Top 20 Benefits of HR Outsourcing

20) Two million employers in the United States outsource their Human Resource functions to a Professional Employer Organization (PEO).


19) Over a third of employers have external HR Solutions to gain access to world class capabilities and resources they do not have internally.


18) The average median cost to administer HR internally for companies with less than 250 employees is $1,469 per employee per year.


17) Ability to follow a proven path to better employee productivity and engagement.


16) Gain access to accredited management training programs.


15) Third party intervention available for sensitive disciplinary actions.


14) Have HR experts on the more than 40,000 pages of federal employment regulations plus thousands more of state and local regulations.


13) 150,000 lawsuits related to the workplace are currently pending in court against U.S. businesses due to lack of proper Human Resources.


12) The employee prevails in 60% to 70% of all cases that go to trail because of a lack of proper internal HR documentation.


11) The average amount of damages awarded to workers who sue their employers is $650,000, in addition to the average litigation costs of $75,000.


10) Have seasoned professionals guiding you out of the liability minefields of federal and state employment regulations.


9) LAI keeps clients out of trouble and law suits by being proactive and insuring compliance at all levels.


8) Rely on a deep pool of HR expertise totaling almost 100 years of Human Resource experience.


7) Streamline and simplify your Human Resource operations by consolidating many services into one point of contact.


6) Allows you to focus on growing your core business and let us handle your non-core Human Resource fundamentals.


5) Join the 25% plus employers who say they saved money by having an expert manage these administrative aspects of their business.


4) 60% to 80% of an employer’s time is spent on non-productive administration which means a loss of profits and neglecting vital strategic Human Resource opportunities.


3) Gain an entire team supporting your HR needs instead of one or two in-house HR personnel while having access to current best practices.


2) Employees do not have to wait until the in-house contact is available because an entire team will always be ready to help. This makes your team more efficient and productive.


1) Save money while gaining more knowledge and services to compete more effectively in the marketplace.

Recruiting Traps in Social Media

Social Media has become one of the top avenues for companies in their recruiting efforts. The Society for Human Resource Management found that 76 percent of companies used social media sites for recruiting in 2011 and more than half believe that social media is an effective way to recruit candidates.

However, with all the possibilities of social media comes an expansive minefield that can be set off with a wrong step. The problems begin to occur when companies go from sourcing candidates to using social media sites to screen or eliminate candidates based on the information found.

There are three main legal categories to warrant potential disputes.
1) Discrimination. Most people are well aware of the dangers of discrimination and make very conscious efforts to avoid any possible discriminatory practices. However, if you screen a candidate by visiting their social media accounts, you open yourself up to the possibility of receiving large amounts of protected information. Social media sites usually disclose vast amounts of information about a person from their race, gender, age, marital status, religion, politics, disability, etc.

 2) Fair Credit and Reporting Act Regulations. The FCRA provides specific details about requirements of employers and consumer reporting agencies for the screening process. Employers must follow all of these rules very carefully. First and foremost, they must receive permission from the applicant before any pre-employment check. Also, there are specific rules if any information found leads to an adverse hiring decision. Documentation must be kept accurately. The nature of social media makes this difficult to comply because the content is published and controlled by the consumers and can change at any time.

3) Negligent Hiring. It is possible that, if a violent workplace situation occurred in which derogatory information was public on the perpetrator’s social media profiles that could have shown the bad behavior, the employer might become liable for negligence since they did not use the information when the hiring decision was made.

So how can a company reduce these risks? It boils down to three categories you could fall into:
- Deny access to social media for all recruiting purposes
- Only use social media for sourcing candidates
- Use social media throughout the hiring process and create policies and procedures to avoid the dangers. 

For more information on how to avoid the traps in recruiting on social media, call 770.248.0401 or email Todd Weyandt at todd@laihr.com.

Who Owns Your Twitter Account?

Who owns content published on social media sites?

Now, before you answer the question it is not as cut and dry as you may think. In fact, nobody is 100 percent sure of the answer. There are few laws and decided court cases that can help reach a definitive answer. In the meantime, the amount of lawsuits being filed is increasing as employers and former employees fight over Twitter handles and followers.

When looking at Twitter ownership, the function of the site is crucial. What is the primarily reason for the site? Is it to share personal information and occasionally pass along a company article? Or, is it to drive up sales, marketing, branding, etc. for a company? If the site is decidedly for business, the company has a much stronger claim on ownership.

However, a recent example does cast a shadow over the ownership dispute. In September of 2011, a company called PhoneDog Media filed a suit against their former editor-in-chief Noah Kravitz claiming that he unlawfully changed his Twitter handle (name) from @PhoneDog_Noah to @noahkravitz when he left the company. In their claim, PhoneDog said Kravitz owned $340,000 for all of the followers associated with the account ($2.50 for each of the 17,000 followers when he left per month for 8 months).

The question being bounced around in the courts is does PhoneDog have a claim to that Twitter account when Kravitz created and maintained the handle entirely by himself?

To reduce the risks of a messy legal battle like PhoneDog–v–Kravitz, companies need to make their social media policies very clear about their intentions of who owns the content and followers from the beginning. A best practice is to enter into separate agreements with those employees who have Twitter handles and followers that the company claims to own, making sure everybody is on the same page. Leave nothing to assumption or ambiguity in your social media policies.