Coronavirus Update 4-28-2020 number 2: Ohio’s reopening plan 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘀 masks for all employees

“Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

 – Ferris Bueller

This morning, I wrote an entire post about the wise policy choice the State of Ohio made in mandating masks or facial covering for everyone entering a business moving forward. Then I conducted a webinar for over 200 people during which I spoke at length about this face-covering requirement.

What happened next? Ohio changed its mind.

Coronavirus Update 4-28-2020: Ohio’s reopening plan includes 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 masks for all employees

Yesterday, Governor DeWine announced his plan to “responsibly” reopen Ohio, which will happen in phases.

• May 1: Healthcare procedures that don't require an overnight hospital stay, dentists, and veterinary offices
• May 4: Manufacturers, distribution, construction, and general office environments
• May 12: Consumer, retail and service providers
• Restaurants, bars, salons, and daycares will remain closed until further notice.

Ohio’s coronavirus microsite has all of the requirements and recommended best practices for each business sector.

Generally, the state is requiring five protocols for all businesses as a condition to reopening:

Coronavirus Update 4-27-2020: Bringing your employees back to work when unemployment pays them more than you do

At 2 pm today, Governor DeWine will announce his plan for restarting Ohio’s economy (currently expected to begin on May 2). One huge issue, however, is how businesses can incent their employees to return to work if unemployment is paying them more than you will.

Including the CARES Act’s $600 unemployment bonus that expires on July 31, an employee earning maximum unemployment benefits from the State of Ohio earns $1,247 per week, the equivalent of an hourly rate of $31.17 or a yearly salary of nearly $65,000. My guess is that most of your employees do not earn this much. It’s one of the worst unintended consequences of the CARES Act—employees are making more money unemployed than they did employed.

Thus, how do you incent your employees to come off unemployment and return to work, either because you are reopening or you need to end their furlough? You can either use the stick or the carrot.

Coronavirus update 4-24-2020: A coronavirus DOL settlement, and listen to me discuss empoyers’ preparations for reopening our economy

It did not take long for the Department of Labor to announce its first-ever settlement of a claimed violation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

The DOL’s press release provides the details:

Coronavirus update 4-23-2020: Your employees walk out in protest over coronavirus-related working conditions. Now what?

This week, Amazon workers are protesting what they view as unsafe working conditions. 300 workers from 50 facilities will skip their scheduled shift to protest Amazon’s treatment of warehouse workers.

According to United for Respect, the worker rights group organizing the protest, says that the Amazon employees are hoping to accomplish the following.

Coronavirus update 4-22-2020: I was (mostly) correct on the intersection between employer-provided paid leave and leave under the FFCRA

Last week I took a stab at making sense of the messy and unclear rules surrounding the substitution of employer-provided leave (which, for the sake of simplicity, I’ll refer to as (“PTO”) for paid sick leave (“EPSL”) and expanded Family and Medical Leave (“EFMLA”) under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

I was (mostly) correct.

Yesterday, the Department of Labor published its 5th set of FAQs discussing the FFCRA. Question 86 squarely addresses and clarifies the intersection between employer-provided paid leave and leave under the FFCRA.

Coronavirus update 4-21-2020: Can and should employers require antibody testing as a return-to-work condition?

We all want to get back to work as safely and as quickly as possible. One thing that would allow us to do this with confidence is widespread antibody testing—a quick blood test to reveal if one carries the COVID-19 antibodies from which an employer can presume exposure, immunity, and a reasonable degree of safety for an employee to return to work.

This testing, however, raises two critical questions.

1/ Can employers legally require it?
2/ Should employers rely on it as an indicia of safety?