording that makes all the difference and places legal liabilities on the employers to the employees, such as ensuring minimum wage, vacation pay, and safety.

There was a recent ruling by the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that Foodora Workers were to be considered dependent contractors and not independent contractors.

This was a case with a ruling that was precedent setting, similar to the one in California, where Uber drivers were to be considered employees and not independent contractors.

This new OLRB ruling allows Foodora workers the right to unionize, and if the union is successful in organizing Foodora workers, it may drastically change employees’ rights and benefits, not only for Foodora workers but all gig economy workers in Canada.

All HR professionals should brush up on the legal definitions of “employee,” “independent contractor,” and “dependent contractor” in their jurisdiction, and conduct an audit to see if there could be potential liabilities in the near future for their organization.

Discussion Questions:

1. Research the Labour Relations laws in your jurisdiction. Identify the definitions of “employee,” “independent contractor,” and “dependent contractor.” Prepare a three-minute presentation, which highlights the differences.

2. Imagine you have just been hired by Uber to review the latest OLRB ruling on Foodora workers. What recommendations would you make to the senior leadership HR team at Uber to help them reduce their legal HR liabilities?

Monitoring Performance Matters

March 15, 2017 by esoostar

Curious corporate businesswoman skeptically meeting looking at small employee standing on table through magnifying glass isolated grey office wall background. Human face expression attitude perception — pathdoc/Shutterstock

Through the course of our Human Resources studies, we have learned that effective performance appraisal systems for employees depend on continuous feedback and constant monitoring. Good performance management on the part of the employer includes a process of employee engagement and should not be viewed as a singular, one-time only performance appraisal event.

High quality performance management systems, therefore, require a very high level of commitment and involvement on the part of the employer. This can be difficult to implement, especially in a large workforce where employees are spread across all levels of the physical work-space. Most employers simply do not have the time or the resources that allow for such intense day-to-day performance management methods.

This is where technology can step in to provide much needed support. Humanyze, a U.S. based technology provider, has developed wearable technology that tracks employee speech levels, tone of voice and body movements. While seemingly intrusive, if implemented properly these devices allow for immediate feedback to employees about their own behavioural patterns. This type of self-monitoring may have an impact on performance levels, without the need for constant intervention on the part of an individual manager.

Click here to read an article on wearable technology.

Click here to read how wearable technology is linked to monitoring employee performance.

As noted in the second article, these devices allow for data analysis based on patterns of employee behaviours. The data analysis can be used to promote constructive changes in the workplace that create opportunities for increased performance resulting in increased productivity and reduced levels of stress.

All of these have a direct impact on the organization’s bottom line and, as we know, the better the bottom-line – the better the rewards for the organization’s humans.

Discussion Questions:

From a Human Resources perspective, what benefits do wearable technology bring to support constructive performance management practices?
What are the negative implications of wearable technology in the workplace?
Would you be comfortable wearing monitoring technology in your current workplace?

Perilous Productivity

September 7, 2016 by esoostar

productivity chart sign on blackboard — woaiss/Shutterstock

In our strategic HR planning discussions, we focus heavily on the cost-benefit relationships of Human Resources operations to the organization. Using the human capital approach, the value that employees as a commodity bring into any organization is linked directly to the output that is produced for the organization. We assess employee value by ensuring that human productivity is constantly measured, evaluated and monitored as part of a best practice approach to human resources management.

It all makes sense from a pure HR planning perspective. When we move from theoretical planning to actual implementation, however, the human element of the human resources equation pops up again to remind us that we are always dealing with people, not just products.

In a recent research article the authors explore the negative impact of the incessant need modern organizations have to monitor employee productivity.

Click here to read the article.

As noted in this article, it seems that the Human Resources function has been trapped into measuring and promoting policies that contribute to increased employee anxiety. Increased employee anxiety leads to lower productivity and more employee dis-engagement. Are we, as HR professionals, responsible for contributing to the ‘mirage’ of successful productivity by avoiding the real implications of constant workplace pressure on our fellow human beings? In an effort to measure what people do, are we also contributing to the mechanism of who gets blamed when the results of what is measured go wrong?

Human Resources champions have fought long and hard for a seat at the corporate table. We argue that Human Resources has the strategic edge to brings the business numbers and the people numbers together so that decision-making produces organizational benefit. While our Human Resources champions do not want to give up that seat or that fight, we must be reminded of why we wanted to contribute to organizational success in the first place.

We represent the Humans in any organization. Human Resources must champion human achievement and organizational success, but not at the cost of worsening the human condition in the workplace.

Discussion Questions:

What types of employee productivity measures do you think contribute to increased employee anxiety?
Why would organizations (like the example of Volkswagen mentioned in the article) knowingly engage in the ‘misrepresentation’ of productivity data?
In your opinion, does an ‘accountability culture’ breed a trust environment in the workplace? Why or why not?

Swan Song for the Public

November 10, 2015 by esoostar

By the time this blog is posted, the Canadian federal election will be a thing of the past. One of the more interesting moments that happened during the election campaign was the suspension of a Federal employee, Tony Turner, for writing a song about Prime Minister Steven Harper.

Mr. Turner provides his perspective on what happened in an interview with MetroNews.

As with many things that did not go as planned during the recent election campaign, the suspension of Mr. Turner received international media and extensive social media coverage.

The suspension brings forward very interesting questions about the employment boundaries that may or may not exist for employees in the public service. They are employees of the federal government, which is led by the Prime Minister of Canada. There is generally an accepted understanding that employees should not cause harm to or malign the reputation of their employer in the public domain. In the case of Mr. Turner, does this mean that he should not have made his personal political opinions public? On the other hand, were his actions significant enough to merit a suspension from employment?

It is not surprising that the union representing Mr. Turner filed a grievance in this case. As for the outcome, Mr. Turner retired from his work with the public service sector, which means that there will be no formal resolution to this grievance.

While we all know what the outcome to the federal election was, we will never know what the outcome for Mr. Turner through his union, would have been.

Discussion Questions:

Should public sector employees be subject to disciplinary action for voicing or engaging in personal political activities?
What advice would you, as the HR Practitioner for the Prime Minister’s office, give to the Prime Minister in this case?
From the employer’s perspective, what specific factors merited disciplinary action against Mr. Turner?
Do you think employees in the public service have a ‘higher’ duty of responsibility to their employer? Why or why not?