Latest Research

Explaining idea

  • Workforce Solutions Ecosystem: 2018 Update

    This report is the third update to Staffing Industry Analysts’ Workforce Solutions Ecosystem, initially released in September 2015. It aims to highlight interconnected networks comprising the Staffing Industry and other types of Workforce Solutions and notes the changes to the industry over the last 12 months.  In nature, an ecosystem is a community of living organisms and non-living components interacting as an environmental system. Similarly, businesses operate in a broad and complex network of related and unrelated products and services which interact and compete with each other. Workforce Solutions are third-party products and services relating to the sourcing, engagement and development of employed and non-employed (including contingent) workers. Workforce Solutions includes the Staffing Industry and five other important segments; Talent Acquisition Technology, Process Outsourcing, Payrolling/Compliance, Direct Work Engagement and Other Workforce Solutions. Our 2018 update contains two major revisions to the Ecosystem; New classifications within the Talent Acquisition Technology segment to reflect the categories established within our Talent Acquisition Technology Landscape published in February 2018. Advances in technology have created whole new categories of software to aid talent acquisition and our update better reflects the market as we understand it. The addition of the sub-category ‘Robotics and Robotic Process Automation’ in recognition of the increasing penetration of technology to perform work-related tasks. The addition of this new category has meant that we have re titled the  ‘Contracting/ Consulting’ segment as ‘Direct Work Engagement’. Improvements in technology combined with economic and demographic trends means that, today, the Workforce Solutions Ecosystem is undergoing a period of turbulent change. We are confident that the Ecosystem provides a good representation of the market as it exists today, but we are equally confident that it will require further reviews and updates on a fairly frequent basis, owing to the rapid evolution of technology and globalization. Definitions for all the terms used within this report are given at the back of this document. To download a full copy the report, click below: Workforce Solutions Ecosystem 20181022 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Staffing Executive Compensation Analysis: 2018 Update

    Key FindingsTotal compensation rose by a median 6.5% in 2017 for the two highest-paid executives at a global selection of 41 publicly traded staffing, executive search and other workforce ecosystem firms. Of the firms, 23 were based in the Americas (22 in the US and one in Canada); 17 were based in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (including 10 in the UK); and one from Asia Pacific. In two cases, data on only one executive was available; in another case, one firm lists three executives after two registered the same total compensation.This analysis was undertaken by Equilar, an executive compensation solutions firm, at the request of Staffing Industry Analysts. The median percentage increase in compensation reflects only those executives who had been at their firms for two complete years or more and who had reported compensation.Median total compensation was USD 901,820 in 2017. Americas firms posted the highest median compensation at USD 1.4 million. Firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa posted median compensation at USD 696,175.Total compensation rose a median 8.0% in the Americas and rose 4.5% among firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. There was one Asia-Pacific firm on the list, Ambition Group, and both executives noted decreases in total compensation.The highest-paid executive in the group of 41 publicly traded companies was Jonas Prising, chairman and CEO of ManpowerGroup Inc., with total compensation of almost USD 12 million.The highest-paid executive in terms of total compensation as a percent of market cap was Brendan Flood, chairman and CEO of Staffing 360 Solutions, at 7.31%.To download the complete report, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL - You do not have permission to view this object. To download a spreadsheet with compensation data for both 2017 and 2016, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL_SPREADSHEET - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • North America Legal Update Q3 2018

    In this report, we round up the legal developments affecting the workforce solutions ecosystem across North America in Q3 2018:Canada  Safety Risk Justifies Rejection on Grounds of Medical Marijuana Use  Ontario: Restrictions on Criminal Records Checks Effective November 1, 2018 Ontario: Ford Government to Scrap Bill 148  United States  NLRB Proposed Rule to Reverse Joint Employer Standard  Federal Bills propose Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Clauses as State Bans Continue  California Enacts Job Reference Privilege for Disclosure of Sexual Harassment Investigation  Two More States Enact Salary History Ban  Employer Cannot Rely on Federal Law to Reject Medical Marijuana User  Independent Contractor Classification Proposals at State and Federal Level  Proposed Rules on Pass-Through Tax Published  Federal Contractor Minimum Wage to Rise  DoL Invites Comments on White-Collar Exemptions to Overtime Rule Legal Disclaimer: This update is provided solely for the purposes of information, and should not be considered legal advice. It is always recommended to seek the advice of qualified legal counsel before taking action.To download a pdf copy of this update click below: North America_Legal Update_Q3_20181017 - You do not have permission to view this object. Canada 1.  Safety Risk Justifies Rejection on Grounds of Medical Marijuana UseIn April 2018, in the case of Lower Churchill Transmission Construction Employers' Association Inc and IBEW, Local 1620 an arbitrator concluded it was undue hardship for an employer to accommodate an employee who used medical marijuana for employment in a safety critical role.In this case, Mr. Tizzard, a union member had applied for employment on an infrastructure project with Valard Construction LP, for roles considered safety-sensitive by Valard. Neither job required high levels of training or expertise; however, both involved work with motorised equipment, near heavy equipment, in demanding conditions and often at remote worksites. The company accepted Mr. Tizzard for employment conditional on a satisfactory drug and alcohol test. He tested positive on account of his use of marijuana for his medical condition.As a result of the drug test, Valard was not satisfied that the union member could work safely on the project and rejected him for the two roles. The union filed a grievance claiming that the company wrongfully withheld employment and failed to accommodate a disability.The accommodation process in the case of a worker with a disability requires an employer to consider whether the worker can be offered work, on a meaningful basis, without creating undue risk of harm to either the worker, the employer, other workers or the public. Where there is no alternative work available, undue hardship comes into consideration in the context of a worker’s ability to perform the role safely.The arbitrator stated that although the employer has a primary obligation to consider accommodation options or other job opportunities which were not safety-sensitive, the union also had a role to play in this where they were aware of alternative positions suitable for the worker. The arbitrator summarized previous case law as finding that “in the accommodation of a worker with a disability, it is not required that all risk from that person’s work must be eliminated completely”. However, the employer was entitled to seek further information about the worker’s condition and the type and extent of the medication used to alleviate that condition, and they did this promptly.The arbitrator agreed that Mr. Tizzard had a disability and that the company must accommodate him to the point of undue hardship. However, he did not accept that the doctor’s instructions to the union member not to drive for four hours after using marijuana was sufficient to address the risk. The arbitrator concluded that random drug testing would not be a suitable accommodation because of the lack of any effective and practical means for the employer to accurately measure impairment in the workplace from regular cannabis use outside employment.The arbitrator considered that it was necessary to have specialised training to understand and monitor the effect of Mr. Tizzard’s marijuana use in a given situation and "if the employer cannot measure impairment, it cannot manage risk". This was reinforced by health and safety legislation that prohibited working while impaired and obliged the employer to provide a safe workplace. Accordingly, the arbitrator dismissed the claim.On Oct. 17, 2018 the use of recreational marijuana becomes legal in Canada. However, recreational use in the workplace will continue to be prohibited in Ontario. This decision was reached on the basis the employer was unable to readily measure impairment from cannabis, based on currently available technology and resources. Consequently, the employer’s inability to measure and manage that risk of harm constituted undue hardship. This may provide employers with a similar defense against making accommodation for disabled employees using medical marijuana in safety-sensitive roles. However, each case will turn on its own facts and if alternative positions are available these should first be considered.Currently, there is no specific provision in the Canada Labour Code addressing the use of drugs and alcohol in the workplace. However, the Code does require that employers put in place measures to protect employees from workplace hazards. This may include policies related to impairment including the use of drugs and alcohol. For more information about impairment and cannabis in the workplace refer to the website of the Government of Canada. 2.  Ontario: Restrictions on Criminal Records Checks Effective November 1, 2018On Nov.1, 2018 the Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 comes into force. The Act authorizes Ontario police services to offer three types of records checks: criminal record checks, criminal record and judicial matters checks and vulnerable sector checks. It also sets out limits and standardizes the types of information that are authorized for disclosure in respect of each type of check.The Act applies to persons, including employers, who require a search of the police databases in order to screen an individual for determining his or her suitability for employment, volunteer work or certain other purposes.The police shall not conduct a record check in respect of an individual unless the request contains the individual’s written consent to the particular type of check. Additionally, the Act requires the disclosure of the results to the person to whom a record relates prior to permitting disclosure to a requesting third party. The Act restricts the disclosure of non-conviction information about an individual in response to a criminal record check or in response to a criminal record and judicial matters check. Non-conviction information would be authorized for disclosure only in a vulnerable sector check in cases where an individual is in a position of trust or authority over vulnerable persons (e.g. children or the vulnerable elderly), and only if it meets a new test for "exceptional disclosure."Persons or organizations that wilfully contravene certain provisions of the Act are guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. 3.  Ontario: Ford Government to Scrap Bill 148On Oct. 2, 2018 Ontario’s Premier stated that the government would be “getting rid” of Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act, 2017 which only became law on November 22, 2017. One of the most publicized aspects of Bill 148 was the increase to Ontario’s minimum wage from CAD11.60 to CAD14, followed by a subsequent increase to CAD15 on January 1, 2019. On September 26, 2018, Ontario Labour Minister Laurie Scott announced that the provincial minimum wage would be frozen at the current rate of $14 per hour and that the scheduled increase would not take effect on January 1, 2019.In addition to the increased minimum wage, Bill 148 implemented several labor reforms, such as increased vacation entitlements, increased entitlement to parental leave, paid emergency leave, and equal pay for contract and temporary employees.At the time of writing there were no further details available but employers in Ontario should monitor developments on this. United States 1.  NLRB Proposed Rule to Reverse Joint Employer StandardOn Sept. 14, 2018 the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to reverse the 2015 decision of the NLRB in the Browning-Ferris case. In a controversial majority decision, the Board departed from precedent in concluding that the common law test for joint employment did not require the employer to exercise direct or immediate control over the staffing firm’s employees to be a joint employer. The Board’s ruling created confusion for employers with the new test requiring a factual inquiry in every case to determine if the employer had exercised indirect control sufficient to meet the revised standard.Under the proposed rule, an employer may be found to be a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. Indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority would no longer be sufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.Public comments are invited on all aspects of the proposed rule and should be submitted by Nov. 13, 2018. Details of how to submit comments can be found here. 2.  Federal Bills propose Nationwide Ban on Non-Compete Clauses as State Bans ContinueIn April 2018, two identical bills were introduced to Congress which, if enacted, would for all practical purposes amount to a nationwide ban on employee covenants not to compete post-termination of their employment. House Bill H.R. 5631, the Workforce Mobility Act of 2018 has been referred to the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law and the accompanying Senate Bill of the same name, S.2782, has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. Both bills impose an outright ban and provide a private right of action.Since 2016, eight states have enacted laws restricting the use of non-compete clauses, and five more have proposed legislation either prohibiting non-compete agreements with low wage workers, limiting the length or geographic area or proposing an outright ban.Effective Oct. 1, 2018 Massachusetts passed a law banning employers from entering into non-compete agreements with certain types of employees and establishing minimum requirements for others. The law does not apply to other types of restrictive covenants, such as non-disclosure agreements, non-solicitation agreements, certain agreements applying to the sale of a business, and invention assignment agreements. The law will cover non-compete agreements entered into with Massachusetts residents and Massachusetts employees on or after Oct. 1, 2018 (but not retroactively), including independent contractors.The law prohibits employers from entering non-compete agreements with the following categories of individuals: employees classified as non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act; employees under the age of 18; students working as interns or in other short-term employment; and, employees who are or terminated “without cause” or laid off. All such agreements must be in writing, signed by both the employer and employee; and expressly affirm the employee’s right to consult with counsel prior to signing. In addition, if a non-compete is signed at the commencement of employment, it must be presented to the employee at the time the offer of employment is made or 10 days before the commencement of employment, whichever is earlier. A non-compete agreement signed after the commencement of employment must be “supported by fair and reasonable consideration independent from the continuation of employment.” All non-competes must provide consideration independent from the continuation of employment in the form of “garden leave pay” or some “other mutually-agreed upon consideration.” Agreements that call for garden leave pay require the employer, during the restricted period, to continue paying the former employee an amount defined as “at least 50 percent of the employee’s highest annualized base salary paid by the employer within the 2 years preceding the employee’s termination.”Finally, a non-compete covenant must be reasonable, and the Act specifies the requirements for reasonableness. These are that the covenant must be no broader than necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; not exceed one year in duration; be reasonable in geographic scope; and, be reasonable in the scope of the proscribed activities in relation to the interests protected.Employers operating in more than one state should review their employees’ contracts and take legal advice as to whether any restrictive covenants contained within them comply with the relevant legislation. 3.  California Enacts Job Reference Privilege for Disclosure of Sexual Harassment InvestigationEffective Jan. 1, 2019, California employers will be protected by an additional privilege when providing job references. AB 2770 amends California law regarding common interest privilege for employers’ communications regarding an applicant’s job performance. The law already protects employers from defamation and tortious interference claims if they advise a prospective employer that the applicant was guilty of employee misconduct.AB 2770 specifically provides employers with a defense in a claim brought by an employee for defamation or tortious interference if they also mention that the applicant was the subject of a sexual harassment investigation. Like all defenses, the burden is on the employer to show that the communication was made to a person with a legitimate interest, without malice and the sexual harassment investigation was based on credible evidence.This new law is another example of how the #MeToo movement has prompted lawmakers to address sexual harassment in the workplace. New York State addressed the issue with new laws requiring employers with 15 or more employees to provide training and information on sexual harassment to their staff from Oct. 9, 2018. Meanwhile Maryland’s law outlaws the use of any provision in an employment contract or policy that requires an employee to waive their rights relating to a claim of sexual harassment or retaliation for exercising rights based on actual or potential sexual harassment. Vermont has passed a similar law and it is likely that other jurisdictions will follow suit. 4.  Two More States Enact Salary History BanEffective Jan. 1, 2019 Hawaii and Connecticut join 9 other states in enacting a state-wide ban on asking applicants about their salary history.Employers, employment agencies, and their agents in Hawaii are prohibited from inquiring about an applicant’s “current or prior wage, benefits, or other compensation” and are specifically prohibited from searching publicly available records or reports to ascertain an applicant's salary history. If an applicant “voluntarily and without prompting” discloses their salary history, the information can then be considered in setting compensation for the job, and the employer can verify that information. The law does not apply to applicants “for internal transfer or promotion with their current employer.” The law does not provide specific remedies but amends Hawaii’s anti-discrimination law to apply existing anti-discrimination processes and remedies to violations.Under the new Connecticut law, an “employer” is any individual, corporation, limited liability company, firm, partnership, public corporation, joint stock association, or voluntary association with at least one employee. Along with prohibiting inquiries about wages, which includes rates for tasks or piece work and commission, employers may not ask a prospective employee about the value of other elements of their compensation structure. The law gives prospective employees the right to bring a claim against an employer in court within two years of the alleged violation.Employers using salary history to set compensation must review their recruitment procedures in those states and localities where bans have been enacted. Elsewhere, employers and staffing agencies should exercise caution when discussing compensation with prospective employees and should consider avoiding requests for information about current compensation packages. It seems likely that other states and local governments will follow with prohibitions, so amending hiring practices ahead of any ban may be prudent. 5.  Employer Cannot Rely on Federal Law to Reject Medical Marijuana UserNine states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana, and 32 states have legalized medical marijuana in different circumstances.  A District Court in Connecticut recently had to consider whether such state laws are preempted by federal laws requiring employers to maintain a drug-free workplace. Connecticut’s Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (PUMA) provides an exception from the prohibition against refusing to hire a person on the basis of their status as a qualifying patient where an employer is “required by federal law” to do otherwise.In the case of Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co., No. 3:16-cv-01938 the plaintiff was offered a position as activities manager at the defendant’s care home, subject to a pre-employment drug test. She suffered PTSD following a car crash and was registered as a qualifying patient. Her doctor had prescribed medical marijuana for her condition which she disclosed to the defendant. Following a positive drug test, the job offer was withdrawn.The employer defended the plaintiff’s anti-discrimination claim on the basis of a number of federal statutes. In a previous application for summary dismissal of the case, the court had refused to dismiss the claim stating that the “mere fact of ‘tension’ between federal and state law” was not enough to establish preemption.  The court noted that the Controlled Substances Act did not make it illegal to employ a marijuana user, nor purport to regulate employment practices. The court said the ADA provides that an employer may prohibit the illegal use of drugs at the workplace but noted that this case did not involve drug use at the workplace. Finally, like the Controlled Substances Act, the court said the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act did not purport to regulate employment.The case continued, and the court granted judgment for the plaintiff. It rejected the defendant’s argument that as a federal contractor it was subject to the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (“DFWA”). According to the defendant, the DFWA barred it from hiring the plaintiff. The DFWA requires federal contractors like the defendant to make a "good faith effort" to maintain a drug-free workplace by taking certain measures, such as publishing a statement regarding use of illegal drugs in the workplace and establishing a drug-free awareness program. The DWFA does not require drug testing nor does it prohibit federal contractors from employing individuals who use illegal drugs outside of the workplace. The defendant had chosen to utilize a zero-tolerance drug testing policy in order to maintain a drug free work environment but that policy was not actually "required by federal law or required to obtain federal funding."Accordingly, the court found that the DFWA did not require the employer to rescind the job offer and that the plaintiff was not in violation of the statute because her drug use was outside of the workplace.This case will have implications for employers in states that have laws which prohibit discrimination against certified medical marijuana users. In states such as Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Nevada, New York and Minnesota employers must develop hiring and employment policies that not only avoid discriminating against qualified patients but also review the validity of adverse employment actions based on positive drug tests. While the decision will not affect employers in other states that legalise the use of medical marijuana, such as Florida and Colorado, employers should review their policies regarding tolerance of drug use in the workplace for existing and prospective employees. Employers should consult with legal counsel in situations where there is no role-specific justification for taking adverse action. 6.  Independent Contractor Classification Proposals at State and Federal LevelIn the week after the California Supreme Court adopted the restrictive “ABC test” in Dynamex Operations West, Inc., US Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill that would narrow the definition of an independent contractor, revise the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and increase protections for workers in the gig economy by extending collective bargaining rights to gig workers.  Under the Workplace Democracy Act, the definition of an employee mirrors the “ABC” test so workers would be considered employees, and entitled to protections such as overtime pay, unless the services they perform are “outside the usual course of the employer’s business”.Although the Workplace Democracy Act is unlikely to pass given the current Republican majority in Congress, the “ABC” test has been highlighted as a way to bring clarity and certainty to the issue of employee classification. However, the test has also been criticized as being too prescriptive. The test was adopted by California’s Supreme Court to determine when a worker qualifies as an independent contractor under California’s Industrial Wage Orders. Despite its’ limited application in the Dynamex case, the California Superior Court has ruled that the test can be applied to other California employment laws and applies retroactively. This suggests a trend in favour of expanding the “ABC” test.As the result of lobbying from Handy, the home cleaning and handyman service company, eight states have proposed laws that declare workers who find jobs through a digital platform to be independent contractors. The laws would permit any company that digitally facilitates “the provision of services by marketplace contractors or entities to individuals or entities seeking such services” to subsidize benefits for their independent contractors. This move follows successful lobbying for laws in Florida and Texas in relation to those who work for transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. These laws essentially create a safe-harbor for ride-sharing companies from liability due to misclassification of employees as independent contractors under the labor and employment laws in Florida and Texas, subject to the workers having freedom to work when and for whom they choose.The issue of employee and independent contractor classification is by no means settled with no single solution gaining significant support. Employers should continue to monitor the efforts to narrow the definition of an independent contractor at federal and state level as well as in the courts. 7.  Proposed Rules on Pass-Through Tax PublishedOn Dec. 22, 2017 the President signed into law the bi-partisan Tax Cuts and Jobs Act introducing numerous provisions affecting businesses. One of these – tax code section 199A - allows “pass-through” businesses to deduct 20% of their profits before federal taxation. “Pass-through” business entities include S-Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Proprietorships. Certain industries, however, are excluded and it was unclear how this provision applies to staffing firms. The key language is the Act’s definition of “specified services” that are not eligible for the income tax exclusion:“…Any trade or business involving the performance of services in the fields of health, law, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage services, or any trade or business where the principal asset of such trade or business is the reputation or skill of one or more of the employees or owners...”On Aug. 08, 2018 the US Department of the Treasury and US Internal Revenue Service issued proposed regulations providing guidance on the provision. Earlier this year, representatives from the American Staffing Association (ASA) lobbied senior Treasury officials arguing that owners of staffing firms should be eligible for the 20% deduction for qualified business income. ASA made two primary arguments as to why staffing services should not be covered by the exclusions in the Act: 1) “Staffing services” is not on the list of businesses specifically excluded as specified trades or businesses; and 2) clients buy staffing services based on price, availability of talent, and quality of service—not because of the reputation or skill of individual owners or employees.The proposed rules reflect the position advocated by ASA. The proposed regulations narrowly define the exclusion stating that reputation or skill relates only to the attributes of particular individuals, not the business as a whole.Taxpayers will be permitted to rely on the proposed rules until final rules are published. However, the rules are complex so expert advice should be sought. Public comments are due 45 days following publication of the proposed rules in the Federal Register. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Oct. 16. 8.  Federal Contractor Minimum Wage to RiseBeginning January 1, 2019, federal contractors must pay workers performing work on or in connection with federal contracts covered by Executive Order (E.O.) 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors at least $10.60 per hour.  The Notice published in the Federal Register by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor also gave notice that beginning January 1, 2019, covered tipped employees performing work on or in connection with covered contracts must be paid a cash wage of at least $7.40 per hour.E.O. 13658, signed on February 12, 2014, established a minimum wage for covered workers of $10.10 per hour as of January 1, 2015.  The E.O. permits the Secretary of Labor to adjust this amount each year. Currently, the federal contractor minimum wage is $10.35 per hour and the minimum wage for covered tipped employees performing work on or in connection with covered contracts is $7.25 per hour.  9.  DoL Invites Comments on White-Collar Exemptions to Overtime RuleOn Aug. 27, 2018 the Department of Labor's (DoL) Wage and Hour Division announced that it would be holding public listening sessions to gather views on the white-collar exemption regulations, issued under the Fair Labor Standard Act, often referred to as the “Overtime Rule”.The Department plans to update the Overtime Rule, which has not been revised since 2004. President Obama attempted to increase the salary level for an employee to be exempt from the entitlement to overtime pay from $23,660 ($455 per week) to $47,476 ($913 per week) in Dec. 2016 but this was declared invalid by a federal court in Texas in Aug. 2017. Since then, an appeal against the federal court decision by the Department of Justice was withdrawn and businesses have been waiting to see whether the rules would be updated.The Department seeks public input on questions such as: What is the appropriate salary level (or range of salary levels) above which the overtime exemptions for bona fide executive, administrative, or professional employees may apply? What benefits and costs to employees and employers might accompany an increased salary level? What is the best methodology to determine an updated salary level? Should the Department more regularly update the standard salary level and the total-annual-compensation level for highly compensated employees? Although the DoL has said it plans to update the regulations, there is no timeline for doing so; but employers will receive notice of any proposed changes in due course.Legal Disclaimer: This update is provided solely for the purposes of information, and should not be considered legal advice. It is always recommended to seek the advice of qualified legal counsel before taking action. […]

  • Latin America Legal Update Q3 2018

    In this report, we round up the legal developments affecting the workforce solutions ecosystem across Latin America in Q3 2018Brazil   Supreme Court Confirms Legality of Outsourcing All Business Activities Digital Reporting System Now in Place for All Employers  Ecuador Regulations Restricting Permanent Part-Time Work Contracts Mexico Change in Method of Calculating Overtime PanamaLaw to Prevent Discrimination is Passed UruguayCompanies Must Provide Breastfeeding Facilities Legal Disclaimer: This update is provided solely for the purposes of information, and should not be considered legal advice. It is always recommended to seek the advice of qualified legal counsel before taking action.To download a pdf copy of this update click below: Latin America_Legal Update_ Q3 20181017 - You do not have permission to view this object. Brazil 1.  Supreme Court Confirms Legality of Outsourcing All Business ActivitiesIn a majority decision dated Aug. 30, 2018 in the case of Claim of Breach of Constitutional Precept (ADPF) 324 and Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 958252, the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) has confirmed the constitutionality and lawfulness of hiring outsourced workers for all activities performed by a company, including core business activities.In its judgement, the Court stated that "outsourcing or any other form of division of labor between different legal entities is permitted, regardless of the corporate purpose of the companies involved, with subsidiary liability continuing to be incumbent on the contracting company”. This decision acts as a precedent for all lower courts and resolves the issue of whether outsourcing of activities that were considered to be within the company's core business was permitted by law.Law 13,429/17 authorized the outsourcing of determinate and specific services, including the core activities of a business, but the Superior Labor Court had previously ruled in Precedent 331 that outsourcing must be limited to non-core business activities.This decision is important for businesses operating in Brazil as there had been legal uncertainty over the validity of cases of outsourcing that both pre-dated and post-dated the enactment of Law 13,429/2017 in March 2017, pending a definitive judgement from the Supreme Court. 2.  Digital Reporting System Now in Place for All EmployersThe System of Digital Bookkeeping of Fiscal/Tax, Social Security and Labor Obligations (“eSocial”) is the federal government’s project to unify an employer's transmission of employment and other work-related data to various federal government institutions. The eSocial reporting system went live in January 2018 for companies with gross revenues exceeding BRL 78,000,000 (approx. USD 20,760,000) in 2016. Between July 2018 and January 2019, small- and medium-size companies will be expected to transmit all company and employee registration information via this system.On July 6, 2018, the government issued a revised manual for the implementation and usage of the system, which can be accessed at http://portal.esocial.gov.br/manuais/mos-v.2.4.02-publicado.pdf.Non-compliance or incomplete compliance can lead to fines and disruption to operations. However, the government issued a notice on July 5, 2018 explaining that companies would not be fined for non-compliance or delays in complying with the requirements of each phase, provided that, if audited, the companies can show they are attempting in good faith to comply with the eSocial requirements, and the reason for delays or non-compliance were related to technical issues.   Ecuador Regulations Restricting Permanent Part-Time Work ContractsOn June 19, 2018, Ministerial Agreement No. MDT-2018-0135 on Permanent Part-Time Work Contracts was issued regulating contracts where the worker provides his or her services for less than 36 hours per week and less than one hundred and sixty hours a month. This type of contract must always be in writing, in accordance with the provisions of article 19 of the Labor Code, which establishes in detail what types of contract must be agreed in writing.A part-time worker must receive remuneration equal to the amount he or she would receive for working a full day proportional to the hours worked. Regarding thirteenth and fourteenth remuneration, this must be in proportion to the time actually worked, counted from the moment the worker has begun his or her work and, in consideration of the calculation periods established by the Articles 111 and 113 of the Labor Code in force.All workers who have signed a permanent part-time work contract will be entitled to fifteen days’ vacation per year. Workers who have rendered services to the same employer for more than 5 years will have the right to an additional day for each year or receive payment in lieu of the surplus days.The employer is obliged to enrol the worker with the Ecuadorian Institute of Social Security within a maximum of 15 days from the start of the employment relationship. And the contract may be terminated in relation to the causes provided in article 169 of the Labor Code, with the exception of the provision that permits termination on conclusion of the work as this type of contract is intended to be indefinite to give stability to the worker.Employers engaging workers on permanent part-time contracts must ensure such contracts comply with these requirements. Mexico Change in Method of Calculating OvertimeMexico’s Second Chamber of the Supreme Court recently decided (No. 107/2018) that to calculate weekly overtime pay, minutes worked exceeding the regular work day must be counted cumulatively for the entire workweek and paid in full hour units. Under this new method, any time period exceeding the legal work day must be considered as overtime and added to complete hours. As per the Court’s decision, the minutes of overtime within the workweek will be paid as long as they complete full hours. “Surplus” minutes (here, the nine minutes) are not quantifiable and are not computed towards the overtime. In fact, according to the Court, those “surplus” minutes do not constitute time worked beyond the regular work shift and may be considered as the time employees use to start the work day or to leave the workplace.Littler provides an example of the new method of calculation and is continuing to monitor and report on these developments as they occur. Panama Law to Prevent Discrimination is PassedLaw 7 of February 14th, 2018 regulates all matters related to the protection of the honor, dignity, physical and psychological integrity of individuals who are victims of discrimination.The law obliges every employer, public institution, and educational center, to adopt internal policies to prevent, avoid and penalize bullying behavior, sexual and/or moral harassment, racism and sexism. Proceedings to resolve complaints and claims related to these acts must be incorporated in internal labor regulations, collective agreements, and orders.Sanctions may be imposed on the victim’s employers, superiors, syndicates and unions if they fail to comply with these regulations. These sanctions include fines of USD 500.00 to USD 1,000.00 for infringing companies. Any individual who is found to have carried out any of the acts described in the Law shall also be subject to penalties, including termination of their labor contract, in addition to penalties in accordance with the provisions of the Penal Code where such conduct constitutes a punishable act. If the infringing individual is a businessperson, company client, service user, or practices a liberal profession, such individual must indemnify the victim according to the provisions of the Civil Code.Employers must update their HR policies and procedures to deal with sexual harassment and discrimination and implement training for employees. Uruguay Companies Must Provide Breastfeeding FacilitiesOn July 30, 2018 Law No. 19,530 was passed obliging public and private companies to provide an exclusive area within their establishment that guarantees the privacy, security, comfort and hygiene necessary for women who are breastfeeding to carry out the extraction, storage and conservation of breast milk in an appropriate manner. This applies to organizations in which more than twenty women work or study, or that have a total of more than fifty employees. Without prejudice to this, where a public or private company has at least one woman who is breastfeeding, measures must be taken to guarantee the use of a space appropriate for the woman to breastfeed, extract, store and preserve breast milk.The law also provides that companies must (i) communicate the implementation of breastfeeding rooms in their buildings or premises to the Ministry of Public Health and the Ministry of Labor and Social Security; and (ii) conduct awareness-raising campaigns and training on the importance of supporting breastfeeding women in work or study spaces.Further information on the requirements is provided by Galante and Martins.Legal Disclaimer: This update is provided solely for the purposes of information, and should not be considered legal advice. It is always recommended to seek the advice of qualified legal counsel before taking action. […]

  • Workforce Solutions Ecosystem: 2018 Update

    This report is the third update to Staffing Industry Analysts’ Workforce Solutions Ecosystem, initially released in September 2015. It aims to highlight interconnected networks comprising the Staffing Industry and other types of Workforce Solutions and notes the changes to the industry over the last 12 months.  In nature, an ecosystem is a community of living organisms and non-living components interacting as an environmental system. Similarly, businesses operate in a broad and complex network of related and unrelated products and services which interact and compete with each other. Workforce Solutions are third-party products and services relating to the sourcing, engagement and development of employed and non-employed (including contingent) workers. Workforce Solutions includes the Staffing Industry and five other important segments; Talent Acquisition Technology, Process Outsourcing, Payrolling/Compliance, Direct Work Engagement and Other Workforce Solutions. Our 2018 update contains two major revisions to the Ecosystem; New classifications within the Talent Acquisition Technology segment to reflect the categories established within our Talent Acquisition Technology Landscape published in February 2018. Advances in technology have created whole new categories of software to aid talent acquisition and our update better reflects the market as we understand it. The addition of the sub-category ‘Robotics and Robotic Process Automation’ in recognition of the increasing penetration of technology to perform work-related tasks. The addition of this new category has meant that we have re titled the  ‘Contracting/ Consulting’ segment as ‘Direct Work Engagement’. Improvements in technology combined with economic and demographic trends means that, today, the Workforce Solutions Ecosystem is undergoing a period of turbulent change. We are confident that the Ecosystem provides a good representation of the market as it exists today, but we are equally confident that it will require further reviews and updates on a fairly frequent basis, owing to the rapid evolution of technology and globalization. Definitions for all the terms used within this report are given at the back of this document. To download a full copy the report, click below: Workforce Solutions Ecosystem 20181022 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Staffing Executive Compensation Analysis: 2018 Update

    Key FindingsTotal compensation rose by a median 6.5% in 2017 for the two highest-paid executives at a global selection of 41 publicly traded staffing, executive search and other workforce ecosystem firms. Of the firms, 23 were based in the Americas (22 in the US and one in Canada); 17 were based in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (including 10 in the UK); and one from Asia Pacific. In two cases, data on only one executive was available; in another case, one firm lists three executives after two registered the same total compensation.This analysis was undertaken by Equilar, an executive compensation solutions firm, at the request of Staffing Industry Analysts. The median percentage increase in compensation reflects only those executives who had been at their firms for two complete years or more and who had reported compensation.Median total compensation was USD 901,820 in 2017. Americas firms posted the highest median compensation at USD 1.4 million. Firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa posted median compensation at USD 696,175.Total compensation rose a median 8.0% in the Americas and rose 4.5% among firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. There was one Asia-Pacific firm on the list, Ambition Group, and both executives noted decreases in total compensation.The highest-paid executive in the group of 41 publicly traded companies was Jonas Prising, chairman and CEO of ManpowerGroup Inc., with total compensation of almost USD 12 million.The highest-paid executive in terms of total compensation as a percent of market cap was Brendan Flood, chairman and CEO of Staffing 360 Solutions, at 7.31%.To download the complete report, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL - You do not have permission to view this object. To download a spreadsheet with compensation data for both 2017 and 2016, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL_SPREADSHEET - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Staffing's Top Regulatory Concerns

    Key Findings: This report is based on responses to the following two survey questions: “What current legislation or regulation is having the most negative effect on your business this year?” “What forthcoming legislation or regulation are you most concerned about?” In North America, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and immigration issues were the top two legal/regulatory concerns, together accounting for nearly half of all North America responses. Mandatory sick leave (time off for illness), PTO, and family leave were also commonly noted by respondents. In the UK, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the overwhelming top current legal concern, and IR35 the top upcoming legal concern. In Europe, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was the dominant concern both currently and upcoming. The only other concerns to score more than one mention were Brexit and potential limits on assignment length. Note: In many cases, as the average number of mentions for each of the issues was sometimes small (particularly outside of North America), the rank order in the tables should not be given too much weight. Nonetheless, items toward the very top of the tables were typically cited disproportionately. To access the complete report, please select the link below: Global Staffing Company Survey 2018 Concerns about current and upcoming legislation 20181012 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Largest Global Staffing Firms 2018

    The 100 firms on our list of the world’s largest staffing firms have a combined turnover of $203 billion (€180 billion) The top three rank in the same order as last year. Adecco retains its position as the world’s largest staffing firm, followed by Randstad and ManpowerGroup. Their combined market share of 15% is also the same as last year. The top 10 firms account for 25% of total revenue (2016: 25%), while the top 100 in total represent 44% of the total market, the same as the previous year. Forty-six staffing firms on this list are headquartered in EMEA, while 39 are headquartered in North America and 15 in Asia. There are seven companies that no longer make the 100 list, all but one because their revenue is no longer large enough. Programmed Maintenance Services (22nd in 2016) is not on the list as Persol acquired them. In total, 38 of the 100 largest firms are publicly listed. Five companies (two of which are publicly listed) specialise in executive search. We have ranked companies by revenue, according to industry custom, but this ranking should not be taken to imply that a firm with a higher rank necessarily provides better service to customers or more value to its stakeholders. Staffing firms varied in degree of financial transparency, and even when forthcoming with information, in some cases data provided was adjusted for greater accuracy and consistency. Therefore, for all firms in this report, revenue shown should be considered an estimation by Staffing Industry Analysts. Please note this report has been updated slightly as new information has become available. To download the full list please click below: Largest Global Staffing Firms 20181016 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Workforce Solutions Ecosystem: 2018 Update

    This report is the third update to Staffing Industry Analysts’ Workforce Solutions Ecosystem, initially released in September 2015. It aims to highlight interconnected networks comprising the Staffing Industry and other types of Workforce Solutions and notes the changes to the industry over the last 12 months.  In nature, an ecosystem is a community of living organisms and non-living components interacting as an environmental system. Similarly, businesses operate in a broad and complex network of related and unrelated products and services which interact and compete with each other. Workforce Solutions are third-party products and services relating to the sourcing, engagement and development of employed and non-employed (including contingent) workers. Workforce Solutions includes the Staffing Industry and five other important segments; Talent Acquisition Technology, Process Outsourcing, Payrolling/Compliance, Direct Work Engagement and Other Workforce Solutions. Our 2018 update contains two major revisions to the Ecosystem; New classifications within the Talent Acquisition Technology segment to reflect the categories established within our Talent Acquisition Technology Landscape published in February 2018. Advances in technology have created whole new categories of software to aid talent acquisition and our update better reflects the market as we understand it. The addition of the sub-category ‘Robotics and Robotic Process Automation’ in recognition of the increasing penetration of technology to perform work-related tasks. The addition of this new category has meant that we have re titled the  ‘Contracting/ Consulting’ segment as ‘Direct Work Engagement’. Improvements in technology combined with economic and demographic trends means that, today, the Workforce Solutions Ecosystem is undergoing a period of turbulent change. We are confident that the Ecosystem provides a good representation of the market as it exists today, but we are equally confident that it will require further reviews and updates on a fairly frequent basis, owing to the rapid evolution of technology and globalization. Definitions for all the terms used within this report are given at the back of this document. To download a full copy the report, click below: Workforce Solutions Ecosystem 20181022 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Staffing Executive Compensation Analysis: 2018 Update

    Key FindingsTotal compensation rose by a median 6.5% in 2017 for the two highest-paid executives at a global selection of 41 publicly traded staffing, executive search and other workforce ecosystem firms. Of the firms, 23 were based in the Americas (22 in the US and one in Canada); 17 were based in Europe, the Middle East and Africa (including 10 in the UK); and one from Asia Pacific. In two cases, data on only one executive was available; in another case, one firm lists three executives after two registered the same total compensation.This analysis was undertaken by Equilar, an executive compensation solutions firm, at the request of Staffing Industry Analysts. The median percentage increase in compensation reflects only those executives who had been at their firms for two complete years or more and who had reported compensation.Median total compensation was USD 901,820 in 2017. Americas firms posted the highest median compensation at USD 1.4 million. Firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa posted median compensation at USD 696,175.Total compensation rose a median 8.0% in the Americas and rose 4.5% among firms in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. There was one Asia-Pacific firm on the list, Ambition Group, and both executives noted decreases in total compensation.The highest-paid executive in the group of 41 publicly traded companies was Jonas Prising, chairman and CEO of ManpowerGroup Inc., with total compensation of almost USD 12 million.The highest-paid executive in terms of total compensation as a percent of market cap was Brendan Flood, chairman and CEO of Staffing 360 Solutions, at 7.31%.To download the complete report, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL - You do not have permission to view this object. To download a spreadsheet with compensation data for both 2017 and 2016, please select the link below. 2018_Executive_Compensation_Survey_FINAL_SPREADSHEET - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Largest Global Staffing Firms 2018

    The 100 firms on our list of the world’s largest staffing firms have a combined turnover of $203 billion (€180 billion) The top three rank in the same order as last year. Adecco retains its position as the world’s largest staffing firm, followed by Randstad and ManpowerGroup. Their combined market share of 15% is also the same as last year. The top 10 firms account for 25% of total revenue (2016: 25%), while the top 100 in total represent 44% of the total market, the same as the previous year. Forty-six staffing firms on this list are headquartered in EMEA, while 39 are headquartered in North America and 15 in Asia. There are seven companies that no longer make the 100 list, all but one because their revenue is no longer large enough. Programmed Maintenance Services (22nd in 2016) is not on the list as Persol acquired them. In total, 38 of the 100 largest firms are publicly listed. Five companies (two of which are publicly listed) specialise in executive search. The complete list can be found from page six onwards. Our definition of staffing and recruitment and the methodology for this report can be found on page 11. We have ranked companies by revenue, according to industry custom, but this ranking should not be taken to imply that a firm with a higher rank necessarily provides better service to customers or more value to its stakeholders. Staffing firms varied in degree of financial transparency, and even when forthcoming with information, in some cases data provided was adjusted for greater accuracy and consistency. Therefore, for all firms in this report, revenue shown should be considered an estimation by Staffing Industry Analysts. Please note this report has been updated slightly as new information has become available. To download the full list please click below: Largest Global Staffing Firms 20181016 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]

  • Largest Global Engineering Staffing Firms

    • We estimate the global engineering staffing revenue market in 2017 to be worth $31.0 billion. Added together, the top 20 firms generated $12.2 billion in revenue, accounting for 39% of the market, by our estimates. The complete list of 20 firms can be found on pages five and six of this report.• In this market share report, we have ranked companies in order of revenue size, according to industry custom, but this ranking should not be taken to imply that a firm with a higher rank provides better service or more value to its shareholders.• Staffing firms varied in degree of financial transparency, and even when forthcoming with information, we reserve the right to adjust data for the sake of consistency. Therefore, for all firms in this report, revenue shown should be considered an estimation by Staffing Industry Analysts.• Market share percentages in this report were calculated by dividing each company’s revenue figure by our estimate of $31.0 billion for the global engineering staffing market in 2017.• Overall, we believe that this list is accurate and can be used appropriately to get a “big picture” reading of the global engineering staffing industry landscape. However, as transparency and availability of information from staffing companies can vary from one year to the next, this year’s estimates may not be comparable to those of previous years in all cases. For that reason, we did not display prior year revenue estimates in this report.• Additional details on the methodology of this report are provided on page seven.To download a copy of the report click below:  Largest Global Engineering Staffing Firms 20180827 - You do not have permission to view this object. […]